Self-Reliance and Good Citizenship Civil Disobedience is an essay by Henry David Thoreau on the place of civil disobedience in society. It analyzes men in society, the folly of majority and most importantly of all, it analyzes good citizenship. It looks at what it means to be a good citizenship and the most recurring theme is self-reliance. He discusses obedience to principle, independence from the government, and intolerance of injustice, which are all just kinds of self-reliance. Self-Reliance produces good citizenship.
Peter Keating - a man who cheats and lies but preserves a respectable front. He knows himself to be dishonest but others think he is honest and he derives his self-respect from that. His aim in life is greatness - in other people's eyes. Other people dictated his conviction which he did not hold but he was satisfied that others believed he held them. Others were his prime concern.
...He depends on the masses, and reason is something they do not want to hear. When Wynand finally gives in and apologizes publicly for defending Roark, he manages to hold on to his power, but he compromises his principles forever. In the end, only Howard Roark is true to reason. He alone has the strength to embrace it wholeheartedly, without compromise or regard for the public’s opinions. Others who forsake reason, achieve transient success, but their achievements are hollow and temporary.
In keeping with this ideal it appears sickening that any person would lower their talents to the level of standard society, even if they do it for the sake of survival. A creator must never compromise, especially to the whims of lemmin... ... middle of paper ... ...; Roark exists untainted by the disease that is conformity, and is all the better for it. The sad truth that parasites, such as Keating and Toohey, strive to control man, which leads both men to misery and eventual ruin. Keating living in his worse nightmare, alone, and exposed as a fraud. Toohey, on the other hand, continues to appear happy to the general public, but silently fights the knowledge that he will never be a creator.
“Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.” (Rand ). An “objectivist” would exist for the sole purpose of serving himself, with no regard for the sake of others. “The term "moral rights" is a translation of the French term "droit moral," and refers not to "morals" as advocated by t... ... middle of paper ... ...ould quickly go under due to the fact that major corporations would only do business among one another, because the sums of money to be made would be much more substantial than anything most small businesses could provide.
Donald Farfrae captures the aud... ... middle of paper ... ...n emotions and relationships, and though he is not the cause, he is an element of Michael Henchard's downfall. Farfrae makes one decision after another, which are good decisions in themselves, but have terrible consequences for Henchard. But through all of this turmoil he causes, he is completely innocent. He was simply being true to himself and does not mean to cause trouble. It is for this very reason that the audience cannot loathe Farfrae, as he is simply obtuse about certain areas of life.
He does not belong. One does not find fault with one's world unless one's world finds fault with one. Bernard had reason to find fault with the World State because he was ostracised, and therefore, unhappy. When he later had fame and popularity because of John, he forgot all that he had previously found so inadequate about his life. "Success went fizzily to Bernard's head, and in the process completely reconciled him (as any good intoxicant should do) to a world, which, up till then, he had found very unsatisfactory.
At some point his idea makes sense. To live in a strict utilitarian society you would need someone to decide what the greater good would be for all. I would to some extent agree with him on that point. But the truth is we don't live in a utilitarian society. “A good will is not a good because what of effects or accomplishes because of its fitness to attain some proposed end but only because of its violati... ... middle of paper ... ...ately lights upon what is in fact in common interests and in conformity with duty and hence honorable, deserves praise and encouragement but not esteem; for the maxim lacks moral content, namely that of doing such actions not from inclination.” (Page, 11, Kant) Second, possessing and maintaining one's moral goodness is the very condition under which anything else is worth having or pursuing.
A man of morality, introspection, and enigma, he begins the book and finishes it. So, who is John Galt? John Galt is Rand’s brilliant character that blends imagination and intelligence. John Galt can be described as having the same opinion on life that Henry David Thoreau does. They both believe you shouldn’t carry the world on your shoulders; they realize that in fact by giving things to the needy (Rand would use the word unworthy) you aren’t enabling them to become better people, but merely allowing them o feed off of other’s success.
Power is an illusion that is sought by many, obtained by few and destructive for all. Since the dawn of man, power has been an established mentality carried within his psyche. It has been used as a way for man to define himself, his place within this world and the place of everything else that surrounds him. Man has ignorantly assumed himself and his race to be the possessors and wielders of power while disregarding the truths and true definition of it. The consequences of his disregard have been detrimental to man, yet, he has failed to correct his faulty rationalizations and understandings of it.