I definitely think it is your choice to rebel or not. If you don't believe in something or you think something is wrong, it should be your choice to go against it or not.
I think that it is partially your obligation so you do not lose your rights and you stand up for what you believe in, but there also needs to be boundaries when you rebel.
I sort of agree with Thoreau and his ideas. I think that you should rebel at times, but for some things there is some due respect that you need to give people and follow their authority.
I was wondering what time this was supposed to be in because at the top of the paper it says it is 1999, but he seems to be talking like it is a much earlier time.
I agree with Thoreau that it's our obligation to disobey an immoral rule. If no one broke rules, they wouldn't be changed. Rosa Parks is a good example of this, when she refused to give up her seat she sparked a campaign to abolish Jim Crow laws.
I don't think it is our obligation to disobey immoral rules, but I think we need to be prepared for that rule when it is inforced. I beleive people have the right to challenge, and they should, but they have no obligation.
I agree with Jordan. People need to have the choice to rebel, because if rebelling is forbidden then people will want to rebel more...does that make sense?
I also think that people need to be carefull about when and how they rebel, because many extremist methods do more damage than they prevent.
Jordan: I agree standing up for what you believe in can be hard and sometimes isn't always the best thing to do. The choices you make and what you choose to do to rebel and have a huge impact on your life. For example if you are imprisoned. I think to you rebel it has to be somewhat planned and have a strong argument in order for you to do any justice to your cause.
I agree with Madison that if you have an issue with a rule, than you should try and make it better. At the same time, you should respect the authority. If you don't respect authority, then when there is a rule that truly needs to be remedied, then the government won't respect your needs.
Responding to Ms. Leclaire's prompt to the inner circle, I disagree with Thoreau's belief that it is our duty to disobey whatever governing body is influencing. He always portrays authority as a negitive force, and I think he fails to take into account the underlying purpose of government: to preserve happiness. Now I know that the previous can be debated and twisted, and power is certainly a motive behind governemnt, but essentially, government is there to preserve happiness. An existance filled with rebellion and chaos (and freedom as well) is not necessarily a happy one.
In paragraph 16 it talks about how laws are unjust but he also talks about how we need to obey laws as well. It is almost like he is battling between rebeling and obeying, and he is also asking the readers to consider both sides.
With what Kenna just said...I agree with what she is saying. I think that Thoreau is correct in saying that everyone should do what they believe is right and wrong. Unfortunately, many, many people completely lack a moral compass. If it weren't for evil, and sin nature, Thoreau would be completely right. Pity about that human nature.
This is kinda what I talked about in my ALIS essay. I read the books Anthem and Cat's Cradle which were both books about social protest. I think that rebellion is necessary in civilizations so that there's a balance. If everyone was perfect all the time, I think people would go crazy.
I agree with you, Kari. The governemt is there for a reason, to protect the people and for them to have a happy life. As a citizen, you have to respect that obligation. If there isn't a government, then the world would fall apart, thus the need for it.
I agree, I definitely think that there is a right time and a wrong time to rebel, and there is a part of everyone that wants to rebel. However, there is a line between rebelling- and then not accepting the blame or punishment, and rebelling- and then taking responsibility of your actions and accepting the consequences. That is where individuals differentiate, because some people choose to fight it until the end, where on the contrary, others are completely willing to accept their consequences.
That makes you think about the bigger picture of the government and is it fulfilling the purpose it was set up to obtain. Are they bringing happiness? Really, happiness is different from person to person, so for one person they could be happy, and like Thoreau, not so much. It's not the government's fault though necessarily then, it's just the outcomes of life.
Lane- I think if everyone did what they felt was moral would cause problems within a society. I think the government sets laws in place that tell us what is wrong and right, and it keeps society together in some ways. So, my question is if the government creates specific laws meant for protecting their citizens, is it a citizens obligation to disobey those laws if they don't think they are moral?
I think that people are personally responsible for working to effect change in their world, but I think it shouldn't come to the point where people actively need to disband and/or protest their governemnt. I think people should take a more proactive approach in influncing their government: people need to not allow a possible tyrannous governemnt to rise to power.
Along with what Megan is saying, there are 2 sides to every arguement. There are pros and cons to everything and there are always going to be people agreeing and disagreeing with every argument. As a whole, we will never totally agree with anything. People negotiate and therefore both sides are represented, but there will never be a total agreement among people.
I agree with Chelsea. Humans think different things are right and wrong, and it is their right to decide what is so crucial that it needs to be challenged.
If no one ever respected authority, in the long run nothing would be accomplished. If you rebel against everything you don't agree with then it can be seen as selfish. You have to compromise to get things achieved.
The right time to rebel is when you feel like something is morally wrong and that this desicion is bad in all shapes and forms. That is when you have to take a stand and make things just.
I think that brings up the very essence of the debate over Thoreau. What is true happiness? Is it absolute freedom or is it security and order? I think society today is really struggling with this conflict.
