After reading Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” I found that I disagree with the statement that was made early in the work. “That government is best which governs least,” this is because the government should take care of its people and not sit back and watch them that is because it is their job. The government is there to help the average person with their lives when they are struggling and are in need of support to be able to get back on their feet. While at the same time they also have to be able to let the people have the space that they need to be able to accomplish little things in their own lives, like forming their own businesses, applying to jobs and other tasks and jobs that are like those. While my kind of government, that commands my respect, really is the kind that will and does put the people first in their plans and not just say that they do but actually do it and show that they do. This is because when it comes to the government and its people, the people should really be the most important part of the whole entire thing because without the people there really is no government because they are not only the ones who make it up but they are the ones that elect those who are involved with it. Which also means that without putting the people first the government doesn’t exist which would also mean that order really is no longer there. So with the people being put first like they should be then order is present and there are less problems in the world because they can communicate with those that they elected into the roles of power and get problems solved most of the time. Then the role of civil disobedience in today’s world is in a way similar to that of the old ones. It is to help the people in their lives and what they want to be able to do. When looking at this and seeing if it is still effective today or not, or even just effective in general. It comes down to seeing that sometimes it is more effective sometimes then it is others.
Why are we learning this, Transcendentalism, what is the point of it. But since we learned about transcendentalism and Thoreau and Emerson’s thoughts on it and read things on it too. There are some connections that I made between Thoreau and Emerson. Both of these men had worked to explain the thoughts, ideas and ways of transcendentalism. Now by working to explain it they both had also looked to be able to spread and show the word of transcendentalism and its ideas and ways. Another thing is that one of them had actually lived it while the other one just talked about it without actually living it. Then there is the beginning and the end of the from the excerpt. The main point in this was showing how he started out as not the best person that he could be, but by the end he saw that he could be a better person by living with nature and finding a way to see how man is good. While looking at Thoreau’s reason for going out into the woods and leaving society behind, it really wasn’t for the betterment of himself. It was all about getting out of paying taxes and a little bit about the actual lifestyle of a transcendentalist which is the one benefits for him while doing that. As for me it could be refreshing and could also help clear your mind. As for what I would miss, I would miss people and interaction. With all of that being said yes, I could go out and live in the woods. When thinking about what the modern reader and what they can or should take out of the reading about transcendentalism. There is a few things that can be taken away. One of them is that conflict in people is still a thing because it happens most times when people have to make a choice about something or anything really. With that said most times people don’t know what the effect of their choice is going to be until after they have made them, but usually people can make good choices and it shows. That also leads to how long it takes for people to be able to make these choices well on their own, for some it doesn’t take long but for others it can take some time. Another thing that can be taken away from this is, not to judge someone without knowing them because like they say in transcendentalism, man is good.
For my argument in general I ended up picking that I would have to support the legalization of recreational marijuana, even though I personally am against it. By doing this project it made me see the way that I argue in general and on paper. Another thing that it made me see about my arguing style was that I usually argue with a lot of fallacies and opinions, but I hopefully will be able to fix that and win more arguments in the future. Also it helped to show how my classmates argue and how they form their arguments. Seeing how my classmates argue and form them I was also able to see a difference between student and teacher (or adult) argument formation. Adults have a little more experience and knowledge when it comes to backing up their arguments which help them be able to win or lose an argument depending on the situation. When it came to picking the topic that I would have to be arguing for, I ended up with the pro side of legalization of recreational Marijuana. After getting this topic I thought that it would be hard to argue for it since I am against it the idea of legalizing recreational marijuana. The one thing that changed for me was the thought of it being hard to argue for something that I am against, but as I was working on the project I found it to be easier than expected. While my thought process on the difficulty of the argument has changed my mind is still against it. Writing this speech wasn’t as bad as I originally thought it was going to be because I found plenty of good sources that I was able to use to show why I was right in this case. This also made me think not only about my side but the other side too, and it helped to see why people want recreational marijuana to be legalized. The overall writing of the speech was a bit difficult because I am not that good when it comes to writing in general but I was able to get it done eventually.