What do you think?
Rate this book
Sivil Itaatsizlik
Paperback. 10,50 / 15,00 cm. In Turkish. 42 p. Orijinal Civil Disobedience Translated by Elif Zeynep Yildirim Edited by Selçuk Uzman Temmuz 1846'da Thoreau, bir çift ayakkabisini tamir ettirmek üzere kasabaya indigi sirada, Amerika'nin Meksika'da yürüttügü savasi desteklemek anlamina gelecek bir kelle vergisini ödemeyi reddettigi gerekçesiyle tutuklanir ve bir gecesini hapishanede geçirir. Gandi ve Martin Luther King, Jr. için de bir ilham kaynagi teskil etmis, adaletsiz yasalara karsi pasif direnis çagrisinda bulundugu 1849'da yayimlanan en meshur denemesi Sivil Itaatsizlik, iste bu tecrübenin ürünüdür. Thoreau, Sivil Itaatsizlik'te kisinin vicdanini kanunlarin kendisine dikte ettirdiklerinden önde tutmasinin gerekliligine öncelik verirken kölelikle Meksika-Amerika savasi basta olmak üzere, Amerikan sosyal kurumlarini ve izledigi politikalari âdeta bir elestiri yagmuruna tutar.
42 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1849
2289 people are currently reading
22372 people want to read
About the author
Henry David Thoreau
2,421 books6,740 followersHenry David Thoreau (born David Henry Thoreau) was an American author, naturalist, transcendentalist, tax resister, development critic, philosopher, and abolitionist who is best known for Walden, a reflection upon simple living in natural surroundings, and his essay, Civil Disobedience, an argument for individual resistance to civil government in moral opposition to an unjust state.
Thoreau's books, articles, essays, journals, and poetry total over 20 volumes. Among his lasting contributions were his writings on natural history and philosophy, where he anticipated the methods and findings of ecology and environmental history, two sources of modern day environmentalism.
In 1817, Henry David Thoreau was born in Massachusetts. He graduated from Harvard University in 1837, taught briefly, then turned to writing and lecturing. Becoming a Transcendentalist and good friend of Emerson, Thoreau lived the life of simplicity he advocated in his writings. His two-year experience in a hut in Walden, on land owned by Emerson, resulted in the classic, Walden: Life in the Woods (1854). During his sojourn there, Thoreau refused to pay a poll tax in protest of slavery and the Mexican war, for which he was jailed overnight. His activist convictions were expressed in the groundbreaking On the Duty of Civil Disobedience (1849). In a diary he noted his disapproval of attempts to convert the Algonquins "from their own superstitions to new ones." In a journal he noted dryly that it is appropriate for a church to be the ugliest building in a village, "because it is the one in which human nature stoops to the lowest and is the most disgraced." (Cited by James A. Haught in 2000 Years of Disbelief.) When Parker Pillsbury sought to talk about religion with Thoreau as he was dying from tuberculosis, Thoreau replied: "One world at a time."
Thoreau's philosophy of nonviolent resistance influenced the political thoughts and actions of such later figures as Leo Tolstoy, Mohandas K. Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, Jr. D. 1862.
More: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/tho...
http://thoreau.eserver.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Da...
http://transcendentalism-legacy.tamu....
http://www.biography.com/people/henry...
Thoreau's books, articles, essays, journals, and poetry total over 20 volumes. Among his lasting contributions were his writings on natural history and philosophy, where he anticipated the methods and findings of ecology and environmental history, two sources of modern day environmentalism.
In 1817, Henry David Thoreau was born in Massachusetts. He graduated from Harvard University in 1837, taught briefly, then turned to writing and lecturing. Becoming a Transcendentalist and good friend of Emerson, Thoreau lived the life of simplicity he advocated in his writings. His two-year experience in a hut in Walden, on land owned by Emerson, resulted in the classic, Walden: Life in the Woods (1854). During his sojourn there, Thoreau refused to pay a poll tax in protest of slavery and the Mexican war, for which he was jailed overnight. His activist convictions were expressed in the groundbreaking On the Duty of Civil Disobedience (1849). In a diary he noted his disapproval of attempts to convert the Algonquins "from their own superstitions to new ones." In a journal he noted dryly that it is appropriate for a church to be the ugliest building in a village, "because it is the one in which human nature stoops to the lowest and is the most disgraced." (Cited by James A. Haught in 2000 Years of Disbelief.) When Parker Pillsbury sought to talk about religion with Thoreau as he was dying from tuberculosis, Thoreau replied: "One world at a time."
Thoreau's philosophy of nonviolent resistance influenced the political thoughts and actions of such later figures as Leo Tolstoy, Mohandas K. Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, Jr. D. 1862.
More: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/tho...
http://thoreau.eserver.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Da...
http://transcendentalism-legacy.tamu....
http://www.biography.com/people/henry...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,431 reviews
September 7, 2024
I chose Thoreau’s essay Civil Disobedience as my 2018 Fourth of July read, figuring I could write something quick and easy, something about the Resistance, Generalissimo Trump, and the coming Blue Wave. Yada yada yada. Something inspiring and comforting.
But it didn’t work out that way.
I found Thoreau’s personality prickly, many of his pronouncements naive and uncongenial. I don't deny that his essay is morally challenging, and that it is also stylistically rich, filled with dozens of memorable passages. (You should read it again for yourself, and rediscover how fine it is.) But it is also thorny, and dense, and more than a little absurd. And yet . . . there was something about my encounter with Thoreau that would not let me rest.
That’s how it is when one crosses paths with a saint. St. Francis of Assisi makes me feel like that too. Histrionic, ostentatiously guileless, he never realized that his moral theatrics were permitted—indeed, fostered—by friends and family, and by the compromised social institutions he held up to criticism. Still, his witness challenges us all. Even his most extreme gestures—like the yoke the prophet Jeremiah placed upon his own neck—were part of his call, integral to his inspiration.
And so it was with Thoreau. At the age of 27, Thoreau committed his act of civil disobedience: a refusal to pay the poll tax as a protest against the land-grabbing Mexican War and the inherent evil of slavery. But he only spent one night in the Concord jail (less time, and in a much nicer jail, than his disciples Gandhi and MLK Jr.), his tax having been paid by an anonymous donor (probably his aunt.)
That one night in jail was an epiphany for the young Henry David, for he saw the heart of his own little town differently than he had before, almost as it too were part of Nature:
It was like travelling into a far country, such as I had never expected to behold, to lie there for one night. It seemed to me that I never had heard the town clock strike before, nor the evening sounds of the village; for we slept with the windows open, which were inside the grating. It was to see my native village in the light of the Middle Ages, and our Concord was turned into a Rhine stream, and visions of knights and castles passed before me. They were the voices of old burghers that I heard in the streets. I was an involuntary spectator and auditor of whatever was done and said in the kitchen of the adjacent village inn- a wholly new and rare experience to me. It was a closer view of my native town. I was fairly inside of it. I never had seen its institutions before. . . .This last passage is the one that touched me close to the heart, for I am that supposed “good neighbor,” that “summer weather” friend. “From time to time” I have walked that “straight though useless path,” but I am far from certain that walking that path I have managed to save my soul.
When I came out of prison- for some one interfered, and paid that tax- I did not perceive that great changes had taken place on the common . . . and yet a change had to my eyes come over the scene- the town, and State, and country- greater than any that mere time could effect. I saw yet more distinctly the State in which I lived. I saw to what extent the people among whom I lived could be trusted as good neighbors and friends; that their friendship was for summer weather only; that they did not greatly propose to do right; . . . they . . . hoped, by a certain outward observance and a few prayers, and by walking in a particular straight though useless path from time to time, to save their souls. . .
Do you think a prayer to St. Henry David would help?
I’ll end with the conclusion of Thoreau’s account of the morning he was released from jail, for it ends—fittingly enough—with a return to the realm of Nature:
I was put into jail as I was going to the shoemaker's to get a shoe which was mended. When I was let out the next morning, I proceeded to finish my errand, and, having put on my mended shoe, joined a huckleberry party, who were impatient to put themselves under my conduct; and in half an hour- for the horse was soon tackled- was in the midst of a huckleberry field, on one of our highest hills, two miles off, and then the State was nowhere to be seen.
January 7, 2020
Book Review
I read this nearly twenty years ago in a college course. I recently found my notes and listed a few below, so this isn’t a typical review you’ve seen from me.
My reaction to this work is pretty complicated. It had some thought-invoking ideas, but it was boring from a readability perspective. I am not one to be political or make statements without having all the facts. Everything contained in this work was important and definitely had meaning, but it seemed so “already known.” Known in that time has changed so much but at the same time, so much is still the same. Better in some places but worse in others. The concepts are the same, but the actual tangible or non tangible items referenced run the range from exactly the same to things not even considered a possibility back then. I suppose that’s because, again, I am interpreting the piece with 21st century experience, whereas it was written with a 19th century mind way ahead of its time. It probably made sense back then and had a more powerful statement; that said, I do agree much of it stands today. Equality and freedoms are still nowhere where they need to be, especially with some changes this year, but I hope more people are open minded now. I've always believed people can do/say whatever they want as long as they aren't hurting someone else. But that can be subjective because people interpret actions, there are short and long term effects and misunderstandings happen. Way too complicated for a book review!
My favorite part of the whole piece was when Thoreau described his night in prison. It was interesting to see even the most minute details of his experience. It would be fascinating to know who paid his taxes for him, so that he could get out of jail! This whole portion was quite an enjoyable read though. I wish all of his essays were written like this one.