I agree with Kayla, but I also think that the little things may add up, and one may choose to rebel even if the timing isn't right. I don't really think there is a "right time" to rebel, it is the individuals decision to rebel in the first place, so they should choose the time they wish to rebel, as well.
Hannah, I firmly believe that if the Government is not corrupt then that wouldn't be a problem. This whole thing comes down, once again, to sin nature. Also, if a law meant to protect people, goes against your morals, there is a very good chance that your moral compass is very far off North. If neither of those is true, then yes, it is your obligation to do what you feel is right.
Laura- I agree that people cannot function under anarchy, but I think that if the government steps out of line, the people must challenge them to protect their freedom. For example, if the government does not allow free speech, controls the media, holds a secret police, and sabotages elections, the people have a right to realize that the goverment is taking away their freedoms and must be stopped.
I agree with Kayla: It is right to rebel when a law or tradition or situation etc is not only against your moral beliefs but others as well. If as a majority it is unliked then something should be done to change that to encompass all those involved.
This story was exactly what my Website was about jimmym07americanlit.wikispaces.com
go to personal philosophy, anyway... without the people rebelling no progress would be made. think about every war, think about how America started, heck think about star wars. Every major event was due to some sort of rebellion. I just thought, what about the mitten factory game last year in history
Hey guys, I'm just gonna post some stuff because I felt I wasn't able to during todays discussion but here just my thoughts reading through this blog...
I agree with blair and others that people need to respect authority to some degree. The purpose of a government is to maintain control and like kari said, preserve happiness. I think you need government to maintain stability. So on that level I disagree with Thoreau. However, I also believe in rebelling because of somthing being immoral. To rebel against something that is immoral, I believe could improve the government. But what is moral and imoral is completely different to different people. I'm still torn between when is the right TIME to rebel against somthing and when is it necessary. I know what I believe in, and I know what I would fight for, but it could be completely different to other people.
Something that keeps popping into my head is the KKK. Think about it, those people genuienly believed that whites where the superior race. And they clearly rebelled when laws were passed giving blacks and other groups more rights. Hitler and the Nazis too. Were they right to rebel? Because in their prospective, their way of handling things fits Thoreu's thoughts, "The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think is right". I completely dissagree with what these two groups did, but it still is what THEY felt was right. These are the types of things that hold me back from agreeing with Thoreau.
The whole question of do I agree or dissagree with Thoreau just confuses me.
These are just some of the things I was thinking about.
I think that rebellion is dificult because there are definitely some rules that shouldn not be put into place, some that are not fair, some that are completely unjust, but it is so much easier to follow majority of the laws and like Kari sad to quietly fight back, not openly.
I think it is more effective to rebel within the confines of society because if you are outside of it how are you going to influence society. You have to be in it and not of it to influence the best. People notice actions, they speak loud.
I think the best form of rebellion is when people organize themselves and work together to catch the attention of the group they are rebelling against.
Kenna, I definitely agree with you, but if everyone thought that, there would still be controversy because everyone has different opinions about what they thing are fair or just rules and regulations.
The most effective form of rebellion is outside rebellion. It is easist to see the flaws of soceity when you are not part of the problem, because you can see the flaws and where the problem starts, and you relize the problem sooner. But, hindsight is 20/20, and you never really can tell if there is a problem in society untill it might be too late, like what happened during WWII.
I think the most effective kind of rebellion is any kind that works! Hahaha.
Heck, I would go to the woods for a bit, maybe til Christmas. Sometimes you just need a break, just you and the air, to clear out the corners of your mind.
Chels-- I agree because you have to have rules to break in order to rebel, someone has to be the source of setting up these rules you don't agree with.
I agree with Chelsea because you can't truly rebel when you are outside of society. Also, what kind of actions speak louder than words? Are the use of actions the better way to rebel?
I think it is most effective to rebel within society, because whatever action is taken directly affects society, and forces them to attend to the rebellion. I think when someone rebels outside of society, they are operating on a more personal level.
I think that fighting with weapons or force is a successful way to rebel, but I believe that the form of rebellion that Thoreau describes in civil disobedience achieves the same goal and leaves a more lasting effect. I think that civil disobedience or rebellion within the confines of a society are possibly even more powerful and can reduce physical violence.
meghan, but if no one notices that you are rebelling is it affecting anyone but yourself. I don't believe it's a rebellion if it's more of a comfirmation for yourself.
Kari, I related your last post to one of the philosophy statements we discussed earlier this semester. I thought of Is it human nature to obey? and thought that what you were saying about it being easier to go along with things you do not agree with rather than rebelling against it directly relates to this. And this brings up the idea of whether it really is easier for people to go along with ideas they do not believe in, or if it is easier to rebell against it because their beliefs are stronger than their willingness to obey. Which is stronger? The feeling of obligation to obey? or the feeling of rebelling in order to protect your beliefs?
