Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Okay, this time I'm right.

This week we read what has to be one of the ten (or maybe twenty) most famous American essays -- Thoreau's Civil Disobedience. Another one of those works which perhaps will speak very differently to us as adults than it did when we read it in high school.

Here's a direct link to a copy of the essay which conveniently has numbered paragraphs to make reference to passages easy:
http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil1.html

Or here it is on Gutenberg for reading online or downloading
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/71/71-...

The essay has gone through some interesting permutations and title changes. This is from Wikipedia:

"In 1848, Thoreau gave lectures at the Concord Lyceum entitled "The Rights and Duties of the Individual in relation to Government." This formed the basis for his essay, which was first published under the title Resistance to Civil Government in 1849 in an anthology called Æsthetic Papers. The latter title distinguished Thoreau's program from that of the "non-resistants" (anarcho-pacifists) who were expressing similar views. Resistance also served as part of Thoreau's metaphor comparing the government to a machine: when the machine was producing injustice, it was the duty of conscientious citizens to be "a counter friction" (i.e., a resistance) "to stop the machine."
In 1866, four years after Thoreau's death, the essay was reprinted in a collection of Thoreau's work (A Yankee in Canada, with Anti-Slavery and Reform Papers) under the title Civil Disobedience. Today, the essay also appears under the title On the Duty of Civil Disobedience, perhaps to contrast it with William Paley's Of the Duty of Civil Obedience to which Thoreau was in part responding. For instance, the 1960 New American Library Signet Classics edition of Walden included a version with this title. On Civil Disobedience is another common title."

(Might be an interesting aside to consider which title seems most relevant to the essay, and whether the "best" title has changed with the subsequent changes in society. )

I prefer the title" Resistance to Civil Government". When Thoreau speaks of "duty", I wonder, "Duty to whom?"

I found this resource both interesting and informative:
The Theory, Practice & Influence of Thoreau's Civil Disobedience

Note: This is another part of the website Everyman suggested for reading the text. Thanks Everyman.

Nemo wrote: "I prefer the title" Resistance to Civil Government". When Thoreau speaks of "duty", I wonder, "Duty to whom?""

The conscience of honest men?

Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator?

. . .I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize. What makes this duty the more urgent. . .

I suppose qualifying it like that then prompts the question, "What is honest"? Kim Davis was only following her conscience, but would a truly honest person refuse. . .? This in turn of course invites misuse of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

Has it been established that every man has a conscience?

I think conscience is what helps us perform our duty, but it is not the object of duty. Strictly speaking, we don't have a duty to conscience. Even if a person doesn't have a conscience, he is still bound by his duty, and accountable.

David wrote: " This in turn of course invites misuse of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. "

Thoreau falls into the same problem that Emerson does, and it does indeed sound like a "true Scotsman" problem. The implication is that there is one Truth, just as there is one Nature, and that the conscience of "honest men" is attuned to this Truth infallibly. There is no demonstration of what this Truth is; it is simply asserted as the product of conscience, and it then it becomes a flag to rally behind.

Nemo wrote: "Has it been established that every man has a conscience?

I think conscience is what helps us perform our duty, but it is not the object of duty. Strictly speaking, we don't have a duty to conscien..."

I think Thoreau takes as self-evident that every man has a conscience to some degree. It could be argued that even no conscience at all is a legitimate expression of one's conscience. This may be why he prefers the conscience of "honest men". Thoreau makes it pretty clear that conscience should be the final authority.

But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? . .I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward.

When he says we should be men first, It think it would be safe to translate that as "men of conscience" first.

As Thomas reminds points out, Thoreaus leaves out any formally proposed standard of conscience or honesty. Do you think that Thoreau feels that as honesty with ourselves and others increases, conscience, and therefore our moral values, approaches some natural, or Natural, objective standard?

Nemo wrote: "Even if a person doesn't have a conscience, he is still bound by his duty, and accountable."

If a person has no conscience, from where does duty arise? Only from external compulsion (family, government, other)?

David wrote: "As Thomas reminds points out, Thoreaus leaves out any formally proposed standard of conscience or honesty. Do you think that Thoreau feels that as honesty with ourselves and others increases, conscience, and therefore our moral values, approaches some natural, or Natural, objective standard? ."

Did Charles Manson ever develop a Thoreauean conscience?

David wrote: "I think Thoreau takes as self-evident that every man has a conscience to some degree.."

What is self-evident is plainly "seen". Thoreau's own conscience may be evident to himself, but he cannot possibly "see" the consciences of others, so they are not "self-evident" to him at all. At the bottom, the "honest men" argument is this: "I have conscience, but you don't".