The larger chunk of Resistance to Civil Government, however, read partially like a manual for some complicated piece of machinery. It’s like Emerson’s Self-Reliance all over again. There were good ideas and I followed it pretty well. It’s just that it was a overly complex and could have been said in less words. Some would say the same about me!!!
About Me
For those new to me or my reviews... here's the scoop: I read A LOT. I write A LOT. And now I blog A LOT. First the book review goes on Goodreads, and then I send it on over to my WordPress blog at https://thisismytruthnow.com, where you'll also find TV & Film reviews, the revealing and introspective 365 Daily Challenge and lots of blogging about places I've visited all over the world. And you can find all my social media profiles to get the details on the who/what/when/where and my pictures. Leave a comment and let me know what you think. Vote in the poll and ratings. Thanks for stopping by.
I read this nearly twenty years ago in a college course. I recently found my notes and listed a few below, so this isn’t a typical review you’ve seen from me.
My reaction to this work is pretty complicated. It had some thought-invoking ideas, but it was boring from a readability perspective. I am not one to be political or make statements without having all the facts. Everything contained in this work was important and definitely had meaning, but it seemed so “already known.” Known in that time has changed so much but at the same time, so much is still the same. Better in some places but worse in others. The concepts are the same, but the actual tangible or non tangible items referenced run the range from exactly the same to things not even considered a possibility back then. I suppose that’s because, again, I am interpreting the piece with 21st century experience, whereas it was written with a 19th century mind way ahead of its time. It probably made sense back then and had a more powerful statement; that said, I do agree much of it stands today. Equality and freedoms are still nowhere where they need to be, especially with some changes this year, but I hope more people are open minded now. I've always believed people can do/say whatever they want as long as they aren't hurting someone else. But that can be subjective because people interpret actions, there are short and long term effects and misunderstandings happen. Way too complicated for a book review!
My favorite part of the whole piece was when Thoreau described his night in prison. It was interesting to see even the most minute details of his experience. It would be fascinating to know who paid his taxes for him, so that he could get out of jail! This whole portion was quite an enjoyable read though. I wish all of his essays were written like this one.
The larger chunk of Resistance to Civil Government, however, read partially like a manual for some complicated piece of machinery. It’s like Emerson’s Self-Reliance all over again. There were good ideas and I followed it pretty well. It’s just that it was a overly complex and could have been said in less words. Some would say the same about me!!!
About Me
For those new to me or my reviews... here's the scoop: I read A LOT. I write A LOT. And now I blog A LOT. First the book review goes on Goodreads, and then I send it on over to my WordPress blog at https://thisismytruthnow.com, where you'll also find TV & Film reviews, the revealing and introspective 365 Daily Challenge and lots of blogging about places I've visited all over the world. And you can find all my social media profiles to get the details on the who/what/when/where and my pictures. Leave a comment and let me know what you think. Vote in the poll and ratings. Thanks for stopping by.
December 7, 2020
A brilliant essay by Henry David Thoreau, and proof that the struggle to define the American destiny has been going on since its inception.
This American government--what is it but a tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity, but each instant losing some of its integrity?
Thoreau was deeply aggrieved of the American government and its politicians, who were dancing about the issue of slavery. He states, and rightfully so, that a moral issue such as this cannot take a backseat to any political allegiance to a government, and that the individual must not bend to an immoral demand simply because it is exigent.
I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which is the slave’s government also.
This people must cease to hold slaves, and to make war on Mexico, though it cost them their existence as a people.
I can think of a number of issues on which I feel the moral position and the government position could not be further apart. Thoreau refused to pay his taxes in protest of being made to be party to the State’s position by doing so. I am not that brave, but I would often like to scream to the skies how can anyone believe in this position of government and still count themselves as a moral human being.
I was taken by how much the political hypocrisy resembles some of what we encounter in our own political arena. And, the old adage that you must “follow the money” holds true then and now.
Practically speaking, the opponents to a reform in Massachusetts are not a hundred thousand politicians at the South, but a hundred thousand merchants and farmers here, who are more interested in commerce and agriculture than they are in humanity, and are not prepared to do justice to the slave and to Mexico, cost what it may.
One last comment that impressed itself upon me was the following.
to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it. The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual.
I’m afraid a “true respect for the individual” might be something our government has completely lost, but I hope it is not something we, the people, are willing to concede.
Always amazing to read something written 171 years ago and find so much there that will apply to life in 2020.
This American government--what is it but a tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity, but each instant losing some of its integrity?
Thoreau was deeply aggrieved of the American government and its politicians, who were dancing about the issue of slavery. He states, and rightfully so, that a moral issue such as this cannot take a backseat to any political allegiance to a government, and that the individual must not bend to an immoral demand simply because it is exigent.
I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which is the slave’s government also.
This people must cease to hold slaves, and to make war on Mexico, though it cost them their existence as a people.
I can think of a number of issues on which I feel the moral position and the government position could not be further apart. Thoreau refused to pay his taxes in protest of being made to be party to the State’s position by doing so. I am not that brave, but I would often like to scream to the skies how can anyone believe in this position of government and still count themselves as a moral human being.
I was taken by how much the political hypocrisy resembles some of what we encounter in our own political arena. And, the old adage that you must “follow the money” holds true then and now.
Practically speaking, the opponents to a reform in Massachusetts are not a hundred thousand politicians at the South, but a hundred thousand merchants and farmers here, who are more interested in commerce and agriculture than they are in humanity, and are not prepared to do justice to the slave and to Mexico, cost what it may.
One last comment that impressed itself upon me was the following.
to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it. The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual.
I’m afraid a “true respect for the individual” might be something our government has completely lost, but I hope it is not something we, the people, are willing to concede.
Always amazing to read something written 171 years ago and find so much there that will apply to life in 2020.
December 9, 2023
I have read excerpts from this essay over the years and have finally finished it. I wonder if there is a more timely book - truly the people need to take this book to heart if there is to be any hope of civility ever returning to America. Thoreau points out that passively accepting the political whims of leaders we become our own worst enemy; and once this happens we can only appeal to the state to remedy our own problems. A true classic that intersects so many social issues.
November 18, 2025
Civil Disobedience is a powerful and enduring essay that challenges readers to examine the moral foundations of their relationship with government. Written in response to the injustices of slavery and the Mexican-American War, Thoreau presents a compelling case for nonviolent resistance as a means of promoting justice and preserving individual autonomy.
At the heart of Thoreau’s argument is the belief that conscience must take precedence over law. He asserts that individuals have a moral duty to reject unjust government actions, famously declaring, “The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.” This radical emphasis on personal morality over civil obedience forms the backbone of his philosophy.
Thoreau critiques government as an institution prone to corruption and oppression, suggesting that “That government is best which governs least.” He warns against blind allegiance to the state, arguing that when laws compel citizens to perpetuate injustice—such as supporting slavery or waging an unjust war—it becomes not only their right but their duty to break those laws. Passive compliance, in his view, makes one complicit in the state’s immoral actions.
Importantly, Thoreau distinguishes between mere opinion and principled action. He criticizes voting as a morally detached act, likening it to gambling, and insists that true integrity requires “action from principle.” His own refusal to pay the poll tax, which led to a night in jail, exemplifies this commitment. For Thoreau, a “just man” belongs in prison under a government that “imprisons any unjustly.”
Civil Disobedience remains a foundational text in the philosophy of protest and personal ethics. Thoreau’s insistence on conscience as the ultimate guide continues to inspire movements for justice around the world...
At the heart of Thoreau’s argument is the belief that conscience must take precedence over law. He asserts that individuals have a moral duty to reject unjust government actions, famously declaring, “The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.” This radical emphasis on personal morality over civil obedience forms the backbone of his philosophy.
Thoreau critiques government as an institution prone to corruption and oppression, suggesting that “That government is best which governs least.” He warns against blind allegiance to the state, arguing that when laws compel citizens to perpetuate injustice—such as supporting slavery or waging an unjust war—it becomes not only their right but their duty to break those laws. Passive compliance, in his view, makes one complicit in the state’s immoral actions.
Importantly, Thoreau distinguishes between mere opinion and principled action. He criticizes voting as a morally detached act, likening it to gambling, and insists that true integrity requires “action from principle.” His own refusal to pay the poll tax, which led to a night in jail, exemplifies this commitment. For Thoreau, a “just man” belongs in prison under a government that “imprisons any unjustly.”
Civil Disobedience remains a foundational text in the philosophy of protest and personal ethics. Thoreau’s insistence on conscience as the ultimate guide continues to inspire movements for justice around the world...
January 13, 2016
Or how to not let yourself be manipulated by any kind of authority.An essay that states some of the basic ideas of being a human being, the way I see it. It should be taught in schools.
The progress from a total to a restricted monarchy, and from a restricted monarchy to democracy, is a progress toward real respect for the individual. However, is democracy, as we know it, the last possible improvement of governing?
I wonder what he'd say if he saw what we define as democracy today...
The progress from a total to a restricted monarchy, and from a restricted monarchy to democracy, is a progress toward real respect for the individual. However, is democracy, as we know it, the last possible improvement of governing?
I wonder what he'd say if he saw what we define as democracy today...