If one is going to rebel against anything, then there are NO LIMITS. If one is going to try and disobey the law(s), then why would they try to obey the law(s) of rebellion?
What is it that people fear to not stand up for what they believe in or like Ms. Kakos said not even willing to walk out of school by yourself? Where does this fear originate?
This reminds me of the difference in rebellion between MLK and Malcolm X. I think that in the end, to achieve their ultimate goal, America needed both men and their styles of rebellion. But I also believe that MLK's rebellion was more powerful in the end.
Jimmy-- I don't think you can really fight back without really fighting back. I think that there are some things that have to be done physically because as we all know actions speak louder than words.
Jimmy, i personally think that it is rebellion even if people dont know that you are rebelling. the best way to make a point is to enforce a change, and sometimes, the only way to do it is to do it secretl, and this reminds me of Harriet Tubman. She definitely fought against slavery, but she did not use speeches and words that didnt make a difference at that time, but she actually freed slaves and brought about change. That is still rebellion even though she did it in secret.
Madison-- I would for sure say that it is so much more difficult to sit back and watch things you disagree with than to fight back. There are some things that we do need to fight against, but I think the obligation to obey the law is also ours as is disobeying it.
Brian, is fighting with weapons still "civil disobedience?" What do you consider civil disobedience, and where is the line that crosses into war and violence and upright rebellion?
Chelsea- I think that there are several reasons why people are afraid to rebel alone, but I think a large part of this fear is how society works. As children, we are raised to behave in a certain way, and for the most part, we do. Breaking free of those behavioral expectations can be very difficult because those laws tell us what we can and cannot do. Also, I think standing alone is terrifying to many people, because it makes them question whether they are truly right in rebelling.
Blair, your comment caught my attention! and Meghan, I do think that fear is more powerful. Love is often driven by fear, you love something that is vulnerable and that you are subject to lose. Fear influences every decision, and therefore, can serve as the most powerful way of influencing people.
Hannah and Chelsea: I think that there are many reasons that people are afraid to rebel, as well. But I also think that one of the main reasons is because they don't want to stand out in the crowd, or break conformity and draw attention to themselves. This displays exactly the opposite of what Thoreau was trying to do.
Meghan- I disagree with the idea that love is the mos effective form of love. Ruling a society with love may be the kindest and most desireable way to rule, but I think fear is more effective. Love is powerful, but I think fear is equally, if not more powerful. People fear death and pain, and will betray the ones they love in order to evade them both. Governments that rule by fear may not always be successful in the long run, but while they are strong, the people are defensless unless they find it in themselves to object.
Zach- I think that when one person rebels it could be just as effective as when many people do. Like in the example of leaving school at 2:13, When just one person gets up and leaves, it shows a message to the rest of the class. When a whole class leaves, it is possible that no one else would see what they were doing.
Love is the most effectivew way to rule, but is also the most unrealistic. What dictator rules his country through love? It is always through fear. Love gives the people peace and hope and a fondness for the government, but it also makes the people more comfortable with the idea of voicing their opinions, and most rulers dont want themselves to lose power, and fear casts uncertainity and suspicion, which, sadly, keeps the people quiet, which is why fear is more widely used. I wish it were love, and so does Thoreau.
Meghan, more on what I was saying: You love things that you know you are lucky to have. You know you are lucky to have them because you know you could lose them. This instills a fear of losing the thing or person you love. This fear causes you to appreciate what you have even more. Without that fear, most everything would be taken for granted.
Meghan- I think that love is way more effective, because love goes two ways, you have both parties who feel affection towards the other, so they are way more willing to comply and compromise,
However with fear,there is always the element of resistance, it's one party forcing something onto the other, so the scared party is way less willing to comply. Does that make sense?
meghan, if you quietly rebel what does this involve. does it involve not doing anything besides gathering signatures or sitting in your house saying I don't like this law ha, take that government.
Very interesting observation of how fear can drive love ;)
Does anyone else feel TRAPPED sometimes? That's why I'd build a snowman. I think there's too much out there that is pressing down on everyone. There's test and finals and next semester and college and sometimes it's all so much that one can't breath or can't think or can't even handle it anymore!
Shannon I agree with you when you say that love is the most effective way, but also the most unrealistic. This also relates back to Thoreau and rebellion. There are always going to be people that chose to rebel, and I wonder if there would be either more rebellion or less rebellion?
Very interesting observation of how fear can drive love ;)
Does anyone else feel TRAPPED sometimes? That's why I'd build a snowman. I think there's too much out there that is pressing down on everyone. There's test and finals and next semester and college and sometimes it's all so much that one can't breath or can't think or can't even handle it anymore!
meghan, wow i just seem to like to talk to you today, anyway... fear and love can create the same type of govenment. also a love for what, for people, for yourself, it depends on what the love is for.
And connecting the fear vs. love idea to transcendentalism: if you felt strongly against an idea in society, you would most likely be rebelling out of fear of what society will be like if it continues with this idea, more-so than out love of what you feel society should think. If that makes any sense.
