Thoreau Vs Socrates

2023 Words5 Pages

There has been a long-established controversy over the duty of a citizen in a democracy, on which the Athenian philosopher, Socrates, and the American writer, Henry David Thoreau, had their own thoughts. Both philosophers had varying views on numerous subjects relating to government and conscience. Should the citizen obey all laws, even unjust ones? Or, should they rebel for the sake of doing what is right? Democracy is ruled by the people, for the people. In both Socrates’ time, and Thoreau’s, the question remains on whether this was, in practice, true. The two iconic philosophers’ opinions regarding the duty of the citizen in a democracy, the role of conscience, and the importance of nonviolent resistance, still influence people to this day. Their views augment the understanding people have of the current democracy, how consciences deal with right and wrong, and roles as citizens questioning every issue. Philosophy is often ingrained in the history, politics, and the environment …show more content…

The greatest difference is Thoreau disregarded what the majority thought and cared only for the thoughts of people in the right. Socrates, on the other hand, gave the impression he cared not what anybody thought. A similarity is Thoreau and Socrates followed their own drummers and were figures of nonconformity. However, Socrates believed in making change by obeying laws, not breaking them immediately. Thoreau felt there was no time like the present to act. Thoreau wrote, “A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight. If the alternative is to keep all just men in prison, or give up war and slavery, the State will not hesitate which to choose” (Civil Disobedience 9). Thoreau did what he thought was right, even if it didn’t make him popular, since that is not the point of trying to make

Open Document