I didn’t like Emerson’s essay called Self Reliance. I find it interesting that he criticizes the law and explains that no law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Without laws what would protect him his own nature well, this would create total chaos. Emerson seems to view himself as a higher being and this bothered me. If self reliance is so important than why is me going to school to bettering my self considered society building a robot, isn’t this better than just sitting on my butt reflecting myself?
I found that I agree with some of Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience teachings. it was interesting that he says that the government, even though the backbone of our society, causes people to ignore who they rally are. It is very true that society uses money to function.
Hey April,
I toatally agree with you about how school can turn people into robots, because they are producing the the kind of person society tells us we should be. Why do you think He is go against society and the robotic life we seem to be heading towards?
Trisha
society tells us what we need to be doing and to what extent we need to be doing it.
Posted by: april santavy at October 11, 2004 02:41 PMHey April,
I agree with you for the most part. To be honest, I really liked Emerson and Thoreau's essays/articles. In fact, I am writing a project on them right now, concerning their ideas of self-reliance. To me, however, I agree with you on your views concerning Emerson. The one thing that I didn't really like about him is that he didn't practice what he preached. Thoreau actually moved into the 'woods', or at least lived in solitude for two entire years, to see what happens to the man when he is 'alone' and without laws. He never married and never had children. Emerson on the other hand, was a family man. He liked to preach how it really wasn't that great to be on the richer side of society, and that laws are unnecessary. However, his life was surrounded in the things he claims he hated most. So why did he not change?