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. After understanding what the French Revolutionaries were trying to accomplish, it seems that Burke was far off base. His inability to correctly understand the situation and what was actually happening in France is almost laughable today. He seems to be clinging to a traditional form of government almost in fear of anything new or different, and he actually makes arguments for saving the government, which seems ludicrous today. I would really like to know what his reaction was after the revolution was successful,...
Certainly, no revolution is ever painless, and there were some painful times during the French Revolution, but it was called for by a majority of society, who were tired of being persecuted by the wealthy and the government, and it resulted in positive change. Burke never looked at the opposing arguments for revolution; he just railed against the rioters and felt they were disloyal. Condorcet seems the more balanced of the writers, and his arguments seem more effective and rational. (of course, he was supporting the side that won, the "right" side.) I would have appreciated a more direct approach to some of the values the revolutionaries were fighting for, and a more direct relationship to his views about the revolution. The essay was well written and easy to follow, but it was intellectual and thoughtful, too. Both authors could have used more evidence and research in their works, and they could have looked at the opposing sides, too. Condorcet is clearly highly educated, so it would make sense that he would support greater educational opportunities to help create a better society. The revolutionaries were fighting for a better society, as their declaration of rights clearly indicates, and it seems that Condorcet was far better attuned to what was actually happening in France, while Burke was far removed and unrealistic. Of the two readings, Condorcet's is much more balanced and interesting, while Burke's is a little off center and even frightening in its misconception. I enjoyed Condorcet's, but did not enjoy Burke's nearly as much.
Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens and Reflections on the Revolution in France, by Edmund Burke. Specifically it will compare the two novels, answering the question: "Given that our two authors are English, what do Reflections on the Revolution in France and A Tale of Two Cities tell you about English attitudes towards revolution in general and the French Revolution in particular?" Both of these countries were in
" Here, Burke argued that revolution in general, and the French Revolution in particular, must be matched with reason and a reluctance to completely give up to radical thinking. Rousseau gave in directly to the revolution, arguing that it is a direct result of man's socialization, but Burke was much more cautious: Revolution is not automatically good for Burke, nor is it intrinsic to man. Given Burke's record as a strong supporter of
Pierre Bourdieu, "The Field of Cultural Production" from David Finkelstein and Alistair McCleery, the Book History Reader, London: Routledge, 2002. Bordieu's work is interesting in terms of analyzing contemporary media production. It is interesting that a person's profession defines and narrows is or her perspective. To wit: Bourdieu spoke about 'culture'. Now, even though his intention was culture in the conventional sense, fields including science (which in turn includes social science),
French Revolution and its Enlightenment ideas about nationalism, universal rights and equal citizenship for all was extremely influential at the time it occurred, and was widely studied and imitated afterwards. Liberals and radicals in Europe, and increasingly the rest of the world, always recognized that the French Revolution was somehow uniquely theirs, especially in its attempt to end feudalism, state-supported churches, and the entrenched privileges of monarchs and aristocracies. It
When men, therefore, break up the original compact or agreement which gives its corporate form and capacity to a state, they are no longer a people; they have no longer a corporate existence; they have no longer a legal coactive force to bind within, nor a claim to be recognized abroad. They are a number of vague, loose, individuals, and nothing more. With them all is to begin again (Sallust,
Ross (1988) notes the development of Romanticism in the late eighteenth century and indicates that it was essentially a masculine phenomenon: Romantic poetizing is not just what women cannot do because they are not expected to; it is also what some men do in order to reconfirm their capacity to influence the world in ways socio-historically determined as masculine. The categories of gender, both in their lives and in their
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now