create new account | forgot password

Civil Disobedience
posted by jenni on August 24th, 2012 at 3:48PM

First let me say how much I dislike double negatives and the articulation of the 1800's. It is much to poetic for my tastes.

I have a teacher who told me once that sometimes you can hear something a thousand times but it will take 1001 repetitions to make it sink in to your thoughts, but when it does it becomes so simple that you can't understand why it did not sink in before. There were a few comments that did just that for me in this essay. At first, with most of these types of situations, I feel embarrassed that it never absorbed itself into my brain, then I realize one must not feel disconcerted, one should feel proud that they finally do understand.  

"The soldier is applauded who refuses to serve in an unjust war by those who do not refuse to sustain the unjust government which makes the war;"

Duh. Yet I read and reread this over and over thinking how unprincipled we really are as a people. His rhetoric throughout the essay about the need to be principled defines the common 'evil' amongst us. But we mustn't be principled only to benefit ourselves and ideologies we should acknowledge the masses and the fact that 'no man is an island.' Thinking of society as a machine dehumanizes others. I think this is (one of the many) an aspect of today's governments gone wrong.

So basically I have been contemplating about what needs to be done to become a conscious individual and how can I start writing essays that will make others feel the same way.
Link | Parent


 
 

posted by dennisn on August 25th, 2012 at 12:45AM

I also found the essay tediously poetic. Fortunately, it was well worth the effort to decipher.

I don't think people are necessarily unprincipled to simultaneously applaud the conscientious defecting soldier, and the government. One of the clever tricks of government is to diffuse responsibility for anything. Nobody is held accountable for anything. So, it is never the State's fault as a whole -- never the system's fault -- but rather the ruling party. For example, it is not uncommon for people today to applaud such soldiers AND support the other parties in government. I mean, technically they are being unprincipled, of course -- but a better way to describe such people is naive/ignorant. Because they do kinda subscribe to the principles of non-violence and moral fortitude. They just haven't thought things through enough. They haven't learned enough.

He never suggests that principles should only benefit the individual. Heck, he was persecuted for his principles, for the sake of others -- for the slaves.

The way governments think of their slaves, whether it is ostensibly dehumanizing or ennobling, is irrelevant. The only question worth discussing is whether it violently imposes it's will on unwilling people or not. What you need to do to become a conscientious individual, is to understand that fully :). You will probably hardly ever make others feel the same way though, via essays or otherwise. Only incredibly large dedicated doses of time energy and love may offer that possibility.