Jimmy- Quietly rebelling could have several different meanings. One way is, in a government like ours, going around it by putting a bill through and that whole process, instead of standing outside and yelling at buildings.
I do agree that love is powerful, but it think it often can come second to fear. Most people that love you, hopefully, will love you no matter what so when you fear something whether for yourself or for others it becomes more of a priority. Would you be more influenced by to follow the govenrment if they said they would kill someone you loved or if they said if you do this we will love you?
Madison I agree with you about how fear pretty much dictates everything in life including humans capacity and will to love. But I believe that in perfect love there is no fear, it drives out fear. The love that humanity utilizes and experiences is a selfish tainted and corrupt love. So yes I agree with you that fear is more prevelent in this world, but I think that real, true love would be more effective if humans were capable or willing to experience and show others.
I agree with Emily, and I am sorry for making another Gandhi connections, but he encouraged his people to spin their own cloth and to boycott that of the British. Boycott is a form of quiet rebellion. There are certainly other forms too.
meghan, again... Can entrapment create a fear or a love that will stop a good government from happening or a good rebellion. Entrapment (internal and external) can create a sense of fear for something.
thoughts on the inner circle. why is it that all things come back to cowboys aka. playing by your own rules.
I think that sometimes people shouldn't rebel outwardly. When something only affects a small group of people, it isn't that groups job to change everyone. They can quietly rebel and do their own thing. If the rebellion is not open, the government really won't care.
Thoreau Reminds me of Shel Silverstein, with the idea of dreaming of big things and achieving your golas and lettin your imagination wander... What do you think are characteristics taht define a writer or person as a trancendentalist?
Oh and Blair, i love your question about the govermant and love, and im sorry, but it is such a tough question that i cannot even dream of an answer... Can anyone else?
blair- that's a really good question. I think you're right about how love can sometimes come second to fear. In that scenario, I would be more influenced by the government saying they were going to kill someone I loved. If the government told me they would love me, I don't think it would carry much wait because frankly, who doesn't? Besides, how would you check if the government loved you?
Is there such thing as real, true love though, ChelseaV? Not to be pessimestic or anything, just playing devils advocate. But in love today, we still fear rejection, isolation, and loss of the things we love. Is there ever an instance in love where there is no fear? I have trouble thinking of any examples
Emily, but what kind of an impact does a peice of paper have. If there were just laws and no enforcement there would be very few people that followed them. Without any action, a rebellion would have nothing but a piece of paper.
The sublime can be a sense of realist and unrealist, it depends how one looks at it. WHat are the different positions one can take from that sentence? Why is that/
What makes them different is the fact that they are willing to or have the courage to stand up for what they believe in, instead of just watching the chance pass them by. That is what separates the people that rebel from the ones that don't have the courage to.
Zach! Why DO we fear consequences? I think it's because we fear pain. We fear not recieving what we desire. We fear loss. We just...are so afraid, all the time. How can we overcome this fear?
Jimmy! So quiet rebellion. What does it entail? It's different for every person when they rebel, I think. I'll let you know when I'm plotting quiet rebellion what mine entails, laughlaughlaugh.
Madison, I do believe there can be love without fear. Perhaps this is just because I'm religiously inclined to believe this. Perhaps this is just because I don't think I could live in a world where there is NO SUCH THING AS TRUE LOVE. It goes against my nature to believe otherwise ;)
Mr. Jimmy! I think all sorts of things, including entrapment, can create fear. Fear is rough, but I think love is greater than fear wen it comes down to the wire.
106 comments:
I definitely think it is your choice to rebel or not. If you don't believe in something or you think something is wrong, it should be your choice to go against it or not.
I think that it is partially your obligation so you do not lose your rights and you stand up for what you believe in, but there also needs to be boundaries when you rebel.
I sort of agree with Thoreau and his ideas. I think that you should rebel at times, but for some things there is some due respect that you need to give people and follow their authority.
I was wondering what time this was supposed to be in because at the top of the paper it says it is 1999, but he seems to be talking like it is a much earlier time.
I agree with Thoreau that it's our obligation to disobey an immoral rule. If no one broke rules, they wouldn't be changed. Rosa Parks is a good example of this, when she refused to give up her seat she sparked a campaign to abolish Jim Crow laws.
I don't think it is our obligation to disobey immoral rules, but I think we need to be prepared for that rule when it is inforced. I beleive people have the right to challenge, and they should, but they have no obligation.
I agree with Jordan. People need to have the choice to rebel, because if rebelling is forbidden then people will want to rebel more...does that make sense?
I also think that people need to be carefull about when and how they rebel, because many extremist methods do more damage than they prevent.
Jordan: I agree standing up for what you believe in can be hard and sometimes isn't always the best thing to do. The choices you make and what you choose to do to rebel and have a huge impact on your life. For example if you are imprisoned. I think to you rebel it has to be somewhat planned and have a strong argument in order for you to do any justice to your cause.
