Introduction
The argument of self-reliance versus civil disobedience has been the most significant controversy in many countries. There are many ways for human beings to learn the truth. According to Ralph Emerson and Henry Thoreau, following one’s intuition is best needed, especially when they are up against conformity to society. Emerson and Thoreau also highlight the significance of nature and its connection with humans. Both authors investigate self-reliance and civil disobedience topics but from different perspectives. Ralph Emerson contrasts it as the perfect “City of God” to the City of Men or Society in his essays “Nature” and “Divine School Address.” They claim that people can no longer see nature and that their bonds with one another have weakened significantly. The main argument in both their articles was how humans neglect to use their intuition and conform to society, which motivates the government to control them.
Discussion
The two works, Emerson’s “Self-reliance” and Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience,” differ in genre. For example, Ralph Emerson’s “Nature” is composed in a speculative essay. The author wishes to be as objective as possible, so he frequently uses the personal pronoun “we.” The use of personal pronouns characterizes the article’s point of view, which motivates the readers (Emerson 8). It promotes Ralph’s belief that nature and humanity are connected by reflecting on his experiences. It should be noted, however, that “we” can also refer to humanity or society since it represents a significant number of people (Green 198). In this regard, one might conclude that Emerson’s use of “we” demonstrates his desire to maintain objectivity.
Another critical comparison to consider is how these authors perceive nature. Emerson, for example, associates nature with God, writing, “Within these plantations of God, a decorum and sanctity reign… We return to reason and faith in these woods” (Emerson 188). Furthermore, he regards nature as a living being capable of responding to a person. This response, according to him, is determined by the person’s mental state or spirit. He says that nature only assimilates the colors of an individual’s heart (Green 198). According to Emerson, people should only see themselves as an indistinguishable component of nature or a “particle of God” (Green 211). The author believes that an individual can be enlightened and free through nature. The essential focus he wants to communicate is that for God, and thus for nature, all people are equal, regardless of social status.
Emerson expands on this idea in his “Divinity School Address,” stating that the rules established in societal structure refute the laws of God. He claims that an individual can assess the moral standards or moral depravity of one’s actions through “intuition,” which should serve as a guide to human behavior (Emerson 222). The main concern is that individuals frequently disregard it in favor of external laws. Furthermore, Emerson claims that the church misinterpreted Jesus Christ’s main ideas; his precepts are only declared, yet they are not followed (Green 201). In his opinion, these qualities can be acquired via nature; this concept is expressed in his book “Walden.” According to Ralph Emerson, nature is a representation that individuals ought to follow.
Henry Thoreau does not see nature as a metaphor for God but believes it is an animate being. For example, he emphasizes capitalizing “Nature herself” throughout the text (Lombard 154). The author wishes to demonstrate that people should not be scared of tranquility because it allows them to reconnect with nature. he says that he has never found a more companionable companion than nature (Green 235). He contends that a person can still feel lonely even amongst other people. Thoreau says that he is a monarch of the survey, and it is his right to explore nature that no one can dispute. Thoreau believes that only nature can bring people true joy.
It is wise to consider these writers’ works together as their ideologies only complement each other, especially when it comes to intuition and self-sufficiency. Self-sufficiency implies the capacity to make independent choices (Green 200). Furthermore, Ralph Emerson and Henry Thoreau contend that nature is alive. As a result, rather than discussing these authors’ works separately, it is wise to examine them from the perspective of transcendentalism (Green 221). The main difference is that Emerson explores nature mainly about human society; he holds that individuals ought to follow their gut feelings, which is the most natural way (Green 222). Unlike him, Thoreau does not make comparisons between nature and society; instead, the author rejects these notions; for him, nature is a means of becoming independent of other people.
