This week you were asked to read excerpts from the speech of Robespierre and Edmund Burke's seminal text "Reflections on the Revolution in France." The two thinkers, one - direct participant, the other - an observer, found themselves at the opposite poles of the political spectrum stretched into hitherto unknown parts of the public opinion thanks to the workings of the Revolution itself.
In the context of the reading materials assigned, I offer you the possibility of answering ONE of the two questions posed below:
1. How did both of the thinkers understand the meaning of "republic"? What made the "republic" functional in Burke's view - and how did his vision differ from that of Robespierre?
2. Robespierre is using the force of his rhetoric to justify the use of Terror. Burke, on the other hand, writing a few years before the Revolution turned to the terroristic means, laments the destruction resulting, as he puts it, from the "rash and ignorant counsel". What is your position on the issue of radicalism and Terror? Could the Revolution have succeeded without having recourse to violent means, by way of steady and liberal progression towards its goal?
In the context of the reading materials assigned, I offer you the possibility of answering ONE of the two questions posed below:
1. How did both of the thinkers understand the meaning of "republic"? What made the "republic" functional in Burke's view - and how did his vision differ from that of Robespierre?
2. Robespierre is using the force of his rhetoric to justify the use of Terror. Burke, on the other hand, writing a few years before the Revolution turned to the terroristic means, laments the destruction resulting, as he puts it, from the "rash and ignorant counsel". What is your position on the issue of radicalism and Terror? Could the Revolution have succeeded without having recourse to violent means, by way of steady and liberal progression towards its goal?
The first cause of appearance of the terror in revolution is the society. The need in terror is expressed through the public opinion. And it is a phenomenon that we can forecast approximately but we can't be absolutely sure about this prediction. Because there is always the possibility of political "cyclones", which will bring the wind of changes and appropriate kickback. Therefore, question about the necessity of revolution is incorrect.
ReplyDeleteIf society consisted of one person, it would not produce destruction and murder. But society is made up of millions, who start to destroy everything under a lot of senseless excitement. Terror is not an extreme permissible measure, it is impermissible. Revolution brings changes and it's needed. The end of one revolution must mean the beginning of new one! But the terror for the freedom is absurd struggle. Because it destroys the freedom of lives of others... Terror doesn't bring changes itself, all the changes occurs later. Bloody revolution are happenings of past and future, they can take a place in the world. However, they do not bring any benefits instead of notification of chops and changes. Revolution is a natural state in which society must be in till the end of history. Government can't always force and push the people, if they do not give up in front of the terror.
The terror from the people and bloody revolutions are only the ability of people to deal with the fear of the state…
Edmund Burke - british philosopher, who was one of the most famous antagonists of French Revolution. He had a straight views, he thought that French Revolution is a terrible mistake, which destroys traditional legacy and spiritual culture. Acording to him, it was just a power demonstration by the crowd and reforms should be done in agreement with law. He wanted to say that there should be a evolution, not revolution.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise, Robespierre - one of the best-known figures of the French Revolution. Robespierre played an important role in arguing for the execution of King Louis XVI, and the creation of a French Republic. He had more liberal views than Burke, he was one of the creators of French Constitution of 1791 and Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, he had a negative position to dead penalty and slavery. He understood that it was impossible to solve problems in law. Robespierre wanted to change government and make France free from bourgeoisie.
Burke believed in society with traditional hierarchy, Robespierre believed in a republic, where every citizen has rights.
My idea of the terror of the revolution seems to me as a kind of side-effect it. I am confident that the revolutionaries had high ideals, such as: freedom, equality, justice... But many of them are perverted under the influence of uncontrollable crowd, and as a result we got something that people came to power, violence and thirst for power (through intimidation). They blinded by words "freedom". To those who don't have it, it's more valuable than gold. But where should it start and end? We humans often think we have the right to expand, absorb, convert, or possesses anything we need to reach our dreams. But time and time again, hasn't this led to conflicts with others who essentially believe the same thing?
ReplyDeleteFor an important part of the revolution was to be moral. Most of the time, didn't people to keep their values in mind, knowing how their actions would affect others? More often than not, people resisted the urge to abuse power and resources simply to reach my goals more swiftly.
It's that temptation that so worries Burke. He's not afraid of freedom. He's afraid of the chaos that erupts when individuals have nothing but morality to constrain them. Absolute freedom is no better than chaos. Society needs laws and regulations to protect it. So if people have to take for granted the existence of a hierarchical system among the people, and as a result it will guide us to a bright and safe future, will supporting this system be all that bad? If they're as wise as Burke says, how bad will their leadership be?