If every man has a conscience to some degree, then every government is a government of conscience to some degree. Stop making a fuss already!

One thing this essay raises is the question, what does Thoreau think are the necessary and legitimate functions of government, what would we likely have thought are those functions in Thoreau's day, and what do we think those functions are today?

It's hard for me to credit that Thoreau really thinks that men would ever be prepared for no government. Perhaps it's possible to believe that the day may come when no man or woman would ever kill, rob, assault, or otherwise commit what we consider crimes, but who would build the roads, who would decide whether you or I own that parcel of land, who would organize our defense against a foreign enemy (unless one assumes that ALL men and women would be ready do do away with government, and be ready for no government so there would be nobody interested in attacking anybody else for any reason).

It may be an interesting thought experiment, but does Thoreau really believe it is a conceivable possibility?

But as a thought experiment, it does have some interesting features. A friend of mine, who was a committed extreme liberal, and I used to have interesting discussions on what were the proper functions of government. Though if we get into such a discussion here we're going to have to be sensitive to all views and keep the discussion very cordial!

Or, in Thoreau's words, my previous post could have simply been written "Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it. "

Does our current government command you respect? Would it, you think, command Thoreau's?

"Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? "

Isn't the implication here that the conscience of the minority should trump the conscience of the majority? Whose conscience should be placed above the preference of the majority?

Isn't Thoreau's argument very Platonic, in that he seems to defer to philosopher kings whose consciences are presumably "better" than those of the mass of the bronze people?

Everyman wrote: Isn't the implication here that the conscience of the minority should trump the conscience of the majority?"

While Thoreau complains about majority rule the most, he also complains about minority rule when he laments the hijacking of the government by a "special interests" group:

Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for, in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure.

In Walden he states:

Moral reform is the effort to throw off sleep.

Here in Civil Disobedience he complains about the contribution of both men and the government towards the slumber, or inertia of moral reform. At times he attacks men more harshly than the government by shaming them.

Oh for a man who is a man, and, as my neighbor says, has a bone in his back which you cannot pass your hand through!. . .How many men are there to a square thousand miles in this country? Hardly one.

Everyman wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Even if a person doesn't have a conscience, he is still bound by his duty, and accountable."

If a person has no conscience, from where does duty arise? Only from external compulsion (..."

Conscience is an inner knowledge of right and wrong--there is "science" in "conscience". The moral law, in the written form, serves the same purpose as conscience for those who lack it.

Everyman wrote: ""Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? "

Isn't the implication here that the conscience of the minority should trump the consci..."

The majority rule is one of many ways of saying "might is right". Thoreau's argument is Platonic in that both object to the principle of might. But Thoreau differs from Plato, IMO, in that Plato subjects the lawgivers themselves to the objective/written law, whereas Thoreau seems to consider himself above the law.

I would have more respect for Thoreau if he is willing to make himself accountable by spelling out his "conscience" in a more concrete form, so that it may be clear to all that his "conscience" is not a mere opinion that is falsifiable.

Nemo wrote: "I would have more respect for Thoreau if he is willing to make himself accountable by spelling out his "conscience" in a more concrete form, so that it may be clear to all that his "conscience" is not a mere opinion that is falsifiable. ."

Yes, he really doesn't spell out what he thinks the general human conscience would or should entail.

Everyman wrote: "Thoreau's metaphor comparing the government to a machine: when the machine was producing injustice, it was the duty of conscientious citizens to be "a counter friction" (i.e., a resistance) "to stop the machine."

The "worthies of antiquity" have a more wholistic view of society and government, comparing them to a body: when there is injustice in the society, like a disease in a body, the duty of the citizen is not to stop the body, which would result in the demise of all, but to restore the diseased part to health.

Aristotle says that man is a social animal by nature, more so than the bees. If this is true, to deny the interdependence of human beings in a society and assert that an individual can sustain himself by himself is to deny the law of nature, the very thing the Transcendentalists claim to obey.

I was struck by this quote:

"But no: I find that the respectable man, so called, has immediately drifted from his position, and despairs of his country, when his country has more reason to despair of him."

Thoreau, Henry David (2012-05-16). Walden/On The Duty of Civil Disobedience (p. 184). Kindle Edition.

Because it reminded me of this one:

"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country."

John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961

David wrote: "I was struck by this quote:

"But no: I find that the respectable man, so called, has immediately drifted from his position, and despairs of his country, when his country has more reason to despair..."

