06 December, 2010
01 December, 2010
29 November, 2010
I haven't written anything for quite some time now. I feel like I have been trying to keep my thoughts hidden from myself - perhaps fearing I will come to some sort of monumental realization that will alter the course of my life (like it's so interesting.) I have a habit of halting any form of documented thought when the sight my own writing makes me feel uneasy. Reading some of my former entries, I am slightly nauseated by the arrogance crouched down in between the lines. Hardly hidden. I reached a point where I wanted to maintain my privacy, and write something worth reading at the same time. I don't have the skill and quite frankly, vulnerability is what makes written words so emotional - and beautiful in its own pained way. What is the point in writing if it doesn't set you free?
09 June, 2010
Comatose Confessions Part One(excerpt)
I have a really big heart. I care about people enough to hate most of them the way they deserve to be hated. I care enough to realize them for what they are. I'm looking in a world where truths are clouded and the inhabitants of it wouldn't be able to see those truths even if they weren't. The world is a dark place. Good for the optimists, always looking at "the bright side of things" but how long can they keep running from shadows? How long can you avoid the inevitable?
I have a hard time sleeping. I stay awake long enough not to care so much about anything. The more well rested I am, the clearer my thoughts become. Then comes the disgust. Then comes the anger. Then comes all the feelings of hopelessness and fear, blurring together. And then,
I drift away.
I have a hard time sleeping. I stay awake long enough not to care so much about anything. The more well rested I am, the clearer my thoughts become. Then comes the disgust. Then comes the anger. Then comes all the feelings of hopelessness and fear, blurring together. And then,
I drift away.
30 March, 2010
10 March, 2010
Acting on Human Conscience in a Mechanical Society (excerpt)
The ability to decipher the difference between good and evil comes from the human conscience and it is up to each individual to act upon their own, regardless of the dictations or laws enforced by the government and other social norms. Despite probable consequences, human beings are obliged to follow their conscience over the law and subsequently over the behavior of the majority of people within the State. Thoreau contends that just because the majority of people follow certain laws does not make it morally correct, it simply means that they are "physically the strongest." There is no regard for justice or fairness in the way that governments are usually run. I think that power and force are the only traits that are truly regarded within the system, whether it be by governor or citizen.
Thoreau states that citizens should be men before subjects, meaning they would have to act upon their conscience and do what is right and morally good rather than what is wrong but expedient. A situation discussed in Civil Disobedience is the military and the many soldiers conforming to such a travesty while knowing fully well that it is what Thoreau calls a "damnable business." Acting as so many pawns for the men governing the state without acting upon their conscience makes them the equivalent of fleshy machines, and no better than simple tools used for the objectives of the government.
Acting upon the conscience does not necessarily mean reserving ones whole life to extirpate injustices within the system. Following the conscience could also be choosing not to act and pointedly refusing to support, participate or dabble in these issues. I certainly think that failing to make a point of ones refusal of accepting an evil established or promoted by the State is just as well as condoning those same evils. If one finds fault with certain actions of the government and expresses these concerns, they contradict their denunciation of the State by paying their tax to support these businesses. By paying their expected due to the government, they also fail to answer the call of their own conscience – funding something that they know to be defective. Thoreau suggests that if it is agreeable with the conscience, the law should be broken in order to adhere to the unwritten laws of mankind and that “What I (people) have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn.” By allowing oneself to operate within the machine that is the government, they oil it, keeping it functioning in the morally destructive way that it does. Waiting patiently for the masses to collectively abolish a wrong doing of the government by vote is not the way to be an honest, conscientious being if the government is wrong.
Society often views laws issued to govern the citizens of a country to be good because when people disobey these laws they are punished. It often gives people an idea that abstaining from following certain laws is wrong. However, following directions issued by the government when the conscience feels that it is immoral is the real ethical crime. The knowledge of truth within the conscience would be ignored for the individual's personal gain, which in this case would be avoiding potential incarceration. A conscience is not to be confused with unadulterated feelings and emotions because those do not make accurate distinctions between what is good and what is evil. I think that a conscience is beyond feelings, and gives people an innate intuition of truth.