September 23, 2016
دوستانِ گرانقدر، در زمینۀ «نافرمانی مدنی» این کتابِ 55 صفحه ای را انتخاب نمودم، تا شما بزرگواران را با مفهوم آن آشنا سازم
تعبيرِ «نافرمانی مدنی» برایِ اولين بار در قرنِ نوزدهم، در آمریکا، از سویِ همین نویسنده «هنری ديويد ثرو» ابداع و بکار برده شد
عزیزانم، «نافرمانی مدنی» مفهومی پيچيده و چند سويه در فرهنگ سياسی غرب میباشد... اقدامی با انگيزۀ سياسی و اخلاقی، علنی و مسالمت آميز برایِ اعتراض نسبت به رفتارِ قوایِ دولتی، كه حداقل از منظرِ چگونگی امر، نقض قانون مشخصی را به همراه دارد
نویسنده بارها و بارها اعتراضاتِ درست و خردمندانه ای نسبت به حقوق بشر و نوعِ ادارۀ حکومتِ آمریکایی و قوانینِ حاکم در آمریکا، داشته که در این کتاب آمده است
در زیر به انتخاب، به برخی از جملاتِ جالبِ توجه و خردمندانه، در این کتاب اشاره میکنم
--------------------------------------------------
حكومتی حداقلی ، كه ميتواند نسبت به همۀ انسانها منصف باشد، و با فرد، همچون یک همسايه، محترمانه رفتار كند،... حكومتی كه اگر عدهٔ انگشت شماری بی توجه به او زندگی كنند، نهراسد از اين كه امنيت و آرامش اش دچار آسيب ميشود.... حكومتی كه در كارِ اين جماعت، دخالتِ بيجا نكند و از سویِ آنهایی كه تمامیِ وظايفِ همسايگی و همنوعی و هم چراغی را نسبت به ديگران بجا آورده اند احساس جاتنگی و محدوديت نكند... اين است آن رويایی كه هميشه به آن
دلخوش ام... حكومتی كه اين چنين ميوه ای ميدهد و تا وقتی كه ميوه بعمل آيد، بارش را تحمل ميكند تا هر چه سريعتر آن را به زمين تحويل دهد و راه را برایِ حكومتی بازهم كامل تر و سرافرازتر هموار ميسازد،.. حكومتی كه من نيز در خيال، آن را تجسم كرده ام، اما هنوز در جایی نديده ام
هيچ فردی در آمريكا ديده نشده كه نبوغ خاصی در قانونگزاری داشته باشد،... نوابغ در تاريخ جهان نادرند و خطيبان، سياستمداران وفصحاء هزاران هزار،... امّا رئیسِ مجلس كه بايد سخنگويِ منتخبِ درد هایِ مردم در مقابل حكومت باشد، تاكنون دهانش را باز نكرده است تا سخنی از او بشنويم، اویی كه قادر به حل و فصل بغرنج ترين مسائل روز است
ما فصاحت را بخاطرِ فصاحت دوست داريم و نه بخاطرِ آن حقیقتی كه بيان ميكند يا آن شجاعتی كه گوينده ميتواند با گفتنِ حقيقت، به ديگران الهام بخشد
امیدوارم این توضیحات مفید بوده باشه
<پیروز باشید و ایرانی>
تعبيرِ «نافرمانی مدنی» برایِ اولين بار در قرنِ نوزدهم، در آمریکا، از سویِ همین نویسنده «هنری ديويد ثرو» ابداع و بکار برده شد
عزیزانم، «نافرمانی مدنی» مفهومی پيچيده و چند سويه در فرهنگ سياسی غرب میباشد... اقدامی با انگيزۀ سياسی و اخلاقی، علنی و مسالمت آميز برایِ اعتراض نسبت به رفتارِ قوایِ دولتی، كه حداقل از منظرِ چگونگی امر، نقض قانون مشخصی را به همراه دارد
نویسنده بارها و بارها اعتراضاتِ درست و خردمندانه ای نسبت به حقوق بشر و نوعِ ادارۀ حکومتِ آمریکایی و قوانینِ حاکم در آمریکا، داشته که در این کتاب آمده است
در زیر به انتخاب، به برخی از جملاتِ جالبِ توجه و خردمندانه، در این کتاب اشاره میکنم
--------------------------------------------------
حكومتی حداقلی ، كه ميتواند نسبت به همۀ انسانها منصف باشد، و با فرد، همچون یک همسايه، محترمانه رفتار كند،... حكومتی كه اگر عدهٔ انگشت شماری بی توجه به او زندگی كنند، نهراسد از اين كه امنيت و آرامش اش دچار آسيب ميشود.... حكومتی كه در كارِ اين جماعت، دخالتِ بيجا نكند و از سویِ آنهایی كه تمامیِ وظايفِ همسايگی و همنوعی و هم چراغی را نسبت به ديگران بجا آورده اند احساس جاتنگی و محدوديت نكند... اين است آن رويایی كه هميشه به آن
دلخوش ام... حكومتی كه اين چنين ميوه ای ميدهد و تا وقتی كه ميوه بعمل آيد، بارش را تحمل ميكند تا هر چه سريعتر آن را به زمين تحويل دهد و راه را برایِ حكومتی بازهم كامل تر و سرافرازتر هموار ميسازد،.. حكومتی كه من نيز در خيال، آن را تجسم كرده ام، اما هنوز در جایی نديده ام
هيچ فردی در آمريكا ديده نشده كه نبوغ خاصی در قانونگزاری داشته باشد،... نوابغ در تاريخ جهان نادرند و خطيبان، سياستمداران وفصحاء هزاران هزار،... امّا رئیسِ مجلس كه بايد سخنگويِ منتخبِ درد هایِ مردم در مقابل حكومت باشد، تاكنون دهانش را باز نكرده است تا سخنی از او بشنويم، اویی كه قادر به حل و فصل بغرنج ترين مسائل روز است
ما فصاحت را بخاطرِ فصاحت دوست داريم و نه بخاطرِ آن حقیقتی كه بيان ميكند يا آن شجاعتی كه گوينده ميتواند با گفتنِ حقيقت، به ديگران الهام بخشد
امیدوارم این توضیحات مفید بوده باشه
<پیروز باشید و ایرانی>
January 4, 2019
Well, I'm still pondering what I think about this essay, so I'm not quite sure what I'd like to say about it yet. It is different than what I expected. I always thought of Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" as the work that inspired non-violent protests like 1960s sit-ins and Gandhi's hunger strikes--and it IS an inspiration, but it is not about those types of actions, as far as I can tell.
Thoreau, rather, suggests that people should just withdraw from an unjust government (and this, to Thoreau includes his early/mid 1800s U.S. government), and have nothing to do with it. He recognizes the fact that a person can't concern himself with making the world better all the time or with solving every problem. But a man should be sure not to make it worse or to support in any way (via taxes, for example) a government which supports and promotes injustice. Even voting, he argues, is basically worthless. Essentially, he is saying that you can't reform the system by working within the system.
This, as I mentioned, surprised me. It is supremely individualistic, and I can't get the image out of my mind of a hermit-like Thoreau living apart from society. And I guess that is what bothers me about this essay. On the basis of a single individual, I suppose Thoreau's way of life could work...maybe...for him. How does he envision his system working on the broader scale? Maybe I'm unimaginative and stunted, but I can't imagine this working on a large scale.
People necessarily must, or at least naturally DO, work together and form societies. Laws and rules of how to live within the group naturally evolve. As a very basic example, how does a society choose to deal with criminals? Individuals taking things into their own hands seems, at the very least, inconsistent and provides no sense of security. Thus, any rules a society makes about how to react to criminals necessarily grow into "laws." Doesn't this lead, implicitly, to a government?
In other words, how is a society to live without even a most basic government? It seems that government by the people naturally and necessarily will arise on its own. As time goes on and societies get bigger and must interact with other societies, rules naturally form relating to how to interact with one another in a consistent and predictable manner, to promote, at the very least, the safety and well-being of its citizens.
I guess this is a long way of getting to my point that I don't know how it would be realistically possible for each individual to simply live according to his own moral compass, respecting the rules he wishes to respect and ignoring the others. If everyone were to actually follow this model, I do not see how chaos would not result.
To conclude, I think in more simple and limited sense, I agree with Thoreau on the benefits of "civil disobedience" as a means of promoting social change and as a form of protest. But I'm not sure I'm sold on this individualistic, I'll-do-as-I-want mentality as an ultimate way of life.
Thoreau, rather, suggests that people should just withdraw from an unjust government (and this, to Thoreau includes his early/mid 1800s U.S. government), and have nothing to do with it. He recognizes the fact that a person can't concern himself with making the world better all the time or with solving every problem. But a man should be sure not to make it worse or to support in any way (via taxes, for example) a government which supports and promotes injustice. Even voting, he argues, is basically worthless. Essentially, he is saying that you can't reform the system by working within the system.
This, as I mentioned, surprised me. It is supremely individualistic, and I can't get the image out of my mind of a hermit-like Thoreau living apart from society. And I guess that is what bothers me about this essay. On the basis of a single individual, I suppose Thoreau's way of life could work...maybe...for him. How does he envision his system working on the broader scale? Maybe I'm unimaginative and stunted, but I can't imagine this working on a large scale.
People necessarily must, or at least naturally DO, work together and form societies. Laws and rules of how to live within the group naturally evolve. As a very basic example, how does a society choose to deal with criminals? Individuals taking things into their own hands seems, at the very least, inconsistent and provides no sense of security. Thus, any rules a society makes about how to react to criminals necessarily grow into "laws." Doesn't this lead, implicitly, to a government?
In other words, how is a society to live without even a most basic government? It seems that government by the people naturally and necessarily will arise on its own. As time goes on and societies get bigger and must interact with other societies, rules naturally form relating to how to interact with one another in a consistent and predictable manner, to promote, at the very least, the safety and well-being of its citizens.
