In order to be an effective and powerful speaker and to be able to influence your audience, you must be able to think in a more abstract manner. Both Henry David Thoreau and Mahatma Gandhi have mastered this ability to sway their followers and become elite leaders with the use of different grammatical strategies. Mahatma was born in Porbandar, India, which is a coastal town in eastern India. In a different region of the hemisphere, Thoreau was born in Concord Massachusetts. While being born on opposite sides of the world, both of these men had the same goal in mind. Although it required some effort, the men concerted to trade ideas, tactics, and strategies that they had found useful. Both men were very powerful speakers, and being that they had …show more content…
Although Thoreau utilizes many metaphors throughout his speech, one in particular stands out. When Thoreau states, “If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go; perchance it will wear smooth - certainly the machine will wear out.” he speaks of the government as if it was a machine. Thus meaning that perhaps the government is a machine that runs on the people for instance. Furthermore, the friction he refers to could reference the people to act out of norm, such as to quit paying taxes and other normally unlawful acts that would hinder this “machine” useless. Although Gandhi writes with less complex verbiage, he still uses strategies such as metaphors to acquire his audience's attention. In one such metaphor
"There is a higher law than civil law- the law of conscience- and that when these laws are in conflict, it is a citizen's duty to obey the voice of God within rather than that of the civil authority without," (Harding 207). As Harding described in his brief explanation of Henry David Thoreau's Civil Disobedience, there are some instances in which it is necessary to disobey a social law. Martin Luther King, Jr., in addition to Thoreau, reasoned that should a civil law be judged unjust, one had a moral obligation not only to himself but also to those around him to disregard that particular law in exchange for a higher one voiced by God.
on ways to be civil but disobedient, they have opposite ways of convicing you. Dr.
In the first paragraph Thoreau states “I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had no lived.” Here he is saying that he wanted to live simply, and to go through life knowing that one day, when he does die, he lived his life to the fullest extent possible. “I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life.” Thoreau wishes to take all that life has to offer him and make the best out of it. He does not wish to die knowing that he didn’t live as much as he could’ve. By ‘suck the marrow out of life’ he means taking all that he can out of life. He feels that by going off on his own into the woods he can have new experiences that will help him figure out his purpose.
injustice to another, then I say, break the law." This shows Thoreau’s policy of civil
Thoreau and Socrates start Civil Disobedience and Crito with basically the same premise. They both believe that humans are essentially moral beings. Thoreau says that people if left to their own ends will act justly, and should be treated accordingly by the law. Socrates says essentially the same thing, he says that "no one wants to commit injustice" for its own sake, many people end up doing so anyway. Socrates says that the citizens of a government have entered into an agreement to abide by its laws in exchange for protection. He also says that if one believes these laws to be unjust, one can always leave, but if one agrees to abide by the laws they have a duty to be subjected to punishment if they break these laws. Thoreau on the other hand says that it is the duty of the people not to abide by a law if they perceive it to be unjust, and if they claim to be opposed to it and nevertheless abide by it, they are a hypocrite.
In the great era of foundational philosophers, two stand out, Plato and Thoreau. Each had their own opinion on various topics, especially on civil disobedience. Plato’s life span was approximately 428-348 BC. Plato wrote numerous works throughout his lifetime, however we will be focusing on one, the Crito. Thoreau’s life span was 1817-1862. To help us determine what civil disobedience means to both of these philosophers we will first look at a general definition. According to Merriam-Webster civil disobedience is defined as “refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government.” This definition will act as a springboard to compare and contrast both of their thoughts on the topic. We will determine, according to Plato and Thoreau, when we are called to engage in civil disobedience and when the moral parameters of civil disobedience are pushed too far.
know it by experience, and be able to give a true account of it in my
Thoreau was against the The Mexican American War and the act of Slavery in our society and was very skeptical towards the U.S government regarding these issues. The U.S government did more to harm the citizens of America more than it did to protect them and Thoreau realized that and was not afraid to speak his mind.. The law will never make men free; it is men who have got to make the law free” Thoreau is saying that don't just wait for change to come, make the change happen. He stand for what is right regardless of the consequences, therefore, he wanted the citizens of America to be bold enough to do the same.
In Martin Luther King Jr’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” he cites conscience as a guide to obeying just laws and disobeying unjust laws. In the same way, Henry David Thoreau wrote in his famous essay, “Civil Disobedience,” that people should do what their conscience tells them and refuse to follow unjust laws. The positions of the two writers are very close; they both use a common theme of conscience, and they use a similar rhetorical appeal to ethos.
An influential literary movement in the nineteenth century, transcendentalism placed an emphasis on the wonder of nature and its deep connection to the divine. As the two most prominent figures in the transcendentalist movement, Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau whole-heartedly embraced these principles. In their essays “Self-Reliance” and “Civil Disobedience”, Emerson and Thoreau, respectively, argue for individuality and personal expression in different manners. In “Self-Reliance”, Emerson calls for individuals to speak their minds and resist societal conformity, while in “Civil Disobedience” Thoreau urged Americans to publicly state their opinions in order to improve their own government.
There are times throughout the history of the United States when its citizens have felt the need to revolt against the government. There were such cases during the time of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry David Thoreau, when there was unfair discrimination against the Afro-American community and Americans refusing to pay poll taxes to support the Mexican War. They used civil disobedience to eventually get legislation to stop the injustice brought against them and their nation. Civil disobedience is defined as refusal to obey civil laws or decrees, which usually takes the form of passive resistance. People practicing civil disobedience break a law because they consider the law unjust, and want to call attention to its injustice, hoping to bring about its withdrawal.
In his famous essay, “Letter from Birmingham Jail,’’ Martin Luther King, Jr. cites conscience as a guide to obeying just laws and defying unjust laws. In the same way, Henry David Thoreau wrote in his famous essay, “Civil Disobedience,” that people should do what their conscience tells them and not obey unjust laws. The positions of the two writers are very close; they use a common theme of conscience, and they use a similar rhetorical appeal of ethos.
Henry David Thoreau was born in Concord, Massachusetts on July 12, 1817 and died there peacefully on May 6, 1862. He was described by Hawthorne as "ugly as sin." He loved nature, and his constant preoccupation was exploring the woods and ponds making detailed observations of plants and creatures. Henry led a singular life, never marrying, and marching to his own drummer, as he put it. From 1845 to 1847, he lived alone in a small cabin he built by Walden Pond near Concord. He described this unique experiment in natural living in "Walden" criticizing those who "lead lives of quiet desperation" with all the trappings of customary society. His personal independence and straightforward manner was harsh to some people, and he gained very little recognition during his lifetime.
In many works of literature, authors often have a point they are trying to convey. This may be something about religion or politics, for example. In From Walden by Henry David Thoreau and Against Nature by Joyce Carol Oates, both authors are trying to make different claims regarding the topic of nature. Thoreau’s piece speaks more positively of nature whereas Oates’ piece contradicts the romantic views some writers have about nature. In making their claims, both authors utilize different structures to convey clear messages to the reader.
In chapter Five of Approaches to Peace is all about what we the people of the world can do to be harmless to self and others. To realize that hurting people, or the environment is unnecessary to achieve Peace between each other. In the essay in chapter five are example that we can do and what people have done to try and have a nonviolent world. In Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau. Thoreau Start off the essay by arguing that government seem to fail its people often and that it gains its power from the majority which is the strongest group, not because the agree with their view points. When a government is unjust, people should stop following the law and distance themselves from the government. People should stand up for what they believe in and not just do what