Thomas Paine Paradox

The Paradox of “Common Sense”: an Analysis on Paine’s Preeminent Work When one examines the arguments of history’s most influential leaders, there is one inconspicuous, but undeniable truth: logic is never completely logical. Whether they gratify mankind's natural love of credible authority figures or satisfy emotional impulses, logic-based texts always contain minutia that appeal to other aspects of the human psyche. This paradox is none the better exemplified than in the ironically named “Common Sense,” a 1776 pamphlet by famous revolutionary Thomas Paine. In his writing, Paine argues that colonial America should separate from Britain, citing offenses by England’s monarchy, the pros of separation and unifying the states, and England's fallacious
He juxtaposes hatred of the king with pride and hope for a new, united future free from the grasp of England's tyranny. These positive emotions are once again intertwined with fallacy. For example, when Paine states “The members of Congress, Assemblies, or Conventions, by having had experience in national concerns, will be able and useful counsellors” (Paine 28), he is actually asserting a non sequitur argument. Paine assumes because Congressmen will have experience in politics, they will be effective leaders, a broad statement which corrupt politicians have proven wrong throughout history. Nevertheless, when presented with the overwhelmingly negative connotated monarchy, such a phrase instead inspires hope and optimism. The idea of a useful leader, even a flawed one, overjoys the audience. Paine further capitalizes on this juxtaposition between the negative monarchy and glorified democracy in his pamphlet’s closing, purposely using false dichotomy to emphasise the divide between good and bad. In the final passage of his writing, Paine asserts “Independence is the only bond that can tie and keep us together… our ears will be legally shut against the schemes of an intriguing, as well as a cruel enemy” (Paine 46), a statement that pits the calm emotions of unity and security against those of England’s instability and war. Though there are many other options to unite the nation, Paine reduces his argument to two,
Paine manipulates his audience into believing they are merely being seduced by logic, when in reality he subtly toys with their emotions to provoke outrage and hope. This strategy is purposeful, meant to avoid one of the common pitfalls of eighteenth century writing. This pamphlet is meant to appeal to the common people, a group which, at the time, was inundated with flaming, and often off putting, rhetoric. By stylizing his argument to appear logical, he avoids the commoner’s automatic disgust at radical oratory while still imparting an emotional message. Paine’s manipulation of the reader’s emotions may seem unscrupulous, however no one can deny it’s extremely effective. Though his pamphlet may be named “Common Sense”, it’s anything but pure