I guess this is a long way of getting to my point that I don't know how it would be realistically possible for each individual to simply live according to his own moral compass, respecting the rules he wishes to respect and ignoring the others. If everyone were to actually follow this model, I do not see how chaos would not result.
To conclude, I think in more simple and limited sense, I agree with Thoreau on the benefits of "civil disobedience" as a means of promoting social change and as a form of protest. But I'm not sure I'm sold on this individualistic, I'll-do-as-I-want mentality as an ultimate way of life.
March 29, 2021
” Mi costa meno, in tutti i sensi, incorrere nella pena prevista per la disobbedienza allo stato, di quanto mi costerebbe obbedire. Se lo facessi sentirei di perdere valore come essere umano.”
Ci hanno insegnato che disobbedire è una cosa brutta ma il fascino di andare oltre, di valicare i confini di ciò che norma è una trasgressione che attrae molti.
La disobbedienza è spesso legata al momento adolescenziale e quando una persona anagraficamente adulta si pone con contro lo Stato e le leggi si indica subito tale atteggiamento come segno di una maturità fallita o non raggiunta.
Il testo di “Disobbedienza civile” ha origine da una serie di interventi pubblici che Mr Thoreau fece nel 1848 e, cioè, quando era un maturo giovanotto di circa trent’anni.
Tutto comincia un paio di anni prima, quando un agente del fisco si presenta alla sua porta, deciso a riscuotere sei anni di tasse non pagate ma Mr Thoreau si rifiuta perché quelle tasse servono a finanziare una guerra in Messico a cui si oppone con tutte le sue forze. Neppure una notte passata in carcere (da cui esce grazie ad una zia che paga la cauzione) gli farà cambiare idea, anzi comincerà a scrivere e diffondere il pensiero del dissenso con uno Stato schiavista e guerrafondaio.
La battaglia è essenzialmente a favore della libertà di tutti
Il sogno di un’adolescenza prolungata o la maturità di una coscienza risvegliata?
” Vorrei ricordare ai miei concittadini che bisogna essere prima uomini, e poi, solo al momento giusto, americani. Non importa quanto sia preziosa la legge che protegge la vostra proprietà; una legge può anche legare insieme anima e corpo, ma non ha valore se non vi lega all’umanità.”
Un immancabile classico del pensiero.
Ci hanno insegnato che disobbedire è una cosa brutta ma il fascino di andare oltre, di valicare i confini di ciò che norma è una trasgressione che attrae molti.
La disobbedienza è spesso legata al momento adolescenziale e quando una persona anagraficamente adulta si pone con contro lo Stato e le leggi si indica subito tale atteggiamento come segno di una maturità fallita o non raggiunta.
Il testo di “Disobbedienza civile” ha origine da una serie di interventi pubblici che Mr Thoreau fece nel 1848 e, cioè, quando era un maturo giovanotto di circa trent’anni.
Tutto comincia un paio di anni prima, quando un agente del fisco si presenta alla sua porta, deciso a riscuotere sei anni di tasse non pagate ma Mr Thoreau si rifiuta perché quelle tasse servono a finanziare una guerra in Messico a cui si oppone con tutte le sue forze. Neppure una notte passata in carcere (da cui esce grazie ad una zia che paga la cauzione) gli farà cambiare idea, anzi comincerà a scrivere e diffondere il pensiero del dissenso con uno Stato schiavista e guerrafondaio.
La battaglia è essenzialmente a favore della libertà di tutti
Il sogno di un’adolescenza prolungata o la maturità di una coscienza risvegliata?
” Vorrei ricordare ai miei concittadini che bisogna essere prima uomini, e poi, solo al momento giusto, americani. Non importa quanto sia preziosa la legge che protegge la vostra proprietà; una legge può anche legare insieme anima e corpo, ma non ha valore se non vi lega all’umanità.”
Un immancabile classico del pensiero.
February 7, 2017
This is a very interesting read. Though the language can seem a bit old and hard to get through and understand the message is important and rings out loud and clear. Many people are content to sit around and wait for the right thing to happen but in order for the right the to happen there must be action. If laws are unjust it is your duty to break those laws. So many people forget the actions of the founders of the US were treasonous. Sometime the only way to stand up for what is right is to work outside the law. It can be hard but it is always important to fight for what you think is right.
December 16, 2024
Thoreau speaks quite directly to the evils of bad government, slavery and unnecessary wars.
September 29, 2011
Was a wonderful experience to read it in parallel with The Prince.
February 7, 2019
Welcome to my life Mr. Thoreau, I wish we had met sooner.
August 6, 2023
Historisch vielleicht interessant. Inhaltlich selbstgerechtes, unerträgliches Lamentieren. Das freut den Reichsbürger bestimmt, das so etwas von Diogenes publiziert wird.
May 10, 2021
“Is there not a sort of blood shed when the conscience is wounded? Through this wound a man's real manhood and immortality flow out, and he bleeds to an everlasting death. I see this blood flowing now.“
In my university days, I had to soldier on through Thoreau’s Walden, which was really a bit like fighting your way through a forest of transcendental, yet quite substantial trees, in order to arrive at a place where people speak a more intelligible language, and consequently, in the years following this gruelling and bewildering experience, I shied away from anything that bore the name of Thoreau. Recent times, however, brought Thoreau’s essay The Resistance to Civil Government back on my radar, and since it is comparatively short, I thought I might give it a try, and I did.
Thoreau basically makes the argument that individuals should be careful not to allow their own consciences to be silenced and ignored by the laws of and the allegiance to their governments. Instead, they have the moral duty to deny such an allegiance if they find that by going with the crowd, they will get into conflict with their own convictions. In Thoreau’s case, he refused to pay his taxes to the state of Massachusetts because he did not agree with this state’s policy on slavery and the Mexican-American War. He argues that by listening to one’s own conscience, one can ultimately serve one’s state even better than by bowing to any law just because it has become law, because the citizen who listens to his conscience helps prevent the state from becoming unjust and tyrannical:
As this sentence shows, the dissenter for conscientious reasons may not count on his government’s gratitude, nor yet very often on his fellow-citizens’ understanding, since ”[a]ction from principle, the perception and the performance of right, changes things and relations” and will, in extreme cases, even ”divide[s] families”. It puts before every individual the following question concerning laws perceived as unjust: ”shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once?”
For Thoreau, the case is relentlessly clear: ”Under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.” Thoreau wrote this sentence after his own imprisonment, which he comments on by saying that while he was looking at the walls confining his body to his cell, he was wondering whether the state did not know that he was so much more than a mere body and that what was more than a mere body, could not be so easily confined. Saying that, however, we should not forget that Thoreau was lucky enough to be released after one single day, somebody else – we don’t know who – having paid his tax debts for him.
It is all very well to write a treatise on civil disobedience and on how futile it is for a government to imprison the dissenter because it is only his body they can put under confinement – but there are certain points you had better not forget, namely:
The concept of conscience might beg for some more careful consideration: If we regard it as the divine inner voice that many people regard it as, how come that it seems to say different things to different people in any given situation? Thoreau might regard it as imperative not to obey any law he regards as harmful and unjust, not even while you try to change it in ways that the political system allows you to follow – and to take the consequences thereof. Somebody else might say that if everyone acted like that, sooner or later our polity would break asunder with everyone making a martyr of themselves, and for reasons that may be rather doubtful. There are, after all, people, whose conscience always happens to deliver a justification for whatever course of action they are inclined to follow, and in our day and age, especially, the world is full of them, ranging from self-complacent climate fighters to no less self-complacent freedom fighters – to give but two examples –, and I am quite convinced that in their heart of hearts all these people derive a great degree of emotional satisfaction from the noble causes they champion. Therefore, the question may be justified whether they are really pursuing their duty or whether their duty is pursuing them. What, if what we refer to as conscience is really a set of psychological scripts according to which we mediate between what has come down as social expectations and rules on us and our own inclinations?
Then there is the distinction between ethics of conviction, and ethics of responsibility – Thoreau may not have risked and sacrificed a lot by allowing them to put him under lock and key, but someone who has to provide for their family might face themselves with quite another calculation to figure out. Is it more responsible to swallow a bitter pill with regard to one’s convictions in order to be able to earn a living for your children, or to set them a good example of a person that sticks to their colours no matter what it costs? To make matters even more complicated, the answer to this question might sound differently depending on what is at stake.
And last, but not least, how can we know that what rings true to our conscience is actually the truth? How far should we be prepared to go in our conviction of a principle that may, for all we know, be a mere matter of faith? The most obvious answer may be that we should not harm anyone else but ourselves in such a quest, but how can we know that by harming ourselves we may not be harming anyone else? To sum up, Thoreau’s famous essay raises more questions than it answers but in a time like ours, when so many of our principles are challenged, it may be very helpful to read it exactly for the sake of the questions it raises rather than for the answers it provides. As far as I am concerned, I have worked out some private answers that will help me steer my course through the tempests of ethical decisions that have been waging for the last few months.
In my university days, I had to soldier on through Thoreau’s Walden, which was really a bit like fighting your way through a forest of transcendental, yet quite substantial trees, in order to arrive at a place where people speak a more intelligible language, and consequently, in the years following this gruelling and bewildering experience, I shied away from anything that bore the name of Thoreau. Recent times, however, brought Thoreau’s essay The Resistance to Civil Government back on my radar, and since it is comparatively short, I thought I might give it a try, and I did.