I agree with Madison that if you have an issue with a rule, than you should try and make it better. At the same time, you should respect the authority. If you don't respect authority, then when there is a rule that truly needs to be remedied, then the government won't respect your needs.
Ty-
Civil Disobedience was first published in 1849 (wikipedia).
Responding to Ms. Leclaire's prompt to the inner circle, I disagree with Thoreau's belief that it is our duty to disobey whatever governing body is influencing. He always portrays authority as a negitive force, and I think he fails to take into account the underlying purpose of government: to preserve happiness. Now I know that the previous can be debated and twisted, and power is certainly a motive behind governemnt, but essentially, government is there to preserve happiness. An existance filled with rebellion and chaos (and freedom as well) is not necessarily a happy one.
What do you guys think?
In paragraph 16 it talks about how laws are unjust but he also talks about how we need to obey laws as well. It is almost like he is battling between rebeling and obeying, and he is also asking the readers to consider both sides.
**influencing us.
Sorry.
I strongly agree with Jordan. One must feel strongly enough about a certain point in order to stand up for it.
With what Kenna just said...I agree with what she is saying. I think that Thoreau is correct in saying that everyone should do what they believe is right and wrong. Unfortunately, many, many people completely lack a moral compass. If it weren't for evil, and sin nature, Thoreau would be completely right. Pity about that human nature.
Madison, how can you define responsibility?
This is kinda what I talked about in my ALIS essay. I read the books Anthem and Cat's Cradle which were both books about social protest. I think that rebellion is necessary in civilizations so that there's a balance. If everyone was perfect all the time, I think people would go crazy.
I agree with you, Kari. The governemt is there for a reason, to protect the people and for them to have a happy life. As a citizen, you have to respect that obligation. If there isn't a government, then the world would fall apart, thus the need for it.
I agree, I definitely think that there is a right time and a wrong time to rebel, and there is a part of everyone that wants to rebel. However, there is a line between rebelling- and then not accepting the blame or punishment, and rebelling- and then taking responsibility of your actions and accepting the consequences. That is where individuals differentiate, because some people choose to fight it until the end, where on the contrary, others are completely willing to accept their consequences.
Kari-
That makes you think about the bigger picture of the government and is it fulfilling the purpose it was set up to obtain. Are they bringing happiness? Really, happiness is different from person to person, so for one person they could be happy, and like Thoreau, not so much. It's not the government's fault though necessarily then, it's just the outcomes of life.
Lane- I think if everyone did what they felt was moral would cause problems within a society. I think the government sets laws in place that tell us what is wrong and right, and it keeps society together in some ways. So, my question is if the government creates specific laws meant for protecting their citizens, is it a citizens obligation to disobey those laws if they don't think they are moral?
I think that people are personally responsible for working to effect change in their world, but I think it shouldn't come to the point where people actively need to disband and/or protest their governemnt. I think people should take a more proactive approach in influncing their government: people need to not allow a possible tyrannous governemnt to rise to power.
Why is that Chelsea/ When are the RIGHT TIMES to rebel and take the consequences, and when are they not?
Along with what Megan is saying, there are 2 sides to every arguement. There are pros and cons to everything and there are always going to be people agreeing and disagreeing with every argument. As a whole, we will never totally agree with anything. People negotiate and therefore both sides are represented, but there will never be a total agreement among people.
I agree with Chelsea. Humans think different things are right and wrong, and it is their right to decide what is so crucial that it needs to be challenged.
If no one ever respected authority, in the long run nothing would be accomplished. If you rebel against everything you don't agree with then it can be seen as selfish. You have to compromise to get things achieved.
The right time to rebel is when you feel like something is morally wrong and that this desicion is bad in all shapes and forms. That is when you have to take a stand and make things just.
Kjerstin:
I think that brings up the very essence of the debate over Thoreau. What is true happiness? Is it absolute freedom or is it security and order? I think society today is really struggling with this conflict.
Chelsea, I agree that Thoreau thinks that there is a right and wrong time to rebel. When do you think Thoreau thought it was ok to rebel?
I agree with Kayla, but I also think that the little things may add up, and one may choose to rebel even if the timing isn't right. I don't really think there is a "right time" to rebel, it is the individuals decision to rebel in the first place, so they should choose the time they wish to rebel, as well.
Hannah, I firmly believe that if the Government is not corrupt then that wouldn't be a problem. This whole thing comes down, once again, to sin nature. Also, if a law meant to protect people, goes against your morals, there is a very good chance that your moral compass is very far off North. If neither of those is true, then yes, it is your obligation to do what you feel is right.
Is it better to act quick and rebel or wait a little bit and then rebel?
Laura- I agree that people cannot function under anarchy, but I think that if the government steps out of line, the people must challenge them to protect their freedom. For example, if the government does not allow free speech, controls the media, holds a secret police, and sabotages elections, the people have a right to realize that the goverment is taking away their freedoms and must be stopped.
