Jonathans Swifts Real Argument :: essays research papers

Jonathans actives Real Argument     God only knows from whence came Freuds theory of penis envy, but one ofhis more(prenominal) tame theories, that of "reverse psychology", may have its roots in thesatire of the late Jonathan Swift. I do not mean to assert that Swift employedor was at all familiar with that style of persuasion, but his style iscertainly comparable. Reverse psychology (as I chose to define it for thispaper) means fetching arguments that affirm an issue to such a degree that theyseem absurd, and thus oppose the issue. Swift, in "An Argument Against TheAbolishing Of Christianity In England" stands up for Christianity, and based onthe fatuity of his defense, he inadvertently desecrates it. He sets up afictitious society in which Christianity is disregarded and disdained, butnominal Christianity remains. The informant writes to defend this nominalChristianity from abolition. The arguments that the author uses, which arecommon know ledge in his time, if applied to Christianity in Swifts time wouldbe quite dangerous allegations. Indeed, the reasons that Swift gives for thepreservation of the fictitious Christianity are on the nose what he sees wrong withthe Christianity practiced in his time. By applying Swifts satirical argumentfor the preservation of this fictitious religion to that which was currentlypracticed, Swift asserts that their Christianity served ulterior motives, bothfor the organisation and for the people.     If we are to prove that the authorities was using religion for selfishpurposes, we must be sure that it was not serving its intended purpose, theassurance of the moral holiness of its policies. This is quite evident in theauthors comment that if real Christianity was revived, it would be, "destroy atone blow all the wit and half the learning of the kingdom to check up on the entireframe and constitution of things." This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt thatC hristianity has no influence on the governments current policies. It evenseems as if the government established Church isnt completely rooted inChristianity, as the author weakly suggests that, "Abolishing Christianity mayperhaps bring the church into danger." The ways that the government reallyuses Christianity are completely selfish. One such purpose is the consolation ofallies, "among whom, for we ought to know, it may be the custom of the countryto believe a God." He later goes on to suggest the abolition of Christianity inpeace-time in order to avoid the loss of allies. It also seems as if thegovernment uses Christianity to pacify the commoners. Although Swiftsarcastically interjects, "Not that I agree with those who hold religion to