Thoreau basically makes the argument that individuals should be careful not to allow their own consciences to be silenced and ignored by the laws of and the allegiance to their governments. Instead, they have the moral duty to deny such an allegiance if they find that by going with the crowd, they will get into conflict with their own convictions. In Thoreau’s case, he refused to pay his taxes to the state of Massachusetts because he did not agree with this state’s policy on slavery and the Mexican-American War. He argues that by listening to one’s own conscience, one can ultimately serve one’s state even better than by bowing to any law just because it has become law, because the citizen who listens to his conscience helps prevent the state from becoming unjust and tyrannical:
”The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. […] very few—as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men—serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it.”
As this sentence shows, the dissenter for conscientious reasons may not count on his government’s gratitude, nor yet very often on his fellow-citizens’ understanding, since ”[a]ction from principle, the perception and the performance of right, changes things and relations” and will, in extreme cases, even ”divide[s] families”. It puts before every individual the following question concerning laws perceived as unjust: ”shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once?”
For Thoreau, the case is relentlessly clear: ”Under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.” Thoreau wrote this sentence after his own imprisonment, which he comments on by saying that while he was looking at the walls confining his body to his cell, he was wondering whether the state did not know that he was so much more than a mere body and that what was more than a mere body, could not be so easily confined. Saying that, however, we should not forget that Thoreau was lucky enough to be released after one single day, somebody else – we don’t know who – having paid his tax debts for him.
It is all very well to write a treatise on civil disobedience and on how futile it is for a government to imprison the dissenter because it is only his body they can put under confinement – but there are certain points you had better not forget, namely:
The concept of conscience might beg for some more careful consideration: If we regard it as the divine inner voice that many people regard it as, how come that it seems to say different things to different people in any given situation? Thoreau might regard it as imperative not to obey any law he regards as harmful and unjust, not even while you try to change it in ways that the political system allows you to follow – and to take the consequences thereof. Somebody else might say that if everyone acted like that, sooner or later our polity would break asunder with everyone making a martyr of themselves, and for reasons that may be rather doubtful. There are, after all, people, whose conscience always happens to deliver a justification for whatever course of action they are inclined to follow, and in our day and age, especially, the world is full of them, ranging from self-complacent climate fighters to no less self-complacent freedom fighters – to give but two examples –, and I am quite convinced that in their heart of hearts all these people derive a great degree of emotional satisfaction from the noble causes they champion. Therefore, the question may be justified whether they are really pursuing their duty or whether their duty is pursuing them. What, if what we refer to as conscience is really a set of psychological scripts according to which we mediate between what has come down as social expectations and rules on us and our own inclinations?
Then there is the distinction between ethics of conviction, and ethics of responsibility – Thoreau may not have risked and sacrificed a lot by allowing them to put him under lock and key, but someone who has to provide for their family might face themselves with quite another calculation to figure out. Is it more responsible to swallow a bitter pill with regard to one’s convictions in order to be able to earn a living for your children, or to set them a good example of a person that sticks to their colours no matter what it costs? To make matters even more complicated, the answer to this question might sound differently depending on what is at stake.
And last, but not least, how can we know that what rings true to our conscience is actually the truth? How far should we be prepared to go in our conviction of a principle that may, for all we know, be a mere matter of faith? The most obvious answer may be that we should not harm anyone else but ourselves in such a quest, but how can we know that by harming ourselves we may not be harming anyone else? To sum up, Thoreau’s famous essay raises more questions than it answers but in a time like ours, when so many of our principles are challenged, it may be very helpful to read it exactly for the sake of the questions it raises rather than for the answers it provides. As far as I am concerned, I have worked out some private answers that will help me steer my course through the tempests of ethical decisions that have been waging for the last few months.
December 7, 2019
The safest investments are in old friends and old books. Friends, books, and wine get better with age.
This short essay -- the inspiration for so much nonviolent resistance in the world -- still has the ability to challenge, even as its language delights. The essay seemed less philosophical this time around, more problematic. (I would guess this is my third time reading it).
Like much of Thoreau's writing, it is deeply personal, written in a reflective manner, rather than a purely logical one. Its themes: moral self-reliance, limited government, and the necessity of resistance. These themes still ring true. One can see this essay more as a foundation for libertarian social justice rather than modern liberalism. I very much doubt Thoreau would have been in favor of the use of the state to achieve social justice. Though I'm sure he would pay his poll tax in that situation. If this seems problematic with me, that is my issue, for the idea of using the state to enact social justice is a rather new idea. One that I think would be largely alien in Thoreau's time. The virtue of simplicity often comes through in Thoreau's writing; and, if one is honest, moral self-reliance is the simplest answer to the question of moral injustice (though to my mind, collective, organized action still seems the best).
As for Thoreau's "prison time"...I think there is much to be said about it. The most interesting part of the essay is when Thoreau suddenly begins talking about the details of his night in prison. The fact that this part takes up so little of the book is also meaningful. How would Thoreau have felt if his stay in prison had been extended? How would he have felt if his stay had been considerably less comfortable? How would he have felt if his cellmate had been a raving sociopath? My guess is that there are better books and essays out there -- autobiographies of actual revolutionaries -- that delve into the rich details of being on the wrong side of the "State". Since the essay is not a work of philosophy and does not include enough details and storytelling to be autobiographical, it falls into that awkward genre of personal reflection. To those actually contemplating civil disobedience and its realities, I would think the rich personal details of those who have suffered the consequences of their righteous actions would be more useful.
There are often better philosophies in the nitty-gritty of lived details of life than in the most finely woven abstractions. I urge you to seek out the nitty-gritty, its pain and pleasures, and its perplexing contradictions before moving to the realm of abstraction.
This short essay -- the inspiration for so much nonviolent resistance in the world -- still has the ability to challenge, even as its language delights. The essay seemed less philosophical this time around, more problematic. (I would guess this is my third time reading it).
Like much of Thoreau's writing, it is deeply personal, written in a reflective manner, rather than a purely logical one. Its themes: moral self-reliance, limited government, and the necessity of resistance. These themes still ring true. One can see this essay more as a foundation for libertarian social justice rather than modern liberalism. I very much doubt Thoreau would have been in favor of the use of the state to achieve social justice. Though I'm sure he would pay his poll tax in that situation. If this seems problematic with me, that is my issue, for the idea of using the state to enact social justice is a rather new idea. One that I think would be largely alien in Thoreau's time. The virtue of simplicity often comes through in Thoreau's writing; and, if one is honest, moral self-reliance is the simplest answer to the question of moral injustice (though to my mind, collective, organized action still seems the best).
As for Thoreau's "prison time"...I think there is much to be said about it. The most interesting part of the essay is when Thoreau suddenly begins talking about the details of his night in prison. The fact that this part takes up so little of the book is also meaningful. How would Thoreau have felt if his stay in prison had been extended? How would he have felt if his stay had been considerably less comfortable? How would he have felt if his cellmate had been a raving sociopath? My guess is that there are better books and essays out there -- autobiographies of actual revolutionaries -- that delve into the rich details of being on the wrong side of the "State". Since the essay is not a work of philosophy and does not include enough details and storytelling to be autobiographical, it falls into that awkward genre of personal reflection. To those actually contemplating civil disobedience and its realities, I would think the rich personal details of those who have suffered the consequences of their righteous actions would be more useful.
There are often better philosophies in the nitty-gritty of lived details of life than in the most finely woven abstractions. I urge you to seek out the nitty-gritty, its pain and pleasures, and its perplexing contradictions before moving to the realm of abstraction.
May 10, 2024
For some reason I cannot leave a review of the 33-page Kindle version of this book.
That's all I want to read.
There is however a really great quote:
"I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad."
I feel the same way, let all the warring factions do their thing and let me read and write.
But I didn't enjoy this as a reading experience.
It's about a man who gets knocked up in the clink one night then decides to write a tirade about the state of the US Government and the society he was living in at the time. I hated it, but I did read it.
It's political, philosophical and way over my head.
After reading this I decided to give Thoreau one more chance and plunged into Walden. OMG, what a mistake, an admitted DNF from me and therefore 1 star.
That's all I want to read.
There is however a really great quote:
"I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad."
I feel the same way, let all the warring factions do their thing and let me read and write.
But I didn't enjoy this as a reading experience.
It's about a man who gets knocked up in the clink one night then decides to write a tirade about the state of the US Government and the society he was living in at the time. I hated it, but I did read it.
It's political, philosophical and way over my head.
After reading this I decided to give Thoreau one more chance and plunged into Walden. OMG, what a mistake, an admitted DNF from me and therefore 1 star.
August 3, 2019
5 Stars--unequivocally Rocks my World.
Thoreau is sane and percipient. He knows what he thinks and expresses himself well.
Some example ideas I am so in agreement with. (I won't give it all away.)
1. We need a better government, not another revolution.
2. We need to take action on our beliefs/ideals.
3. Even when inconvenient, we need to do right.
Thoreau does speak of morals. In another era, Thoreau might have spoken of doing the right thing, of living in one's own skin, of karma.
I am in agreement with these ideas and am glad to hear/read that someone else has had these ideas. The ideas seem ahead of their time, primarily because we do not have other commonly-known essays which express the same ideas during the same time. (If I mistaken, please let me know.)
That this essay remains pertinent so far to each US American generation which indicates that some of the underlying problems to the American Experiement are still around today. Scary Ideas: At time of publication (1849), these United States had already been in existence since June 21, 1788/for 61 years/for an entire 19thc lifetime yet some serious problems were hanging on.
(1) US-Mexican Border. By time time of publication the US-Mexican War ended (1846-1848), yet 1914 saw the last raid/border skirmish on King Ranch, about 2.25/2.50 hours away by car, seemingly deeper into Texas by horseback. When the US steals sovereign land, the US and its citizens and their businesses pay. Did Thoreau know to be concerned about the guerrilla threat of Mexican retaliation? Perhaps/Likely?
