Every aspect of human life is flawed to a certain extent. Human creations such as politics and religion are flawed, but at the same time provide comfort and structure. Humanity is on a quest to forever improve and advance the understanding of life, gathering information and using that collected data (empirical research) to explain why things are the way they are. Certainly, humanity has not always been proactive in trying to achieve equality and justice. And to this very day, people still are impoverished and starving. Thus, this is why social critics like Michel de Montaigne and Jonathan Swift analyzed and wrote about the flaws of society. Both Swift and Montaigne were trying to convince others that the society they lived in, believed to be
…show more content…
Montaigne established the essay, which uses facts and inductive reasoning to provide evidence for the detailed account of Montaigne’s reasoning. One aspect that differs between Swift’s social critique and Montaigne’s is that Montaigne gets his point across by attributing his knowledge to an actual person who witnessed and evaluated a tribe in Brazil that practiced cannibalism. According to Montaigne, this person is honest because he is not of the sort to let imagination ruin the truth. In other words, “This man was a simple, crude fellow – a character fit to bear true witness.” (pg 354). By using evidence supplied by this “crude” man, Montaigne propels his assertions based on logic that proclaims “clever people observe more thing and more curiously, but interpret them… they cannot help altering history a little.” (pg354,355). Therefore, his informant cannot be mistaken when telling Montaigne about the actions of the cannibals in Brazil. The error in Montaigne’s logic is apparent in his essay. He quotes philosophers, poets, and political leaders, all profound, important figures in history. If he is quoting from persons of high esteem, -- of intelligence – then he himself is taking exaggerated, stretched out information to support his argument. Perhaps Montaigne knew his essay was of fault when he says, “Thus, reader, I am myself the matter of my book.” (pg …show more content…
However, instead of experimenting with logic composed in an essay, and mistakenly countering his own argument with imagination, both of these aspects are turned against each other, creating satire. When Swift is crunching numbers in order to demonstrate how “projectors” (planners) use quantitative research (empirical research based on numerical data), he is trying to show how logical and sound his proposal of eating babies actually is. If mothers cannot feed their babies, and if the mothers are starving, why not use empirical data to explain how we can get read of this problem, while making a profit at the same time? Swift’s imagination is a crude tool used in order to come across as shocking as possible; his imagination flourishes. For example, Swift says, “Those who are more thrifty may flay the carcass (dead baby); the skin of which, artificially dressed, will make admiral gloves for ladies, and summer-boots for fine gentleman.”(pg.317). It is interesting how the satire treats logic and imagination as two who are of opposites. Though, Swift uses these two instruments as he intended. The result of the two together is thought
Montaigne established the essay, which uses facts and inductive reasoning to provide evidence for the detailed account of Montaigne’s reasoning. One aspect that differs between Swift’s social critique and Montaigne’s is that Montaigne gets his point across by attributing his knowledge to an actual person who witnessed and evaluated a tribe in Brazil that practiced cannibalism. According to Montaigne, this person is honest because he is not of the sort to let imagination ruin the truth. In other words, “This man was a simple, crude fellow – a character fit to bear true witness.” (pg 354). By using evidence supplied by this “crude” man, Montaigne propels his assertions based on logic that proclaims “clever people observe more thing and more curiously, but interpret them… they cannot help altering history a little.” (pg354,355). Therefore, his informant cannot be mistaken when telling Montaigne about the actions of the cannibals in Brazil. The error in Montaigne’s logic is apparent in his essay. He quotes philosophers, poets, and political leaders, all profound, important figures in history. If he is quoting from persons of high esteem, -- of intelligence – then he himself is taking exaggerated, stretched out information to support his argument. Perhaps Montaigne knew his essay was of fault when he says, “Thus, reader, I am myself the matter of my book.” (pg …show more content…
However, instead of experimenting with logic composed in an essay, and mistakenly countering his own argument with imagination, both of these aspects are turned against each other, creating satire. When Swift is crunching numbers in order to demonstrate how “projectors” (planners) use quantitative research (empirical research based on numerical data), he is trying to show how logical and sound his proposal of eating babies actually is. If mothers cannot feed their babies, and if the mothers are starving, why not use empirical data to explain how we can get read of this problem, while making a profit at the same time? Swift’s imagination is a crude tool used in order to come across as shocking as possible; his imagination flourishes. For example, Swift says, “Those who are more thrifty may flay the carcass (dead baby); the skin of which, artificially dressed, will make admiral gloves for ladies, and summer-boots for fine gentleman.”(pg.317). It is interesting how the satire treats logic and imagination as two who are of opposites. Though, Swift uses these two instruments as he intended. The result of the two together is thought