I have a split opinion when it comes to “that government is best which governs least”. There needs to be laws that are enforced to keep everyone on the right track and to stop people from committing crimes that put themselves and others in danger. However, these laws must be reasonable and should not be controlling of others. People who are under strict and unreasonable laws may have the tendency to rebel or cause chaos in order to show their lack of approval. We just learned not long ago in American Cultures about prohibition. This is an example of a law being too controlling and too strict. The law didnt stop people from consuming and selling alcohol but instead caused people to do it in secret. They would open illegal bars called speak easies where everyone would gather and break the prohibition law. Based on this past, one where people do what they wish anyway, having too controlling of a government just doesnt work. I believe it is important to have a government that has a handle on issues but isnt too controlling and inhibiting. A government that commands respect would be a dictatorship because if you speak out against it you will be killed or arrested. These punishments stop people from speaking out against dictators and their government. This is why it is so hard to make a stand against a dictatorship or make a chance. Civil disobedience is still very preeminent in todays society. People protest for gay rights, womens rights, salary increases, gun control and other causes they feel important . These protests happen extremely often in places all over the country. Chances are if you take a trip to D.C. , you will see people protesting their causes on the daily. I am unsure if all of these protets are exactly effective though. These assembly’s promote publicity but can go amiss when someone does something extreme or violent. In these cases, instead of a positive message being portrayed, a negative image is given to the cause. In order for these protests to be effective everyone must behave in a proper and nonviolent way.
I believe Emerson and Thoreau share a lot of similar beliefs and ideas. One of those similar views was about self reliance. In order to become better people we must prove so through our actions and behaviors. However when looking further in depth in this concept of self reliance you can see that Emerson believes we are capable of becoming someone as perfect as Jesus. Thoreau has more of the belief that you create the world you want to coexist in and to value what you have. Thoreau seems to believe that the less you have the more you have to gain. Emerson appears to have a greater appreciation of Nature than Thoreau based on my observations. Emerson points out all nature has to offer and how we are less than nature while Thoreau seems to pick out the parts of nature that arent perfect or are in another sense ugly in his eyes.I believe “Where I Lived and What I Lived For?” explains a lot about why he choose to go to the woods and endure its rough conditions. I believe this is mainly about the importance of a simple life that isnt taken over by materialistic things. Sometimes in life its the simple things that make you the happiest. You dont need a luxury car or a mansion on a lake to live a happy life. In the end its the simple things that you will always rely on. The main point of “The conclusion” is that you shouldn’t be a follower but instead should take the reins and be a leader. You have to be unique and cant be a carbon copy of everyone else. In order to do great things you have to break away from the standards, expectations and crowds. In life you have to do the things that make you happy and put yourself ahead. I believe some of the benefits of Thoreaus leaving behind society is that the amount of drama would be majorly reduced. You dont have to deal with other peoples problems and pettiness and can instead focus on yourself and following your dreams. I however would miss my phone and miss all the technology that i have in my life if i were to follow Thoreau. Although i would like to say i wouldnt, i would end up missing materialistic items. I honestly dont think i could do it. I believe the reader should take out of transcendentalism is that idea that you should always be yourself because you control your fate. Instead of striving to be alike strive to do the unexpected and strive to be known as the one who didnt follow the pack. If we are all the same there will never be new inventions or new ways of thinking. Overall, the idea is just to be unique; be you and be proud of who you are.
I believe the purpose of independent reading is to allow students to read what they wish instead of being forced to read a particular book or novel. Independent reading can help improve vocabulary as well because the more you read, the greater your vocabulary will become. As a student I believe that some form of incentive would make students want to read more. Often with a lot of homework, studying and other activities reading slips students minds. The least they are worried about, especially if the dont like reading, is picking up a book.
I selected the book “An Abundance of Katherine’s” by John Greene for my first book for the 3rd quarter. I selected this book because I have read most of John Greene’s other books and enjoyed them so I figured why not. Im not exactly sure what to think after reading the first chapter. I wasnt a huge fan of the first chapter so im hoping it gets better. I believe that Colin will try to get Katherine 19 back based on the first chapter of the book. I dont really have any major concerns about creating a book trailer.
Transcendentalism….I still have no idea what it means. My initial thoughts were that I am gonna need a lot of explanation. I feel like this could be one long unit filled with struggles and possibly a fear tears of frustration. As for saying the word transcendentalism, I have concluded I am fully incapable of doing it properly. After getting a little bit of a grasp on the concept from reading the excerpts, im still not sure what exactly to think of it. Both of the excerpts game me a little bit of hassle trying to understand them, but once i understood them I believed that they are both pretty intriguing. I never really sat down and thought about the topics that Emerson expressed in the excerpts. The metaphors, when you understand them, really do help to add to the meaning of the excerpts and they are pretty cool. What he is saying I believe is true. Nature is more important and bigger than any human will ever be and it is true that when you follow others you loose your sense of self.
Im not sure if i agree with the idea of transcendentalism or not, im kinda in the middle. Humans can be gentle, sweet and caring to each other and have a lot of good in their hearts. On the other hand, some people are out to get you no matter what you do and I feel like that can kinda be qualified as evil. No human is ever going to be perfect when you look at the whole picture. The more I think about it the more I do lean towards the side of man being evil. People these days commit crimes without thinking much of it. In reality do they really have remorse for their actions or are they just afraid of punishments in store for them. These days people will do whatever it takes to get themselves ahead in life even if it is in the expense of others and i feel as though that in itself is wrong. To conclude, there is no such thing as a perfect human being but it seems as though we are leaning in the wrong direction and need society to have rules to keep from bad things happening.