I agree with Kayla: It is right to rebel when a law or tradition or situation etc is not only against your moral beliefs but others as well. If as a majority it is unliked then something should be done to change that to encompass all those involved.
Ty, read the comment I just direceted to Kayla. That kind of answers your question. :]
This story was exactly what my Website was about jimmym07americanlit.wikispaces.com
go to personal philosophy, anyway... without the people rebelling no progress would be made. think about every war, think about how America started, heck think about star wars. Every major event was due to some sort of rebellion. I just thought, what about the mitten factory game last year in history
Great discussion everyone, see you tomorrow!!!!
Hey guys, I'm just gonna post some stuff because I felt I wasn't able to during todays discussion but here just my thoughts reading through this blog...
I agree with blair and others that people need to respect authority to some degree. The purpose of a government is to maintain control and like kari said, preserve happiness. I think you need government to maintain stability. So on that level I disagree with Thoreau. However, I also believe in rebelling because of somthing being immoral. To rebel against something that is immoral, I believe could improve the government. But what is moral and imoral is completely different to different people. I'm still torn between when is the right TIME to rebel against somthing and when is it necessary. I know what I believe in, and I know what I would fight for, but it could be completely different to other people.
Something that keeps popping into my head is the KKK. Think about it, those people genuienly believed that whites where the superior race. And they clearly rebelled when laws were passed giving blacks and other groups more rights. Hitler and the Nazis too. Were they right to rebel? Because in their prospective, their way of handling things fits Thoreu's thoughts, "The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think is right". I completely dissagree with what these two groups did, but it still is what THEY felt was right. These are the types of things that hold me back from agreeing with Thoreau.
The whole question of do I agree or dissagree with Thoreau just confuses me.
These are just some of the things I was thinking about.
I think that rebellion is dificult because there are definitely some rules that shouldn not be put into place, some that are not fair, some that are completely unjust, but it is so much easier to follow majority of the laws and like Kari sad to quietly fight back, not openly.
I think it is more effective to rebel within the confines of society because if you are outside of it how are you going to influence society. You have to be in it and not of it to influence the best. People notice actions, they speak loud.
I think the best form of rebellion is when people organize themselves and work together to catch the attention of the group they are rebelling against.
I just wonder. Are you really fighting back if your not openly fighting back?
Kenna, I definitely agree with you, but if everyone thought that, there would still be controversy because everyone has different opinions about what they thing are fair or just rules and regulations.
The most effective form of rebellion is outside rebellion. It is easist to see the flaws of soceity when you are not part of the problem, because you can see the flaws and where the problem starts, and you relize the problem sooner. But, hindsight is 20/20, and you never really can tell if there is a problem in society untill it might be too late, like what happened during WWII.
Hello all.
I think the most effective kind of rebellion is any kind that works! Hahaha.
Heck, I would go to the woods for a bit, maybe til Christmas. Sometimes you just need a break, just you and the air, to clear out the corners of your mind.
Chels--
I agree because you have to have rules to break in order to rebel, someone has to be the source of setting up these rules you don't agree with.
I agree with Chelsea because you can't truly rebel when you are outside of society. Also, what kind of actions speak louder than words? Are the use of actions the better way to rebel?
Jimmy!
I think you can rebel if you don't rebel openly.
There are all types of rebellion. Quiet rebellion might work, but probably not as well.
I think it is most effective to rebel within society, because whatever action is taken directly affects society, and forces them to attend to the rebellion. I think when someone rebels outside of society, they are operating on a more personal level.
I think that fighting with weapons or force is a successful way to rebel, but I believe that the form of rebellion that Thoreau describes in civil disobedience achieves the same goal and leaves a more lasting effect. I think that civil disobedience or rebellion within the confines of a society are possibly even more powerful and can reduce physical violence.
meghan, but if no one notices that you are rebelling is it affecting anyone but yourself. I don't believe it's a rebellion if it's more of a comfirmation for yourself.
Kari,
I related your last post to one of the philosophy statements we discussed earlier this semester.
I thought of Is it human nature to obey? and thought that what you were saying about it being easier to go along with things you do not agree with rather than rebelling against it directly relates to this.
And this brings up the idea of whether it really is easier for people to go along with ideas they do not believe in, or if it is easier to rebell against it because their beliefs are stronger than their willingness to obey. Which is stronger? The feeling of obligation to obey? or the feeling of rebelling in order to protect your beliefs?
If one is going to rebel against anything, then there are NO LIMITS. If one is going to try and disobey the law(s), then why would they try to obey the law(s) of rebellion?
oops, i meant kenna, not kari. sorry
and kenna, i meant your first comment from today. there; everything should be cleared up now:]
What is it that people fear to not stand up for what they believe in or like Ms. Kakos said not even willing to walk out of school by yourself? Where does this fear originate?