(2) Continuing Slavery. At the beginning of the US Civil War even the states that had emacipated their slaves all still had slaves due to gradual emancipation laws/grandfather clauses. We commonly think of border states having slaves, not northern states. Long ago having participated in a Slavery Readings Course, I learned that places like Maine and Connecticut all had some slaves. In the essay Thoreau calls on abolitionists to take prompt drastic action, and not just talk and print recriminations. Thoreau consistently calls the people to action. What I respect about Thoreau: He was a man of decisions and actions. What a man. What a human.
Extra Note. Guerilla Warfare can be a war of attrition as governments much expend military personnel, effort, and money to deflect and fight off guerillas. Guerilla Warfare did become an issue after Am Civil War. Maybe others will also recognize these names: John Hunt Morgan, William Quantrill, the James Brothers--Frank and Jesse, the Younger Brothers--Jim and Cole.
Thoreau is sane and percipient. He knows what he thinks and expresses himself well.
Some example ideas I am so in agreement with. (I won't give it all away.)
1. We need a better government, not another revolution.
2. We need to take action on our beliefs/ideals.
3. Even when inconvenient, we need to do right.
Thoreau does speak of morals. In another era, Thoreau might have spoken of doing the right thing, of living in one's own skin, of karma.
I am in agreement with these ideas and am glad to hear/read that someone else has had these ideas. The ideas seem ahead of their time, primarily because we do not have other commonly-known essays which express the same ideas during the same time. (If I mistaken, please let me know.)
That this essay remains pertinent so far to each US American generation which indicates that some of the underlying problems to the American Experiement are still around today. Scary Ideas: At time of publication (1849), these United States had already been in existence since June 21, 1788/for 61 years/for an entire 19thc lifetime yet some serious problems were hanging on.
(1) US-Mexican Border. By time time of publication the US-Mexican War ended (1846-1848), yet 1914 saw the last raid/border skirmish on King Ranch, about 2.25/2.50 hours away by car, seemingly deeper into Texas by horseback. When the US steals sovereign land, the US and its citizens and their businesses pay. Did Thoreau know to be concerned about the guerrilla threat of Mexican retaliation? Perhaps/Likely?
(2) Continuing Slavery. At the beginning of the US Civil War even the states that had emacipated their slaves all still had slaves due to gradual emancipation laws/grandfather clauses. We commonly think of border states having slaves, not northern states. Long ago having participated in a Slavery Readings Course, I learned that places like Maine and Connecticut all had some slaves. In the essay Thoreau calls on abolitionists to take prompt drastic action, and not just talk and print recriminations. Thoreau consistently calls the people to action. What I respect about Thoreau: He was a man of decisions and actions. What a man. What a human.
Extra Note. Guerilla Warfare can be a war of attrition as governments much expend military personnel, effort, and money to deflect and fight off guerillas. Guerilla Warfare did become an issue after Am Civil War. Maybe others will also recognize these names: John Hunt Morgan, William Quantrill, the James Brothers--Frank and Jesse, the Younger Brothers--Jim and Cole.
June 23, 2021
What matters most about Thoreau's essay is the complex relationship between text and action. The essay emerges from Thoreau's action, interprets that action, is read, and then turned back into action again by its readers. It mattered so much to the action of so many, Tolstoy, Gandhi, Martin Luther King,Jr., the African National Congress founder Trevor N. W. Bush, the Freedom Rider William Mahoney, a deliberately anonymous fighter in the Danish resistance etc. etc. among them. Ironically, judging by his diary, Henry David Thoreau seems on the face of it a man unlikely to have influenced all the people he obviously did influence. Civil Disobedience sounds individualist, secular, anarchist, elitist, and antidemocratic; but it has influenced persons of great religious devotion, leaders of collective campaigns, and members of resistance movements.
In the first two paragraphs of the essay, Thoreau argues derisively against government in general. He agrees with the motto, "That government is best which governs not at all," and claims that "when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government they will have." He portrays government as something comically weak, "a sort of wooden gun to the people themselves," an obstacle to enterprise and trade and commerce, and points out that what the USA has achieved is the result of the character of the American people, while the government only hinders those achievements.
But then Thoreau changes ground: "To speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no gov- ernment, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step towards obtaining it." By "no-government men" Thoreau means non-resistants, and here he emphasizes that he turns earnestly away from them. He is now a citizen, not an outlier. He acknowledges the possibility of a government that would command his respect; and he asks that citizens like himself to specify what that sort of government would be, and how the existing government falls short of it. He makes clear that citizens' demands on their government must be based not on the opposition between government and enterprise or between government and character, but on the opposition between government and conscience. "The mass of men serve the State . . . not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. ... A very few, as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men serve the State with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated by it as enemies. . . ." He also specifies how exactly the existing government fell short of his ideal: one sixth of this allegedly free country's population are slaves "and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army." Only when that government does away with slavery and stop waging unnecessary wars, it will command Thoreau's respect. He maintains this position untill the end of the first section of the essay. His resistance in this part of the essay is local rather than global. He is not saying that he separates himself from a state he does not recognize, and shall therefore pay it no tax; instead, he is saying, "I join myself as a citizen to a state I wish to improve, and shall therefore pay it no tax until, wishing to conciliate me, it does away with slavery and stops waging unjust wars."
Thus, Thoreau associates himself with resistence, instead of with non-resistance. This association, not the nonresistant rejection of government or coercion generally, is what has mattered to the activist leaders whom Thoreau has influenced. For instance, Martin Luther King took comfort in Thoreau's essay on the eve of the Montgomery bus boycott: "I remembered how, as a college student, I had been moved when I first read this work. I became convinced that what we were preparing to do in Montgomery was related to what Thoreau had expressed. We were simply saying to the white community, 'We can no longer lend our cooperation to an evil system.'"
Mohandas Gandhi's first important encounter with Thoreau's essay came in 1906, in South Africa; he was then fighting the "Black Act," which required Asians to register with the government and have their fingerprints recorded, as if they were criminals. What Gandhi got from Thoreau was his local resistance — "under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison." For non-resistants, anyone imprisoned is unjustly imprisoned; for Thoreau and Gandhi, the crucial distinction is precisely that be- tween just imprisonment and unjust. Gandhi was imprisoned for refusing to register, left prison when the government agreed to make registration for Indians voluntary, and returned to prison for burning registration certificates when the government failed to abide by its agreement.
Thoreau spent the night in prison by accident; a veiled woman brought the money to pay his tax the evening of his arrest, but the jailer had already taken his boots off and said that he wasn't going to put them back on. Thoreau in the essay, though, makes his imprisonment a moral necessity ("Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for ajust man is also a prison.") He portrays prison as a place of vision, from which it is possible to see social truths ordinarily hidden. Thoreau in the essay links his imprisonment to his voluntary poverty: "I have contemplated the imprisonment of the offender, rather than the seizure of his goods, — though both will serve the same purpose, — because they who assert the purest right, and consequently are most dangerous to a corrupt State, commonly have not spent much time in accumulating property." And that link is important. Tax resisters often sought only to pay money into non-military funds, and sometimes the government punished them only by fining them, its goal after all being chiefly to raise money. Thoreau contributes to a different image of the dissident: not the revolutionary but the ascetic, whose political action is in accord with what we would now call his or her lifestyle.
One can pay the tax and support the state, or refuse the tax and defy the state. Thoreau's civil disobedience is the choice he makes when he has no choice but to act; it is not only action, but necessary action, unwilling action. The tax collector comes to the door, and Thoreau has to choose whether to pay. What he does has much in common with what Rosa Parks did in 1955, when she refused to give up her seat to a white bus rider in Montgomery, Alabama. Rosa Parks committed civil disobedience without going a single step out of her way; in fact, she committed it precisely by trying to proceed along her way, trying not to be arrested but simply to go home.
Interestingly, Thoreau does not associate his action with a position on violence. Tolstoy, Gandhi, and King have of course associated Thoreau's essay with a rejection of violence. Thoreau speaks of a "peaceable revolution" and brilliantly describes an action of non-violence. Moreover, his need to leave room in his life for "other concerns" attracts him to certain nonviolent actions due to their simplicity. But nonviolence is not a first principle for him; it is at most a practical preference. The essay takes almost no position on the matter. Thoreau criticizes the Mexican War not as a war but as an unjust war; he criticizes not prisons, but unjust imprisonments. He says that if we are cheated "out of a single dollar by [our] neighbor . . . [we] take effectual steps at once to obtain the full amount, and see that [we] are never cheated again", and he does not underscore that the effectual steps be nonresistant ones. In the one passage that considers that matter explicitly, he accepts the possibility of violence: "When the subject has refused allegiance, and the officer has resigned his office, then the revolution is accomplished. But even suppose blood should flow. Is there not a sort of blood shed when the conscience is wounded? Through this wound a man’s real manhood and immortality flow out, and he bleeds to an everlasting death. I see this blood flowing now."
Thoreau does not make clear whether the blood that might flow belongs to resisters or slaveholders. What is clear is that Thoreau is willing to have someone's real blood flow, because, in his view, metaphorical blood is flowing already.
Overall, however, it is obvious that Thoreau painstakingly sorted through all of the courses of action available to him, rejecting what he could not use and holding fast to what was good. What has made the essay capable of exerting so great an influence is not only the severity of its ideal but also its concreteness and unapologetic pragmatism.