People who despair of themselves tend to be self-destructive, and those who despair of their country would tend to destroy the country, or at least partially paralyze it, as Thorea was hoping to do.

Nemo wrote: "People who despair of themselves tend to be self-destructive, and those who despair of their country would tend to destroy the country, or at least partially paralyze it, as Thorea was hoping to do. "

I did not get the sense that Thoreau was trying to destroy or paralyze the country. While he does not personify a flag waiving patriot, I would argue that Thoreau was airing grievances to move people to action more than professing a self-destructive despair. The essay itself not the act of a person bent on self-destruction but rather on reform.

Maybe I'm taking Thoreau's "stop the machine" metaphor too literally. One could argue that "revolution", which destroys the existing form of government, is also a type of "reform".

Nemo wrote: "Maybe I'm taking Thoreau's "stop the machine" metaphor too literally. "

Or maybe not. It seems there were a few states down south that took the sentiment quite literally by deciding they no longer wished to participate in the machine that was the federal government.

The "machine" is one of many --sadly, way too many--examples of how language can be used to dehumanize that which is essentially human. Once it has been dehumanized, all types of abuse and violence against it are somehow justified.

David wrote: "Or maybe not. It seems there were a few states down south that took the sentiment quite literally by deciding they no longer wished to participate in the machine that was the federal government. ."

But they weren't rejecting government in general, just that particular government which they felt was not responsive to their needs or serving them. (Which, in fact, it wasn't, though that's an issue for another day. )

Nemo wrote: "The "machine" is one of many --sadly, way too many--examples of how language can be used to dehumanize that which is essentially human. Once it has been dehumanized, all types of abuse and violence..."

Does Thoreau lament that men are being devalued as machines by the government or does he label the government a machine to dehumanize it in order to more easily abuse and criticize it, or both?

Everyman wrote: "One thing this essay raises is the question, what does Thoreau think are the necessary and legitimate functions of government, what would we likely have thought are those functions in Thoreau's day..."

Thoreau's ideal government sounds like an association of neighbors rather than an authority. His government would have no force. Individuals in the association could come and go as they please, according to their individual consciences.

I please myself with imagining a State at last which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it , who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow men. (last paragraph.)

The main social issue that overshadows this essay is the institution of slavery as it existed in 1849 when the essay was published. But Thoreau's "ideal" government would have to allow those individuals who endorse slavery to leave the association, as the states of the Confederacy argued they should be able to leave the Union. It was only force that prevented them doing so, and as a byproduct end slavery in the U.S. (And it also involved other kinds of governmental force, such as the draft, and the first federal income taxes.)

How did Thoreau propose to end slavery in the south, if not by the force exerted by the government? How could his "ideal" government, one that governs least, or not at all, accomplish this?

David wrote: "Does Thoreau lament that men are being devalued as machines by the government or does he label the government a machine to dehumanize it in order to more easily abuse and criticize it, or both? "

He does both, and I'm baffled by this Transcendentalist mentality that society, government and institution somehow dehumanize man.

To be a bit crude, if you plant trees together you get a forest, different life forms living together make a vibrant ecosystem, but, if you bring people together, you get a machine out of it. How does that work?

Thomas wrote: "How did Thoreau propose to end slavery in the south, if not by the force exerted by the government? How could his "ideal" government, one that governs least, or not at all, accomplish this?"

Thoreau, almost immediately softens his opening stance and suggests a first step:

But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. [1.]Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.

If I understand Thoreau correctly he suggests additional steps to bring this improved government about by:

2. Washing ones hands of it, or making sure you are not inadvertently lending your support to something you conscientiously object to:

It is not a man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support.

3. Actively withdrawing support.

I do not hesitate to say, that those who call themselves Abolitionists should at once effectually withdraw their support, both in person and property, from the government of Massachusetts. . .

4. Shedding blood for it since man's soul is already bleeding.

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.

David wrote: "..But even suppose blood should flow. Is there not a sort of blood shed when the conscience is wounded?"

How does one who shed the blood of others keep his own conscience clean? Two wrongs don't make a right, do they?

Nemo wrote: "How does one who shed the blood of others keep his own conscience clean? Two wrongs don't make a right, do they?"

What would John Brown say about that?

The end justifies the means, perhaps?

But the thing in question here is conscience, not consequence.

After finishing CD, I am curious about two things.

1) do you think Thoreau's abolitionist stance is a direct result of Transcendental thought?? For example, if he had been born and raised a Transcendentalist in the South, would Transcendental ideas still have caused him to take this stance? Or was his view of slavery a result of living in the North?