This reminds me of the difference in rebellion between MLK and Malcolm X. I think that in the end, to achieve their ultimate goal, America needed both men and their styles of rebellion. But I also believe that MLK's rebellion was more powerful in the end.
Jimmy--
I don't think you can really fight back without really fighting back. I think that there are some things that have to be done physically because as we all know actions speak louder than words.
Going off of what Ms. Leclaire said, is it more effective when one person reels or when many people rebel?
Jimmy, i personally think that it is rebellion even if people dont know that you are rebelling. the best way to make a point is to enforce a change, and sometimes, the only way to do it is to do it secretl, and this reminds me of Harriet Tubman. She definitely fought against slavery, but she did not use speeches and words that didnt make a difference at that time, but she actually freed slaves and brought about change. That is still rebellion even though she did it in secret.
Okay, wow. Sounded like a freak there in the inner circle, laughlaughlaugh.
Along with what Ms. Leclaire said, and discussions that we have had previously. Fear is the most affect form of rule. Keeping people in line by threating them with consequences. So on the other hand, does rebellion with threatening behavior work as well? Or not as well? Why?
Ty- I think it's more effective when more people rebel because the message is heard louder.
Madison--
I would for sure say that it is so much more difficult to sit back and watch things you disagree with than to fight back. There are some things that we do need to fight against, but I think the obligation to obey the law is also ours as is disobeying it.
Jimmy,
If you had to choose between quiet rebellion or now rebellion, which would you say is more effective?
Quiet rebellion often evolves into open rebellion too!
Brian, is fighting with weapons still "civil disobedience?" What do you consider civil disobedience, and where is the line that crosses into war and violence and upright rebellion?
Chelsea- I think that there are several reasons why people are afraid to rebel alone, but I think a large part of this fear is how society works. As children, we are raised to behave in a certain way, and for the most part, we do. Breaking free of those behavioral expectations can be very difficult because those laws tell us what we can and cannot do. Also, I think standing alone is terrifying to many people, because it makes them question whether they are truly right in rebelling.
Blair my dear,
I disagree.
I think love is the most effective form of rule.
What do you all think?
Is fear or love more effective?
Are they close to the same thing?
I agree with you Meghan, if there is no love in rule, nobody is going to want to obey and "go along" with their govn.
I definitely think love is more effective Megan. Although fear is really powerful, LOVE CONQUERS ALL.
:]
Blair, your comment caught my attention!
and Meghan, I do think that fear is more powerful. Love is often driven by fear, you love something that is vulnerable and that you are subject to lose.
Fear influences every decision, and therefore, can serve as the most powerful way of influencing people.
Hannah and Chelsea:
I think that there are many reasons that people are afraid to rebel, as well. But I also think that one of the main reasons is because they don't want to stand out in the crowd, or break conformity and draw attention to themselves. This displays exactly the opposite of what Thoreau was trying to do.
Meghan- I disagree with the idea that love is the mos effective form of love. Ruling a society with love may be the kindest and most desireable way to rule, but I think fear is more effective. Love is powerful, but I think fear is equally, if not more powerful. People fear death and pain, and will betray the ones they love in order to evade them both. Governments that rule by fear may not always be successful in the long run, but while they are strong, the people are defensless unless they find it in themselves to object.
Zach- I think that when one person rebels it could be just as effective as when many people do. Like in the example of leaving school at 2:13, When just one person gets up and leaves, it shows a message to the rest of the class. When a whole class leaves, it is possible that no one else would see what they were doing.
Love is the most effectivew way to rule, but is also the most unrealistic. What dictator rules his country through love? It is always through fear. Love gives the people peace and hope and a fondness for the government, but it also makes the people more comfortable with the idea of voicing their opinions, and most rulers dont want themselves to lose power, and fear casts uncertainity and suspicion, which, sadly, keeps the people quiet, which is why fear is more widely used. I wish it were love, and so does Thoreau.
Meghan,
more on what I was saying:
You love things that you know you are lucky to have. You know you are lucky to have them because you know you could lose them. This instills a fear of losing the thing or person you love. This fear causes you to appreciate what you have even more. Without that fear, most everything would be taken for granted.
Meghan-
I think that love is way more effective, because love goes two ways, you have both parties who feel affection towards the other, so they are way more willing to comply and compromise,
However with fear,there is always the element of resistance, it's one party forcing something onto the other, so the scared party is way less willing to comply.
Does that make sense?
Hahaha love conquers all was my philosophy statement!
WHy do we fear consequences so much?
Chelseah- Good point. So what makes the people who rebel different from those who don't rebel against what they believe is immoral.
meghan, if you quietly rebel what does this involve. does it involve not doing anything besides gathering signatures or sitting in your house saying I don't like this law ha, take that government.
Madison!
Very interesting observation of how fear can drive love ;)
Does anyone else feel TRAPPED sometimes? That's why I'd build a snowman. I think there's too much out there that is pressing down on everyone. There's test and finals and next semester and college and sometimes it's all so much that one can't breath or can't think or can't even handle it anymore!