In the first two paragraphs of the essay, Thoreau argues derisively against government in general. He agrees with the motto, "That government is best which governs not at all," and claims that "when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government they will have." He portrays government as something comically weak, "a sort of wooden gun to the people themselves," an obstacle to enterprise and trade and commerce, and points out that what the USA has achieved is the result of the character of the American people, while the government only hinders those achievements.
But then Thoreau changes ground: "To speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no gov- ernment, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step towards obtaining it." By "no-government men" Thoreau means non-resistants, and here he emphasizes that he turns earnestly away from them. He is now a citizen, not an outlier. He acknowledges the possibility of a government that would command his respect; and he asks that citizens like himself to specify what that sort of government would be, and how the existing government falls short of it. He makes clear that citizens' demands on their government must be based not on the opposition between government and enterprise or between government and character, but on the opposition between government and conscience. "The mass of men serve the State . . . not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. ... A very few, as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men serve the State with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated by it as enemies. . . ." He also specifies how exactly the existing government fell short of his ideal: one sixth of this allegedly free country's population are slaves "and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army." Only when that government does away with slavery and stop waging unnecessary wars, it will command Thoreau's respect. He maintains this position untill the end of the first section of the essay. His resistance in this part of the essay is local rather than global. He is not saying that he separates himself from a state he does not recognize, and shall therefore pay it no tax; instead, he is saying, "I join myself as a citizen to a state I wish to improve, and shall therefore pay it no tax until, wishing to conciliate me, it does away with slavery and stops waging unjust wars."
Thus, Thoreau associates himself with resistence, instead of with non-resistance. This association, not the nonresistant rejection of government or coercion generally, is what has mattered to the activist leaders whom Thoreau has influenced. For instance, Martin Luther King took comfort in Thoreau's essay on the eve of the Montgomery bus boycott: "I remembered how, as a college student, I had been moved when I first read this work. I became convinced that what we were preparing to do in Montgomery was related to what Thoreau had expressed. We were simply saying to the white community, 'We can no longer lend our cooperation to an evil system.'"
Mohandas Gandhi's first important encounter with Thoreau's essay came in 1906, in South Africa; he was then fighting the "Black Act," which required Asians to register with the government and have their fingerprints recorded, as if they were criminals. What Gandhi got from Thoreau was his local resistance — "under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison." For non-resistants, anyone imprisoned is unjustly imprisoned; for Thoreau and Gandhi, the crucial distinction is precisely that be- tween just imprisonment and unjust. Gandhi was imprisoned for refusing to register, left prison when the government agreed to make registration for Indians voluntary, and returned to prison for burning registration certificates when the government failed to abide by its agreement.
Thoreau spent the night in prison by accident; a veiled woman brought the money to pay his tax the evening of his arrest, but the jailer had already taken his boots off and said that he wasn't going to put them back on. Thoreau in the essay, though, makes his imprisonment a moral necessity ("Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for ajust man is also a prison.") He portrays prison as a place of vision, from which it is possible to see social truths ordinarily hidden. Thoreau in the essay links his imprisonment to his voluntary poverty: "I have contemplated the imprisonment of the offender, rather than the seizure of his goods, — though both will serve the same purpose, — because they who assert the purest right, and consequently are most dangerous to a corrupt State, commonly have not spent much time in accumulating property." And that link is important. Tax resisters often sought only to pay money into non-military funds, and sometimes the government punished them only by fining them, its goal after all being chiefly to raise money. Thoreau contributes to a different image of the dissident: not the revolutionary but the ascetic, whose political action is in accord with what we would now call his or her lifestyle.
One can pay the tax and support the state, or refuse the tax and defy the state. Thoreau's civil disobedience is the choice he makes when he has no choice but to act; it is not only action, but necessary action, unwilling action. The tax collector comes to the door, and Thoreau has to choose whether to pay. What he does has much in common with what Rosa Parks did in 1955, when she refused to give up her seat to a white bus rider in Montgomery, Alabama. Rosa Parks committed civil disobedience without going a single step out of her way; in fact, she committed it precisely by trying to proceed along her way, trying not to be arrested but simply to go home.
Interestingly, Thoreau does not associate his action with a position on violence. Tolstoy, Gandhi, and King have of course associated Thoreau's essay with a rejection of violence. Thoreau speaks of a "peaceable revolution" and brilliantly describes an action of non-violence. Moreover, his need to leave room in his life for "other concerns" attracts him to certain nonviolent actions due to their simplicity. But nonviolence is not a first principle for him; it is at most a practical preference. The essay takes almost no position on the matter. Thoreau criticizes the Mexican War not as a war but as an unjust war; he criticizes not prisons, but unjust imprisonments. He says that if we are cheated "out of a single dollar by [our] neighbor . . . [we] take effectual steps at once to obtain the full amount, and see that [we] are never cheated again", and he does not underscore that the effectual steps be nonresistant ones. In the one passage that considers that matter explicitly, he accepts the possibility of violence: "When the subject has refused allegiance, and the officer has resigned his office, then the revolution is accomplished. But even suppose blood should flow. Is there not a sort of blood shed when the conscience is wounded? Through this wound a man’s real manhood and immortality flow out, and he bleeds to an everlasting death. I see this blood flowing now."
Thoreau does not make clear whether the blood that might flow belongs to resisters or slaveholders. What is clear is that Thoreau is willing to have someone's real blood flow, because, in his view, metaphorical blood is flowing already.
Overall, however, it is obvious that Thoreau painstakingly sorted through all of the courses of action available to him, rejecting what he could not use and holding fast to what was good. What has made the essay capable of exerting so great an influence is not only the severity of its ideal but also its concreteness and unapologetic pragmatism.
February 18, 2017
I'm not really sure how to review this. Something to come tomorrow maybe after I think about it for a bit.
August 25, 2024
C’est de ces textes que peu importe ce que l’on en pense, chaque ligne nous donne une nouvelle perspective. J’avais déjà lu des extraits en cours, mais c’était la première fois où je le lisais en entier attentivement. Le discours sur la justice et la règle de la majorité sont selon moi les plus porteurs dans le paysage politique actuel (et les plus pertinents). Toutefois, en fin de parcours, j’ai trouvé que l’anarchisme de Thoreau étant centré sur l’individu, il passe par dessus la capacité à s’y adonner réellement en raison des conditions de vie matérielles de chacun. Selon moi, c’est aussi là que se trouve le noeud anarchiste si souvent reproché (« c’est irréaliste »). Suivant les origines de Thoreau, ce n’est pas non plus étonnant qu’il réfléchisse sa politique idéale selon ce principe central de l’individu (étant un bourgeois blanc, homme éduqué, etc.). Je me trouve toutefois dans la situation d’appréciation de cette constatation étant donné qu’il donne l’occasion de réfléchir à comment l’anarchisme serait meilleur s’il était pensé autour d’une éthique du care, de l’interdépendance, de la réciprocité, de la collectivité. Ou plutôt : avec le respect de la communauté comme unité politique centrale plutôt que de l’individu (et comprendre communauté au sens d’être-ensemble plutôt que de somme d’individus, notion qui se sépare donc de celle de majorité)
Dans un autre ordre d’idées, la désobéissance civile offre plusieurs leviers politiques fertiles dans la manière de mener les luttes. J’y vois que mener la lutte, c’est déjà créer l’idéal. C’est un texte auquel je pourrai difficilement éviter de me référer dans le futur tellement je le trouve fertile et à propos au sens de moteur intellectuel plutôt que de perfection. À lire absolument
Dans un autre ordre d’idées, la désobéissance civile offre plusieurs leviers politiques fertiles dans la manière de mener les luttes. J’y vois que mener la lutte, c’est déjà créer l’idéal. C’est un texte auquel je pourrai difficilement éviter de me référer dans le futur tellement je le trouve fertile et à propos au sens de moteur intellectuel plutôt que de perfection. À lire absolument
January 23, 2020
بهترین دولت، دولتی است که کمترین فرمان را صادر کند.
.
.
.
بهترین حاکمیت، حاکمیتی است که اصلا حکومت نکند.
.
.
.
فکر می کنم که قبل از هر چیز می باید انسان بمانیم و پس از آن شهروند.خردمندانه نیست که به قانون همان احترامی را بگذاریم که به حقیقت و راستی.
.
.
.
بر فراز گوری که دلاور مان مدفون اش بود،
نه صدای طبلی، نه کلامی بر سر خاک،
نه سربازی و نه شلیکی به حرمت آخرین وداع،
گاهی که افزار و یراق اش را تندانه به پای دیوارهای قلعه میرساندیم.
.
.
.
تمامی جریان انتخابات نوعی بازی است مثل تخته نرد و دوز بازی، با قدری رنگ و بوی اخلاقی، بازی ای با راستی و ناراستی، بازی ای با معضلات اخلاقی و شرط بندی هایی که معمولاً به دنبال دارد.
.
.
.
ظاهراً جمعیت، رشد بسیار زیادی داشته است، اما چند نفر انسان واقعی در یک هزار مایل مربع این کشور وجود دارد؟
.
.
.
آنانی که در عین مخالفت بودن با خصوصیات و اقدامات یک دولت، وفاداری و حمایت خود را تقدیمش می کنند، بی شک هشیار ترین حامیان آن هستند، و به همین نسبت جدی ترین موانع اصلاحات اند.
.
.
.
در سرزمینی که حاکمیت انسانها را ستمگرانه به زندان
میاندازد، طبیعی است که جای راستین انسان منصف هم در زندان باشد.
.
.
.