Emerson and Thoreau assert individualism and personal expression in various ways in their essays “Self-Reliance” and “Civil Disobedience.” Emerson urges individuals to voice their opinions and resist societal conformity in “Self-Reliance”(Emerson 64). Thoreau urged Americans to publicly express their views in “Civil Disobedience” to enhance their government (Lombard 196). The perception of how people could form government and society differs significantly between Emerson’s and Thoreau’s philosophies as articulated in “Self-Reliance” and “Civil Disobedience.” Emerson believes that a person ought only to follow his conscience and intellect, not the opinions of others (Emerson 112). Emerson contends that it is feasible to defy society’s everyday habits and beliefs and to be understood in the community.
Social responsibility is essential in Emerson’s “Self-Reliance.” The implication is that there comes a point in an individual’s life when they realize that they have a reason, a fate, and the obligation to achieve their goals if they can tap into their spiritual nature. Emerson says that the most muscular man in the world is the one who stands alone (Green 200)). He refers to the belief in individualism and trust in one’s intuition. Emerson observes that famous men and women are commonly misunderstood merely because of their viewpoints, ideas, and thoughts; however, they are revered precisely because of these misconceptions. One central point in “Self-Reliance” is that people should not comply with society but rather be self-sufficient.
Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” shares the same philosophical ideas as “Self-Reliance.” Social responsibility is frequently emphasized and used to define how all individuals are obligated to bring justice to those in need. In “Civil Disobedience,” Thoreau meets a prison inmate who has been imprisoned for torching a barn. Nonetheless, Thoreau sees his roommate as honorable simply by trusting his intuition (Green 199). Furthermore, Thoreau writes that the government is the best which governs least, based on the idea that people should not correspond to society but rather operate independently and accept their perceptions, objectives, virtues, and moral standards.
“Self-Reliance” and “Civil Disobedience” are both relevant in contemporary society since they prevent conformity, a significant issue in today’s world. Humans are inclined to side with the majority, but they should be imparted to stand their ground (Lombard 113). Both essays discuss the government and the issues it faces (Green 199). The government has not improved since they were written; it may have deteriorated. Government is best when it governs the least —this viewpoint should still be applied to today’s system. The government now attempts to regulate every aspect of everyone’s life, but, as Thoreau suggests, it should allow its individuals to choose on significant issues.
Thoreau claimed that individuals should disobey laws enacted by the government deemed unjust to each individual. He, therefore, states that he would not wish to be regarded as a member of any society he had not joined (Lombard 121). He attempted to explain how he would not take part in things he did not believe were right in his heart, so he chose not to pay the tax and was imprisoned. He disobeys the government because he believes paying taxes is wrong and does not want to be a part of the government. It is also tied to somewhat Emerson said. He urges people to trust their minds and know that every action they take from their intuition is with great consequence (Green 197). Therefore, they should be able to decide how they want to be governed and not let the government lead them astray.
The two authors, Emerson and Thoreau, complement each other’s work. Therefore, it is difficult to determine which of the two authors has the more effective message. Emerson mainly discusses it in terms of divinity, believing it to be God’s masterpiece, whereas Thoreau mostly talks about the concept of spiritual solitude (Green 134). Nature, he claims, fills the void inside that society cannot. Nonetheless, Emerson’s ideas appear to have far-reaching implications since he notes that man’s rules, and even those of the Christian church, frequently refute the primary law of nature, love.
Conclusion
In conclusion, intuition works best because only people can tell what is best for them. Intuition gives people the confidence they need to ensure democracy in the government. This is because individualism leads to the projection of independent ideas, which overrules the fear of being misunderstood. Therefore, intuition promotes the moral objectives of the people as they hold up their ideologies, beliefs, and ethical standards.
Work Cited
Emerson, Ralph Waldo. Self-reliance. Lulu. com, 2019.
Green, Jeffrey Edward. “Self-reliance without self-satisfaction: Emerson, Thoreau, Dylan and the problem of inaction.” Philosophy & Social Criticism 47.2 (2021): 196–224.
Lombard, David. “Henry David Thoreau: Civil Disobedience.” (2021).