Shannon I agree with you when you say that love is the most effective way, but also the most unrealistic. This also relates back to Thoreau and rebellion. There are always going to be people that chose to rebel, and I wonder if there would be either more rebellion or less rebellion?
Madison!
Very interesting observation of how fear can drive love ;)
Does anyone else feel TRAPPED sometimes? That's why I'd build a snowman. I think there's too much out there that is pressing down on everyone. There's test and finals and next semester and college and sometimes it's all so much that one can't breath or can't think or can't even handle it anymore!
meghan, wow i just seem to like to talk to you today, anyway... fear and love can create the same type of govenment. also a love for what, for people, for yourself, it depends on what the love is for.
And connecting the fear vs. love idea to transcendentalism: if you felt strongly against an idea in society, you would most likely be rebelling out of fear of what society will be like if it continues with this idea, more-so than out love of what you feel society should think. If that makes any sense.
Jimmy-
Quietly rebelling could have several different meanings. One way is, in a government like ours, going around it by putting a bill through and that whole process, instead of standing outside and yelling at buildings.
I do agree that love is powerful, but it think it often can come second to fear. Most people that love you, hopefully, will love you no matter what so when you fear something whether for yourself or for others it becomes more of a priority. Would you be more influenced by to follow the govenrment if they said they would kill someone you loved or if they said if you do this we will love you?
Yes Madison that makes a lot sense and I agree!
Madison I agree with you about how fear pretty much dictates everything in life including humans capacity and will to love. But I believe that in perfect love there is no fear, it drives out fear. The love that humanity utilizes and experiences is a selfish tainted and corrupt love. So yes I agree with you that fear is more prevelent in this world, but I think that real, true love would be more effective if humans were capable or willing to experience and show others.
I agree with Emily, and I am sorry for making another Gandhi connections, but he encouraged his people to spin their own cloth and to boycott that of the British. Boycott is a form of quiet rebellion. There are certainly other forms too.
meghan, again... Can entrapment create a fear or a love that will stop a good government from happening or a good rebellion. Entrapment (internal and external) can create a sense of fear for something.
thoughts on the inner circle. why is it that all things come back to cowboys aka. playing by your own rules.
I think that sometimes people shouldn't rebel outwardly. When something only affects a small group of people, it isn't that groups job to change everyone. They can quietly rebel and do their own thing. If the rebellion is not open, the government really won't care.
Thoreau Reminds me of Shel Silverstein, with the idea of dreaming of big things and achieving your golas and lettin your imagination wander... What do you think are characteristics taht define a writer or person as a trancendentalist?
Oh and Blair, i love your question about the govermant and love, and im sorry, but it is such a tough question that i cannot even dream of an answer... Can anyone else?
blair- that's a really good question. I think you're right about how love can sometimes come second to fear. In that scenario, I would be more influenced by the government saying they were going to kill someone I loved. If the government told me they would love me, I don't think it would carry much wait because frankly, who doesn't? Besides, how would you check if the government loved you?
Is there such thing as real, true love though, ChelseaV? Not to be pessimestic or anything, just playing devils advocate. But in love today, we still fear rejection, isolation, and loss of the things we love. Is there ever an instance in love where there is no fear? I have trouble thinking of any examples
Meghan, I get what you're saying about feeling trapped. I think that's why Thoreau went to Walden Pond, just to get away from it all.
Emily, but what kind of an impact does a peice of paper have. If there were just laws and no enforcement there would be very few people that followed them. Without any action, a rebellion would have nothing but a piece of paper.
The sublime can be a sense of realist and unrealist, it depends how one looks at it. WHat are the different positions one can take from that sentence? Why is that/
Hannah-
What makes them different is the fact that they are willing to or have the courage to stand up for what they believe in, instead of just watching the chance pass them by. That is what separates the people that rebel from the ones that don't have the courage to.
Hey there,
Posted the same post twice. So sorry, apologies.
Zach! Why DO we fear consequences? I think it's because we fear pain. We fear not recieving what we desire. We fear loss. We just...are so afraid, all the time. How can we overcome this fear?
Jimmy! So quiet rebellion. What does it entail? It's different for every person when they rebel, I think. I'll let you know when I'm plotting quiet rebellion what mine entails, laughlaughlaugh.
Great discussion everyone! See ya'll tomorrow! :)
Jimmy and Madison, my dears.
Madison, I do believe there can be love without fear. Perhaps this is just because I'm religiously inclined to believe this. Perhaps this is just because I don't think I could live in a world where there is NO SUCH THING AS TRUE LOVE. It goes against my nature to believe otherwise ;)
Mr. Jimmy! I think all sorts of things, including entrapment, can create fear. Fear is rough, but I think love is greater than fear wen it comes down to the wire.
Adding on to my earlier question. Do you think that trust is more related to love or fear?
Post a Comment