Comparison of Thoreau and Nietzsche’s differences of philosophies regarding nonviolence In King’s lecture, Thoreau and Nietzsche were regarded as representatives from different positions. King considered Thoreau as a supporter of the standpoint that the internal value should have transcended the external, or the technological improvements of human would benefit nothing. On the other hand, he took Nietzsche as an opponent to “all-embracing and unconditional love for all men”. More than King’s evaluation to them, their philosophies with regard to nonviolence also differ a lot. Their basic altitudes towards the democracy and nonviolence conflict with each other.
It is not acceptable to go beyond legal, moral, and/or ethical boundaries when the nation is at a risky time of war, but only on certain conditions. Some issues discussing this are the neutralism of U.S., the Executive Order #9066 declared by FDR, and the decision to drop the bomb. These issues greatly impacted America’s standing in the world and history immensely. It was recorded into history for the mistakes that we did and the damage we caused. The U.S. struggled with each issue and did what they thought was right, even if damage was caused.
That is how is written on his tombstone and it should be remember that way, like a hero. I also believe by us talking about his character flaws it wouldn’t be fair for him because he is not present to defend himself or to even listen to his side of the argument. No one is perfect, people in general have flaws and doesn’t determine the time of person they are or will become, Jefferson should be remember for his accomplishments and all the good he did this
However, the citizens wanted to make their own rules to follow, sensible and understandable rules. Further on Paine explains “the sun will never shine on a cause of greater worth?” I think that Paine is saying that it is such an issue that we should look to reform it in any way so that it is more fair to all citizens. The struggle of having a King or a Monarchy for the people at that time was difficult. The community wanted a more fair and equal government, while the king was not giving that to them. Let’s take for instance when Paine refers to the past writings of another author, Mr. Pelham “they will last my time.” The name of ancestors will be remembered for their great deeds by future generations with destinies of their own.
Being a war-opponent and social activist, Howard Zinn’s most likely intention in writing “Unsung Heroes” was to educate people about the mistakes (and deliberate lies) that are, in his opinion, very common in the perception of American history. Also, he likely wanted to direct attention towards the un-credited but “true” heroes who may not be shining enough to fit the common definition of a hero, but who have made meaningful contributions and therefore deserve to be remembered. In any case, they are people who are not responsible for killings of native Americans or the suppressing of minorities. Despite the popularity of Zinn’s views and of “A Peoples History of the United States”, there is an opinion that Zinn is overly pessimistic in his interpretation of the past. Further, some people complain, as he states himself, that they feel “thoroughly alienated and depressed” after reading the book.
From today as mine by right.” Creon also now believes that as he is now king he is infallible and believes that his own laws should come above the laws of the gods. “But I am the law” Creon`s own attitude towards his own rule seems very autocratic, his opinion that a king does not need to listen to the people and make judgements he believes are the most beneficial to the state. “ I have never based my political principles on the opinions of people in the streets” “And I will act according to my own convictions” Creon believes that his actions to deny the burial of Polynices are justified because he believes that the gods will support his actions as Polynices was a traitor and Creon sees no reason as to why the gods would honour a traitor. “No, he must be left unburied, his corpse carrion for the birds and dogs to tear, an obscenity for citizens to behold! These are my principles.
There are reasons to support both sides of the issue. War is seen by most as a measure that should only be used if there is no other alternative. Some would argue that war should be an offensive strategy because if we perceive a country as a threat, we should be able fight them. And the others point out that war should never be used. Only diplomatic resolutions should be used in a modern society.
This is because Transcendentalists believe the only way to find peace is by being self- reliant. This opinion is repeated in Thoreau’s, “Civil Disobedience Part 1”: “All machines have their friction; and possibly this does enough good to counterbalance the evil… I say, let us not have such a machine any longer” (4). The “friction” Thoreau talks of represents the lack of self-manning that becomes present in society when machines are brought in. This would be an important issue to Transcendentalists as self-manning is key to living life. When the author voices his
This universal norm is rooted in Cicero’s belief that there is a humani generis societas, a "society of mankind rather than of states” (Defrost). Due to his beliefs, Cicero hated war which was why he served a very short term in the military (Clayton). Yet he understood that an entirely passive nation or state would eventually fall prey to more powerful and aggressive ones (Holmes). As a result he formulated
Today, many governments still hold the historic idea that a war in a foreign land can be justified if they are doing good for the people living in the area they are attacking. The idea of liberation, to overthrow or defeat an oppressive or unjust ruler and free the people being ruled over, has become one of the most common justifications of war in the modern day. However, most of the time the forces that see themselves as liberators