Analytical methods and applications

¶ … revolution by Edmund Burke and Marie Jean Antoine Nicolas Caritat, the Marquis de Condorcet. Burke disapproves of the French Revolution, and makes that very clear in his writing. He believes that religion and government are intertwined and that atheism is "against reason" (Burke 107) and it cannot succeed. He believes the revolutionaries are rioters and they are seeking something they should not seek. He believes that democracy cannot be perfect and that it is brazen, and that the revolutionaries are not consistent and their demands are only temporary and fleeting. He defines his own concept of the rights of man, and it says that men have certain rights in society, but those rights do not include all things for every person. He defines the true nature of government, and says that government will sometimes frustrate the rights of people in order to be effective. It may produce bad results, but that is to be expected, and that the revolutionaries are wrong to be tackling an age-old process that has worked for so long. He also has an idea on how the revolutionaries can avoid the evils they are perpetrating. He compares the revolutionaries to people that are murdering their parents when they should be nurturing them instead. Finally, he believes that society is a contract, and that it should not be taken lightly. He believes that the revolutionaries are not long-term or permanent, and so they should stop their revolution and allow the government to fix itself.

Condorcet, on the other hand, supports the revolutionaries, and makes valid points about what they are trying to accomplish. He opens by claiming that men are capable of great thought and great change, and this opens up new opportunities for greatness. He believes greater educational opportunities help move society forward and lead to innovation, and that equality in education is absolutely necessary, especially in the sciences. He supports medical education, and believes that simplification of the medical arts can help speed up procedures and remove obstacles to treatment. He believes this could lead to an increase in population that could lead to an up and down society that could lead to regular cycles of suffering, but this would be far in the future, after man has become much more knowledgeable and enlightened. He believes that society will reach a point where it knows that the welfare of the people, rather than simply adding to the population. He believes human happiness is premium, and that the abuse of power can lead to unhappiness. He wants the growth of families and education, and equal rights to an education, which would improve society. He also believes that every society can improve itself, and that there should be more equality throughout society.

Both of these texts illustrate just how diverse beliefs can be, and how governments are shaped. Burke is totally against the French Revolutionaries, and makes that quite clear. He believes they will destroy society for temporary success that will not last, and it shows that he really did not understand the French or what they were facing. He uses no evidence, his essay is based only on his own opinion, and he does not view the opposition's opinion or their motivation. He writes well, and the points he makes are clear, but his methods and evidence are simply lacking. He is certainly welcome to his opinion, but it does not seem based in reality. Condorcet does not write about the revolution directly, but it is clear he supports the values that the revolutionaries were fighting for, and he mentions several of them, including education, and less distinction between the rich and poor. He does not cite any evidence or analysis either; he is simply expressing his opinion, just as Burke did. He is a good writer too, and gets his points across well, but somehow, his arguments seem more balanced than Burke's, perhaps because they seem more reasonable.