اگر حکومت بر سر دوراهی بازداشت همه انسان های اهل انصاف در زندان یا ترک جنگ و برده داری قرار گیرد در مورد انتخاب خود تردید نخواهد کرد.یعنی همه را به زندان می اندازد.
__________________________________________
.
.
.
بهترین حاکمیت، حاکمیتی است که اصلا حکومت نکند.
.
.
.
فکر می کنم که قبل از هر چیز می باید انسان بمانیم و پس از آن شهروند.خردمندانه نیست که به قانون همان احترامی را بگذاریم که به حقیقت و راستی.
.
.
.
بر فراز گوری که دلاور مان مدفون اش بود،
نه صدای طبلی، نه کلامی بر سر خاک،
نه سربازی و نه شلیکی به حرمت آخرین وداع،
گاهی که افزار و یراق اش را تندانه به پای دیوارهای قلعه میرساندیم.
.
.
.
تمامی جریان انتخابات نوعی بازی است مثل تخته نرد و دوز بازی، با قدری رنگ و بوی اخلاقی، بازی ای با راستی و ناراستی، بازی ای با معضلات اخلاقی و شرط بندی هایی که معمولاً به دنبال دارد.
.
.
.
ظاهراً جمعیت، رشد بسیار زیادی داشته است، اما چند نفر انسان واقعی در یک هزار مایل مربع این کشور وجود دارد؟
.
.
.
آنانی که در عین مخالفت بودن با خصوصیات و اقدامات یک دولت، وفاداری و حمایت خود را تقدیمش می کنند، بی شک هشیار ترین حامیان آن هستند، و به همین نسبت جدی ترین موانع اصلاحات اند.
.
.
.
در سرزمینی که حاکمیت انسانها را ستمگرانه به زندان
میاندازد، طبیعی است که جای راستین انسان منصف هم در زندان باشد.
.
.
.
اگر حکومت بر سر دوراهی بازداشت همه انسان های اهل انصاف در زندان یا ترک جنگ و برده داری قرار گیرد در مورد انتخاب خود تردید نخواهد کرد.یعنی همه را به زندان می اندازد.
__________________________________________
September 25, 2019
I read this as an undergraduate. I am adding it to my list now because I just saw another GR friend's review and thought I should speak up.
ON THE DUTY OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE is Thoreau's seminal work. It is more important than ON WALDEN POND arguably and, therefore, is a must read. Reading it will take you only a few hours and you will be glad that you did.
ON THE DUTY OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE is Thoreau's seminal work. It is more important than ON WALDEN POND arguably and, therefore, is a must read. Reading it will take you only a few hours and you will be glad that you did.
November 18, 2019
3.25|5
• Book Riot’s 2019 Read Harder Challenge - 20. A book written in prison •
• Book Riot’s 2019 Read Harder Challenge - 20. A book written in prison •
April 17, 2015
I might have liked this book ten years ago. Now it's just too basic. The ideas represented here seem so obvious, if of course, you believe what Thoreau says is the right way to do things. I don't believe his theory of individual civil disobedience would actually work in today's world.
What is more is that the book is written in such a dry manner that it almost takes all the joy out of reading it.
I'll never understand how this book got so many 5 star reviews.
What is more is that the book is written in such a dry manner that it almost takes all the joy out of reading it.
I'll never understand how this book got so many 5 star reviews.
December 5, 2020
Εντυπωσιακά λιτός και απέριττος ο αμερικάνος υπερβατιστής, τοποθετείται πάνω στην ατομική ελευθερία και την σημασία της, παραμένοντας πάντα επίκαιρος.
Ένα μικρό δοκίμιο από τον άτυπο πατέρα της οικολογίας πάνω στο civil movement που πρέπει να διαβαστεί από κάθε σκεπτόμενο άνθρωπο.
Ένα μικρό δοκίμιο από τον άτυπο πατέρα της οικολογίας πάνω στο civil movement που πρέπει να διαβαστεί από κάθε σκεπτόμενο άνθρωπο.
October 22, 2025
آمارهای ما در اشتباهند: ظاهرا جمعيت رشد بسيار زیادی داشته است اما چند نفر انسان واقعی دریک هزار مایل مربع این کشور وجود دارد؟ به سختی می توان گفت یک نفر.
شاهکاری از هنری دیود ثورو که واقعا بند بندش مبهوتم کرد
شرم بر من که اسم چنین بزرگ مردی رو باید اتفاقی تو یکی از کتابا بشنوم
چی بود این نافرمانی مدنی
"راستی و درستیِ مطلق، تنها حقيقتی است که مصلحت همگان است. انسان در برابر حکومتی که بیعدالتی را رسميت میبخشد، مسئول و متعهد نيست. وجدان، برتر از مصلحتِ قانون و حکومتِ اکثریت است."
شاهکاری از هنری دیود ثورو که واقعا بند بندش مبهوتم کرد
شرم بر من که اسم چنین بزرگ مردی رو باید اتفاقی تو یکی از کتابا بشنوم
چی بود این نافرمانی مدنی
"راستی و درستیِ مطلق، تنها حقيقتی است که مصلحت همگان است. انسان در برابر حکومتی که بیعدالتی را رسميت میبخشد، مسئول و متعهد نيست. وجدان، برتر از مصلحتِ قانون و حکومتِ اکثریت است."
February 13, 2013
Five stars for the importance of the topic Thoreau discusses; one star because his answer is absurdly wrong (and simplistic).
I know that this is supposed to be a classic, and even Gandhi cited it as inspiration. My opinion is, unfortunately, quite different. Civil Disobedience amounts to a tract in favor of anarchism. Some choice quotes...
Beyond the high-flying rhetoric, let's look at his more reasoned argument.
Who decides what is just? Each man for himself? Actually he answered this question directly shortly after it occurred to me (I will give him kudos for clarity of presentation).
I have yet to meet the first man who did NOT think he was more right than his neighbors, so this is a prescription for all-out anarchy. Every act of the republic is subject to veto by every single citizen. Thoreau thought war and slavery were both unjust. OK, so what about the Civil War then?
And then of course the most absurd claim of all.
Well, you should not like it, but it's true nonetheless. It's all well and good to live in the woods with nobody about to bother you, but what about your less wealthy neighbors who live in a city and need the police? And talk about a free-rider entitlement mentality. What about the army and navy that protect your right to voice your ridiculous opinion? Use any public roads to visit your friends in Boston? Mail a letter? Etc etc etc.
Must be nice to be a trust fund baby, and not work unless you want to, and even when you are working it's because your buddy Emerson (who was not an anarchist and actually held a real job) was able to throw some work in your direction as an act of charity.
I know that this is supposed to be a classic, and even Gandhi cited it as inspiration. My opinion is, unfortunately, quite different. Civil Disobedience amounts to a tract in favor of anarchism. Some choice quotes...
That government is best which governs not at all.
[The state's] very Constitution is the evil.
Beyond the high-flying rhetoric, let's look at his more reasoned argument.
If [an act of government] is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.
A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight. If the alternative is to keep all just men in prison, or give up war and slavery, the State will not hesitate which to choose.
Who decides what is just? Each man for himself? Actually he answered this question directly shortly after it occurred to me (I will give him kudos for clarity of presentation).
[A]ny man more right than his neighbors, constitutes a majority of one already.
I have yet to meet the first man who did NOT think he was more right than his neighbors, so this is a prescription for all-out anarchy. Every act of the republic is subject to veto by every single citizen. Thoreau thought war and slavery were both unjust. OK, so what about the Civil War then?
And then of course the most absurd claim of all.
I should not like to think that I ever rely on the protection of the State.
Well, you should not like it, but it's true nonetheless. It's all well and good to live in the woods with nobody about to bother you, but what about your less wealthy neighbors who live in a city and need the police? And talk about a free-rider entitlement mentality. What about the army and navy that protect your right to voice your ridiculous opinion? Use any public roads to visit your friends in Boston? Mail a letter? Etc etc etc.
Must be nice to be a trust fund baby, and not work unless you want to, and even when you are working it's because your buddy Emerson (who was not an anarchist and actually held a real job) was able to throw some work in your direction as an act of charity.
December 29, 2018
"Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?"
Even at the known risk of getting branded as a boring old uncle, I must admit into finding Thoreau's venerated essay fascinatingly metal. I was introduced into this magnum opus by Gandhi ,who during his non-violence movement, has undoubtedly elevated the duty of Civil Disobedience from individual consciousness to the ethics of a collective. (also freely available on internet).
In this essay, Thoreau severely criticizes political passivism, and those who escape under the argument of not knowing what to do. Then followed portions I wasn’t able to completely comprehend except for the seemingly subtle yet lurid difference between what is right by law and what is just. Though the most obvious and convenient illustration to understand Civil Disobedient argument would be the recent Trump government, I urge readers to hyphenate the philosophy with one’s personal, more accessible demurs.
A weak historic background might look something like this- Then president of United States was a demogauge(not demogorgon), and Thoreau belonged to the meager minority, who were morally troubled by the Government policies on slavery and Mexican war. So when asked, fractiously he refuses to pay State tax, as, according to him, giving allegiance to an invading war waging State is against his consciousness. Anyway, Tax was as certain as death even then, as it is now, and Thoreau was put behind bars for withholding the same. Well, he continued being metal by welcoming the jail - ‘Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison’, and writing a whole essay in that direction. Thoreau was really thorough with his ideas, pun well intended.
I am heavily under resourced to review this, but what amuses me is the relevance of this essay today as well as the course of history it has been preserved along. It is highly difficult to register your opinion these days without being branded into the prejudiced categories everyone seems so eager to fit in.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,431 reviews