I think that the whole “that government is best which governs least” thing is a pile of rubbish. The role of the government is to ensure a secure and stable environment to enable free trade and innovation. The government is expected to secure it’s country’s borders, protect against threats from the inside, and protect it from threats from the outside. The government is expected to allow citizens of the country to better themselves as much as they can. The government is supposed to encourage it’s citizens to do better for themselves. The government is assumed to be responsible for keeping the peace among citizens and other countries.
Every government commands your respect. In order for a government to work, it needs to be respected by its citizens. However, the government also needs to respect it’s citizens. Its a domino effect. If the government does something that citizens don’t like, citizens react. If citizens cross the line and do something that the government doesn’t like, the government reacts. Its an ongoing battle that I don’t see any end to. Strict government leads to rebellious citizens, loose government leads to citizens not necessarily rebelling but being able to do what they want with minimal restriction or punishment. Honestly, I think humans need to figure themselves out because things don’t look like they’re going to start looking up any time soon.
Civil disobedience is an immensely influential factor in how today’s society works. The peaceful protests of the past few years have been noticed by even the most isolated of cavemen, and most have them have been causing great change, mostly unproductive change. From “Hands Up Don’t Shoot” and “Black Lives Matter” to “Take A Knee” and “Me Too,” the face of rallying and rioting has hugely altered. I think the greater issue at hand is civil obedience, mainly because it seems so uncommon and seems to go unnoticed so often. Wait, that’s the point. People are only noticed if they break the law or cause inconvenience to others. This is what makes civil disobedience effective. Society has shyed away from taking consideration of those who strive to make a difference and has rather been attracted to rewarding the disobedience by giving it attention. I believe it is an effective technique but only to a certain extent, that extent being the the line between remaining civil and crossing into the land of hail marys where people go to extreme measures in only hopes of making a difference.
After reading the excerpt from Thoreau’s “Walden”, I have concluded that both he and Emerson believed deeply in the beauty and meaning behind nature. They both believe that an individuals meaning of life can be found through their own thoughts or actions. However, they expressed different elements of why they believed so much in the meaning of nature and natural doing. Emerson leans heavily upon each individual having an understanding in religious studies and that they looked for truths in nature. He also explains how the mind of a person is influenced by the beauty of nature. He says that human minds and nature are compatible, meaning that neither have any beginning or any end. Emerson believes that if one can understand nature, they can understand themselves. On another note, Thoreau explains his longing for living in the heart of nature. In a language much easier to understand than Emerson’s, he describes his dreams of building a home in which he can live his life; somewhere to get away from the hustle and bustle of everyday life and the common people. They both support the understanding that we have everything in this world is connected to each other somehow. The next thing that I noticed that the two have in common is their opinion towards government. They each wanted to see a change in the overall condition of their government. Thoreau believed that the government should not brown nose into peoples’ personal business, but also encouraged that common people remain civil towards the government. Emerson had a similar belief in that he wished for the government to remain in such power but that they not control the lives of others.
The purpose of “Where I Lived, And What I Died For” is essentially to make clear of the expectations in which life should be lived. I believe that the conclusion of the work is to convince us as society to just wake up and smell the roses; realize we’re digging a deeper grave than we think. I think that Thoreau’s wishes to leave society behind him and to live on his own is something I would definitely consider. I’m a social person at most times, but I also really enjoy being alone. I believe I could successfully handle being on my own.
I think that the purpose of independent reading is to offer a student some down time to doze off into someone else’s world for a while. The issue is, the school makes it nearly impossible for students to have any downtime. With the overwhelming homework and constant studying required to be efficient in classes, the last thing students care about is independent reading.
My first book is Katie Cotugno’s Top Ten. My reasoning behind choosing this particular book is mainly because I am really drawn in to sappy romances novels, happy ending or not. And it really helped that the book cover was cute.
Upon completing the first chapter, I feel like the friendship/relationship between Gabby and Ryan is either going to soar to new heights or plummet to the ground and become so awkward. My initial reaction to this book was knowing that I was obviously going to enjoy it because it’s simply the kind of beginning story line that I can get into.
My biggest concern about the movie trailer focuses mainly on who will be used to mimic the events in the story. I’ll have to find some couple to star in the trailer, that is, if I am understanding this assignment correctly.
Initial thoughts are a vague topic. I really have no clue where this is going. It’s something I don’t quite understand. I still have to look back at the classroom to check the spelling. Honestly, I thing it’s too big a word with too much meaning. Why do it this way when you can have lots of little words with simpler meaning? Another bout of honesty, the notes that were given are overwhelming. I really could use a period to go over them in class because they reflect on a lot more than what is quickly digestible by the average 11th grade student. I think that this big t word relates to the ongoing circle of life, or the concept in which everything is connected. I believe that man is naturally good. I believe that it is the big man upstairs who gives individuals their own battles. He puts them to the test to see how much they can really handle. Men are naturally good until they are pushed to the breaking point. It is at that moment that they get to decide whether to take the path of least resistance (path towards evil and cowardliness) or the path that guarantees more obstacles to be laying ahead but the potential of a better outcome when the end is reached. Take a look back to the beginning of it all. Man does not need society to succeed. If that was true, I wouldn’t be sitting here typing away right now. The homo-sapiens and neanderthals didn’t have any form of government or written out society to follow along with. They survived for a significant period of time to eventually evolve into what we humans are today. On another note, I think that transcendentalism is an over exaggerated term for describing how it is crucial to stay true to yourself. We covered in class that imitation is suicide, and I believe that 100%. Society can create concrete walls, but that doesn’t mean that we have to stay between them. We are allowed to be unique and independent and special. Society restrains us to do the exact opposite. That is my argument. We are all different, and it’s meant to be that way.