2) There seems to be a difference between violence and force. Thoreau is not in favor of violence, but is in favor of force? Hence his support of John Brown?

Genni wrote: "1) do you think Thoreau's abolitionist stance is a direct result of Transcendental thought?"

It's hard to tell what exactly is "Transcendental thought". There're so many contradictions in these writings that I can't help but wonder whether the writers are serious or not.

2) There seems to be a difference between violence and force. Thoreau is not in favor of violence, but is in favor of force? Hence his support of John Brown?

That is a good point. Violence is the abuse of force. But Thoreau's argument is not at all convincing that he is not advocating violence, which is at the root of slavery.

Nemo wrote: "But Thoreau's argument is not at all convincing that he is not advocating violence, which is at the root of slavery.
."

I don't disagree with you, Nemo, but I am wondering if there is a particular passage you have in mind in which you feel Thoreau is actually advocating violence?

Genni wrote: "

1) do you think Thoreau's abolitionist stance is a direct result of Transcendental thought?? For example, if he had been born and raised a Transcendentalist in the South, would Transcendental ideas still have caused him to take this stance? Or was his view of slavery a result of living in the North? ..."

Great question. There was at least one Southern "transcendentalist" -- Moncure Conway, a Virginian -- but he was an abolitionist as well.

Even though transcendentalist thinking is a little bit free-form, it seems to me that slavery runs counter to at least two transcendentalist ideals, beliefs that all of these thinkers hold in common: the first is that human beings are good by nature. The second is that this natural goodness will flourish if people are self-reliant and free from social restrictions. Neither of these principles could tolerate the idea of slavery -- just the opposite, I would think.

Thomas wrote: "the first is that human beings are good by nature."

I thought about this, but then wondered if this was really the thought that would lead them to take such a stance. The problem was, most people did not view slaves as humans. So would this particular ideal have led them to think that slaves were even human in the first place? I hope that makes sense!

Genni wrote: "I am wondering if there is a particular passage you have in mind in which you feel Thoreau is actually advocating violence? "

To "stop the machine", as Thoreau put it, one must use force in one way or another, even to the point of "blood shed", as in the passage David quoted above @msg29. The question becomes whether such use of force is justified and on what ground. To my mind, he hasn't given any convincing argument to justify it.

Thomas wrote: " the first is that human beings are good by nature. The second is that this natural goodness will flourish if people are self-reliant and free from social restrictions. Neither of these principles could tolerate the idea of slavery"

If human beings are good by nature, then the slave-owners and their desire to own slaves are also good by nature. What is to keep them from owing good slaves? Nobody want slaves that are bad by nature anyway.

The second ideal is so far from the reality of human nature that I don't think it even figure into the discussion.

Nemo wrote: ".To "stop the machine", as Thoreau put it, one must use force in one way or another, even to the point of "blood shed", as in the passage David quoted above @msg29. The question becomes whether such use of force is justified and on what ground. To my mind, he hasn't given any convincing argument to justify it.
."

Ah, thanks. I ovelooked that.

As I was reading, it seems to me that he is not advocating it, or justifying it, as much as he is recognizing that sometimes, when all peaceful attempts have been attempted, it "comes down to it"??

I thought maybe reading his defense of John Brown might give som insight. He seems to think that JB avoided the conflict to the last minute. And only when other means had failed, did he engage in conflict,

Thoreau also seems to praise, not necessarily the violent means JB took, but rather that when he took it, it was at great personal cost. He engaged in the conflict directly, at risk of his own life. In some sense, as I was reading, it seems that he views John Brown as some sort of representative of the steps the North took as a whole?

Genni wrote: "..when all peaceful attempts have been attempted, it "comes down to it"??."

The problem, as I see it, is that the use of force does not solve the problem of conscience. Thoreau's whole argument is based on conscience, as opposed to "expediency". Force serves the latter, not the former. By advocating force, he contradicts himself.

Of course, violence has great personal cost. Even the terrorists know that.

Genni wrote: "The problem was, most people did not view slaves as humans. So would this particular ideal have led them to think that slaves were even human in the first place? ."

It's hard to say that abolition grows naturally from transcendentalism, in part because transcendentalism is sort of fuzzy to begin with, though I would like to think it does. The two movements were linked, and Frederick Douglass was involved in both. I have a hard time thinking anyone who knew of Douglass would doubt his humanity!

Nemo wrote: "If human beings are good by nature, then the slave-owners and their desire to own slaves are also good by nature. What is to keep them from owing good slaves? Nobody want slaves that are bad by nature an...