According to Thoreau, the human conscience comes from a divine entity. I think that the divine is beyond human rationale and is absolutely far beyond sciences, laws, and theories. The divine is the truth, transcending governments and societies. The contrast between what is good and what is evil is known by every man because their conscience is aware of it. In this way, those men in corporations and governments deny their conscience, serving no real justice to man-kind. Thoreau asks, “Why has every man a conscience, then?” and shortly after states:
It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience.
I think those particular words reiterates the fact that it is up to people, and it is the obligation of people to attend to their conscience and follow what they assume to be right. In Civil Disobedience, Thoreau firmly asserts that whether or not the conscience is consistent with the laws created by the government, it should be adhered to. In spite of the consequences that one may be subjected to by the State, men are nevertheless indebted to act as conscientious beings before all else. The moral failings of the State, and it's inability to treat its citizens as intelligent beings rather than mobile weapons is certainly a concern and should not be taken lightly, much less supported or excused in any respect.
Thoreau states that citizens should be men before subjects, meaning they would have to act upon their conscience and do what is right and morally good rather than what is wrong but expedient. A situation discussed in Civil Disobedience is the military and the many soldiers conforming to such a travesty while knowing fully well that it is what Thoreau calls a "damnable business." Acting as so many pawns for the men governing the state without acting upon their conscience makes them the equivalent of fleshy machines, and no better than simple tools used for the objectives of the government.
Acting upon the conscience does not necessarily mean reserving ones whole life to extirpate injustices within the system. Following the conscience could also be choosing not to act and pointedly refusing to support, participate or dabble in these issues. I certainly think that failing to make a point of ones refusal of accepting an evil established or promoted by the State is just as well as condoning those same evils. If one finds fault with certain actions of the government and expresses these concerns, they contradict their denunciation of the State by paying their tax to support these businesses. By paying their expected due to the government, they also fail to answer the call of their own conscience – funding something that they know to be defective. Thoreau suggests that if it is agreeable with the conscience, the law should be broken in order to adhere to the unwritten laws of mankind and that “What I (people) have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn.” By allowing oneself to operate within the machine that is the government, they oil it, keeping it functioning in the morally destructive way that it does. Waiting patiently for the masses to collectively abolish a wrong doing of the government by vote is not the way to be an honest, conscientious being if the government is wrong.
Society often views laws issued to govern the citizens of a country to be good because when people disobey these laws they are punished. It often gives people an idea that abstaining from following certain laws is wrong. However, following directions issued by the government when the conscience feels that it is immoral is the real ethical crime. The knowledge of truth within the conscience would be ignored for the individual's personal gain, which in this case would be avoiding potential incarceration. A conscience is not to be confused with unadulterated feelings and emotions because those do not make accurate distinctions between what is good and what is evil. I think that a conscience is beyond feelings, and gives people an innate intuition of truth.
According to Thoreau, the human conscience comes from a divine entity. I think that the divine is beyond human rationale and is absolutely far beyond sciences, laws, and theories. The divine is the truth, transcending governments and societies. The contrast between what is good and what is evil is known by every man because their conscience is aware of it. In this way, those men in corporations and governments deny their conscience, serving no real justice to man-kind. Thoreau asks, “Why has every man a conscience, then?” and shortly after states:
It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience.
I think those particular words reiterates the fact that it is up to people, and it is the obligation of people to attend to their conscience and follow what they assume to be right. In Civil Disobedience, Thoreau firmly asserts that whether or not the conscience is consistent with the laws created by the government, it should be adhered to. In spite of the consequences that one may be subjected to by the State, men are nevertheless indebted to act as conscientious beings before all else. The moral failings of the State, and it's inability to treat its citizens as intelligent beings rather than mobile weapons is certainly a concern and should not be taken lightly, much less supported or excused in any respect.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
