Counter Friction

Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience is a famous and well-regarded example of effective rhetoric. In this essay, Thoreau used all three corners of the rhetorical triangle to outline what he saw as the problems with the government of the time, and with government in general, due to their inherent lack of respect for the individual, instead preferring to maintain the status quo of the whole, even with the cost being widespread injustice and corruption, which Thoreau opined were the chief products manufactured thereby. Governments are by their nature, according to Thoreau, generally more harmful than helpful, although he did profess a respect for the concept of government, and wished for a better government that does more to respect the rights of individuals and liberty as a whole. Specifically, Thoreau spoke about the Mexican-American War, poll taxes, slavery, and other laws that he saw as unjust. In regards to these topics specifically and government in general, Thoreau attempted to persuade his audience, which was comprised of students in Concord, Massachusetts, to his point of view with skillful use of the rhetorical triangle, which is to say through the careful application of both logical and emotional arguments, combined with ethos in the form of his academic reputation.

Thoreau's Use of the Rhetorical Triangle in 'Civil Disobedience'

From an in-class writing exercise on rhetoric from Honors Composition II:

Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience seeks to outline the problems with our current mode of government and with government in general due to their inherent lack of respect for the individual, instead preferring to maintain the status quo of the whole, even at the expense of injustice and corruption, which Thoreau opines are the chief products manufactured thereby. Governments are, according to Thoreau, generally more harmful than helpful, although he does profess a respect for the concept of government, and wishes for a better government that does more to respect the rights of individuals and liberty as a whole.

Trinity

In the early 1800’s, Ralph Waldo Emerson visited the Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris, France and found himself entranced by what he saw there. Where his fellow patrons observed nature, Emerson perceived Nature. Where we notice only a majuscule letter, Emerson glimpsed God. This visit inspired his seminal essay Nature, in which Emerson expresses his thoughts on the relationship between Nature, Mankind, and God. Within this essay, Emerson famously pronounced, “The whole of nature is a metaphor of the human mind” (17). In this, you can see Emerson beginning to define Nature in relation to Man, as an expansion to the standard definition. The standard definition of Nature, as viewed by both the common man and the Oxford English Dictionary, was anything in the physical world, including the “landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations” (Murray). That distinction, Nature as opposed to Man, is the essence of Emerson’s thoughts on Nature.

Me on Thoreau on Nature

From an in-class writing prompt in Honors Composition II:

Thoreau seems to see Nature as an infant see its mother; large and encompassing, a nurturing provider, and easy to take for granted. He describes Nature in almost religious terms, as an entity that is separate but still innate. His view is almost entirely non-scientific, with information gathered for the purpose of joy, rather than for critical analysis, which was the vogue at the time.

Thoreau views Nature by way of Man; his writing is a constant comparison of the two. While he sees Nature separately, he defines it in terms of Mankind; how it illuminates the character of Man, how it contrasts from Man, and what those things tell us about both Nature and Man.

Whitman & Thoreau

From an in-class writing exercise from Honors Composition II:

Both Thoreau and Whitman seem to share a firm belief in both the power and majesty of the world around us. They both seek to commune with Nature and to pay great attention to its infinite detail. Thoreau, however, seems to calmly accept the facets of Nature's visage that so disturb Whitman. To Thoreau, Nature seems to represent the very epitome of truth and honesty, whereas Whitman does not disdain to suspect or question Nature. Last, Thoreau sees himself as a part of the natural world, while Whitman views himself separately, with Nature as a frighteningly higher entity.

Counterbalance

Thoreau's "Economy" covers a great deal of material, with a focus on the search for self-actualization. According to Thoreau, this begins by determining the necessities of life, which cannot be found in the ordinary labor of men or the search for wealth and luxury in everyday life. Our socialization towards obtaining luxury crowds our lives and minds, leaving no room to question even the most basic premises of our existence or to enjoy the same. Thoreau questions humankind’s tendency to overshadow the minds of younger generations with trivia and tradition. This indoctrination teaches our youth to accept the values and beliefs of our older generations, without teaching them to examine the same or to require proof of any their claims. He believes age has no benefit over youth and points out that even ancient philosophers fell prey to this tendency, writing about the vagaries of nail length and forestry in addition to great works of thought. He disdains the purported wisdom of elders and relates the tale of a farmer, who spends his day staring at the evidence that disproves his long-held beliefs, without ever questioning them. Thoreau takes this as a sign that humankind would do better were we to look to the universe for counsel, rather than our elders and neighbors.

On Thoreau's 'Economy'

3 Things About Henry David Thoreau:
1. Never trust people who use three names.
2. Dude. This guy has a neckbeard.
3. Louisa May Alcott made jokes relating
Thoreau's neckbeard to his virginity. Haha!

From an in-class writing prompt in Honors Comp II:

In this excerpt, Thoreau recounts an attempt to order a particular style of coat from his tailoress, one that is both older and practical. He describes the cut of the coat, only to have his request denied. The tailoress seems confused by his request, and is certain in her belief that he could not possibly want something out of style. He eventually has to assure her that the style is returning, in order to obtain his desired style of coat.

This anecdote relates to his larger argument, which seems to be that people live by a large number of arbitrary rules, arrived at by a silent, unthinking consensus, which is ultimately beneficial to none. We would be happier, Thoreau seems to be saying, were we to examine these false notions, and live by our own informed choices. In short, if we chose to ‘live deliberately’.