I would expect that a Transcendentalist like Emerson would argue that a slave-owner is good by nature, but that he is not good in fact because he has been corrupted by greed. Perhaps by a process of reform he could return to his original nature.

It appears that the transcendentalists insist the second ideal. Whether it accords with "reality" is another question.

Thomas wrote: "he is not good in fact because he has been corrupted by greed. Perhaps by a process of reform he could return to his original nature. ."

Wow, once he argues that some people are not good and should be subject to "reform", the same argument can be applied to anyone, including the slaves. Say goodbye to freedom and self-reliance.

It is self-contradictory to argue that self-reliance, which by Emerson's definition is without external force, can be attained by the external force of "reform". If the Ts insist on their second ideal, they should leave both the slaves and the slave-owners alone.

There is a story that might illustrate the point:

Durin the Civil War, a man from the North met a slave in the South, and asked the latter what he thinks about the war. The slave pointed to two dogs fighting over a piece of bone, and answered, "I wonder what the piece of bone thinks."

Nemo wrote: "The problem, as I see it, is that the use of force does not solve the problem of conscience. Thoreau's whole argument is based on conscience, as opposed to "expediency". Force serves the latter, not the former. By advocating force, he contradicts himself.

Of course, violence has great personal cost. Even the terrorists know that.
."

I agree that his argument is based on conscience, but I disagree that he is "advocating" violence. In message 15, you said that the moral law, in written form, serves as a conscience for those who lack it. Could not the same be said for "force"? After all appeals to conscience are attempted, what then? I think Thoreau sees where things sometimes end...

I don't think the terrorist example is necessarily fair. They make no attempts at peace and randomly blow people up. In my eyes, it is hardly the same as the measured steps Thoreau lays out or John Brown took....

From an analysis on the essay:

"Later, then, after the passage of the Fugitive Slave Law in 1850, and still more after John Brown's raid, Thoreau defends violent actions on the same grounds as those on which he defends nonviolent action in the essay — because, by that time, what belonged to the hour had changed, and the actions he found himself called to defend were violent. Consider this passage from "A Plea for Captain John Brown":

It was [Brown's] peculiar doctrine that a man has a perfect right to interfere by force with the slaveholder, in order to rescue the slave. I agree with him. ... I do not wish to kill nor to be killed, but I can foresee circumstances in which both these things would be by me unavoidable.

http://thoreau.eserver.org/theory.html

Thomas wrote: "It's hard to say that abolition grows naturally from transcendentalism, in part because transcendentalism is sort of fuzzy to begin with, though I would like to think it does. The two movements were linked, and Frederick Douglass was involved in both. I have a hard time thinking anyone who knew of Douglass would doubt his humanity!
"

It is interesting that you would like to think that it does? Why do you particularly wish that?

Frederick Douglass was an example of what is good about humanity. I wonder though, if his involvement with Transcendetalism was because they were already linked with abolitionists, or if it was because he considered himself a Transcendentalist?

Nemo wrote: "Thomas wrote: "he is not good in fact because he has been corrupted by greed. Perhaps by a process of reform he could return to his original nature. ."

Wow, once he argues that some people are not..."

I don't think the idea is self-contradictory, it just isn't well founded. Emerson believes in a ground state of human goodness, but is unable to define it -- the Good seems to be a matter of intuition, which perhaps it is, insofar as the Good resists precise definition. Some thinkers rely on a provisional definition for the sake of argument, to avoid self-contradiction, but the transcendentalists don't seem to be too concerned about this. They just avoid formal arguments.

I'm not actually sure that Emerson thinks reform requires force. Why should it? It might be uncomfortable, and unlikely, for a greedy man accustomed to luxury to give up his wealth and return to good and simple living... but if he should suddenly attain enlightenment, it would require no force at all.

Genni wrote: "It is interesting that you would like to think that it does? Why do you particularly wish that?"

It seems like what the Transcendentalists consistently stand upon is that human nature in its original and free state is simply good. Only when social forces such as governments and religions begin to mold that person does the person become something other than what he or she was by nature. Slavery is the most absolute form of social force, far worse than most ordinary social stricture, so it would make sense for a transcendentalist to abhor slavery most of all.

Thomas wrote: "It might be uncomfortable, and unlikely, for a greedy man accustomed to luxury to give up his wealth and return to good and simple living... but if he should suddenly attain enlightenment, it would require no force at all. "

Indeed. But Thoreau doesn't seem to have the patience to wait for "enlightenment" to happen to the slave-owners, and wants to take matters into his own hands, and thereby violating their self-reliance.

How easy it is to condemn the violence in others and at the same time advocate one's own brand of violence.