Maybe they forgot their initial aim, truly meaning of "justice". Absorbed by vengeance and fear of losing positions they came to this decisions - to kill anyone who will get against them.
DeleteRobespierre and Burke have their feelings sprung from diametrically opposed outlooks. The former, eager aficionado of revolutionary dogma, had seen deployment of terror as the only means to hold back the opposition in hopes of suppressing all alternative ideas to the newly established regime, whilst the latter considered the composition of conflicting interests within society as an indicator of the precipitate tendencies taken by authority and even more as an inherent constituent of every state.
ReplyDeleteRobespierre put the notion of virtue at the nucleus of his argument, taking it for the love for republic, laws and equality. For him virtue is a volatile feature which may or may not exist in the spirits of either the people or the government and is actuated by nothing other than terror. Thus, Robespierre's mission was to maintain an appropriate trade-off between virtue and terror to defeat the internal enemies of the Republic, eradicate traitor's “tyranny” by dint of tyranny itself and make all people virtually equal. As to me, the viewed movie has made clear that Robespierre personally (notwithstanding his originally being one of the most fervent proponents of sheer revolutionary ideas), having gained much power, involuntarily lost track of what lies on the verge in between genuine intention to bring freedom and democracy into action and turning revolution into formidable bloody machine of annihilation and oppression.
Burke, on the contrary, envisaged effective government to be a compromise attained among the diversity of members and interests, whereas the standards of virtue and wisdom come to us from our forefathers. He held that freedom must be gradually disciplined to grow venerable in the minds of people, who have natural predisposition for it, rather than to be imposed by fear. Nowise could it be permissible to do away with real inequality amongst people which would only be intensified by radical actions. Instead, we should rather focus on moral equality by which those in splendid conditions would have as much happiness as commoners left in a humble state.
I agree with Nikita, that terror on the French revolution is some kind of side-effect of it. Long way of revolution involving many people of different social positions led to create radical decisions on people who did not comply new changes in country. Robespierre even if he was not the leader of "Radical Machine", he uses force of words, creating thoughts such that terror is the right thing on war, that terror is the thing that can stay with virtue and that terror is the fast way to getting the aim. With this, he killed a lot of people inside of their organization and beside. I think that is not a meaning of revolution, this is the totally opposition of their aiming on "Liberty", "Equality" or "Justice". Burke said that this revolution is just a coming of new government with any skills and experience. They like a savages without any wisdom he said.
ReplyDeleteFinally, i think that dirty work could be done without any violence. Why? Because, it was clearly understandably when Louis XVI started to hear the voice of nation, the voice of people and make the decisions on their offerings. King was shocked after States-General, he expected for this time something else. Anyway, without violence it would be take much more time to get to Republic. That's why Robespierre said that "Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue; it is not so much a special principle as it is a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs. ". He wanted to say people that this was only way to fastly get to their great victory.
Burke, English politician, and Robespierre, the French revolutionary, who have opposing views about the French Revolution. Both of them wrote about the the desire for freedom as an important virtue, but first criticized idealogii and implementation of the French Revolution, and the other, as a direct participant, justifies terror, if it leads to the formation of the freedom.
ReplyDeleteBurke, one of the founders of conservatism, in the memory of ancestors, in maintaining the principles of European law and its adaptation to the current situation, see the way to a free state, strong army and powerfull church. Burke criticizes despotism, and sees in the ruins of the French Revolution only ignorance of decisions taken in France.
Robespierre wrote about the virtues, as the key to achieving democracy in France. Virtue is freedom. It is important that the desire for freedom from the people and is expressed by the state, and from the state to the people. Robespierre saw in an effort to justify the Terror. "Virtue, without which terror is fatal; terror, without which virtue is poweless."
When we are talking about French Revolution, we should understand what life was before this event. It was a incredible gulf between different classes. The country was hit by bloated bureaucracy and corruption. Government has neglected the needs of farmers, etc. I am thinking, that all of this factors created the condition for the terror. However, for the act a condition is not enough, needed the reagent which will start the reaction. Implicit faith that terror could help overcome external enemies and race for power was the reagent. Summarizing, the French Revolution was doomed to terror, but it is clear that the same results could have been achieved without the "people’s razor" and blind terror.
ReplyDelete