I don’t agree that “that government is best which governs least”. It was a stupid comment and it makes no sense. Our government does do a lot of stupid things and messes up quite often, but we still need it. The government is the core of our country, many things come from them. They keep the United States on its feet and provide us with money, food stamps, and much more. The government shut down for a couple days and things began to fall apart. Without our government we are faced with serious issues. Thoreau’s statement “Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect. and that will be one step toward obtaining it” is kind of difficult to understand. I feel like the majority of our people command respect, like we are a whole government. The people want the respect of our actual government. A democratic government gives us many things and commands our respect, but they seem to just wanna give everything for free and accept everyone so maybe their not the best option. Our people are strong enough to make a change in the government though, we just need to get our voice out. Civil disobedience today is still in tact today and has a big role. It is the base of all protests in the world and without it, what are we? Civil disobedience provides us with the ability to speak without being judged and tells us to believe what we want. The government doesn’t have to be appreciated, and just because you live here doesn’t mean you have to respect the government since they don’t respect us sometimes.Yes, it is still effective because if it wasn’t, they would never listen to the people. It used to be more effective, but now it is less. Our opinion matters when it comes to voting in any sort of election so that is us having a say in something government related. Thoreau feels negatively about the government as you know, and he isn’t the only one. Anyone can share their opinion though, and that is the meaning of civil disobedience..
Emerson and Thoreau both have really open minds and are very appreciative of life. They both value nature incredibly and believe you should live your life how you want too, do not waste your time. Emerson wrote more about being yourself and appreciating life for what is, while Thoreau wrote more about how life is short and we should live it to the fullest. They had somewhat different ideas, but they were alike for the most part. The first excerpt from “Where I lived, and what I lived for”, is about how Thoreau lived in many places and lived for adventure. He went to many places until he knew where he actually wanted to be. The farm that he bought was one of his more liked places, it was the only place he bought. Although, he ended up having to give it back. The second excerpt “The Conclusion” was more about not hating life because it is on you to be happy. Keep things simple, avoid unnecessary complications that are gonna cause you issues. For example, instead of counting to one million, count halfway. Thoreau’s experiment of living in the woods would give him some advantages. You learn how to live a completely different way of life, and get away from people for a while. You adapt differently so if something ever happened, you would be okay. Survival would be increased as well and it some circumstances it is important. Although, I think I would miss some people and social interaction. Going to long without other people can send someone crazy. Certain foods won’t be accessible either and some food is too good to let go. I like adventure and I love the woods, but I could not do this experiment. I would be scared of wild animals and I am so adapted to life the way it is, the change would be way to difficult. A modern reader who is reading transcendentalism should understand that it is okay to write about their thoughts and feelings rather than factual stuff. Speaking your mind sounds better than writing a history report. Hence, a lot can be pulled from all of the things we have read.
Arguing is a very consistent event. People argue over everything, no matter how dumb the situation is. I personally enjoy arguing, and that may be a bad thing, but who cares. I have learned through our debate and other discussions many things. Winning an argument can be easy, but it can be hard. I am good at it from experience and I just naturally am I guess. Although, I have heard people argue and they sound like complete idiots. You can not when an argument with a weak point. It is important to know what you are talking about and not make stupid comments. You shouldn’t be arguing if you don’t know what you’re talking about. For example, when I argue with my parents I feel like I am talking to a wall. Most parents are one sided and believe their older so they are always right. That is far from how it works, you have to be willing to view both sides of the story or you are irrelevant. I think learning about all of this has changed my way of arguing slightly. Maturity and common sense is more necessary than just blurting out random words. Think about what you are gonna say so you sound like you have an IQ. I believe different measures should be taken though depending on the argument. Big arguments need research and time to win, while stupid ones with your friends can be won with no problem. The persuasive speech part was difficult because it was new to me, but at the end I believed I may have had a chance. I made some strong points with something I don’t even agree with, and some people couldn’t do that. It would have been better if I cared about the topic, but either way it gave me experience which is good. This whole unit has impacted me because I care about this stuff. Things I enjoy take bigger effects rather than poetry for example. Hopefully, in the future, we may come across something like this again. As much as I didn’t want to debate, I would have enjoyed watching it. Hence, I do believe this was a good unit and we all enjoyed it equally.