As referenced the last month or whatever, there are various collections out there -- on book and book on audio -- that provide a quickie analysis of great works and movements/ideologies. Persons too. Thus, I have read various in the series of books where people like John Dean (Warren Harding) join with historians to provide small bios of our presidents. Different publishers and such put these out. They clearly provide a mixed bag (I found P.J. O'Rourke's take on Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations a bit boring), but also supply a quick means to have a flavor of all that classic education you did not quite have.
And, you just might go deeper into the pool in the process ... Christopher Hitchens' take on Thomas Paine makes me want to read more of his writings. I had to read Common Sense for class way back when, and probably read excerpts of some of his other writings. [Likewise, I read Tocqueville, though I remember very little -- rather typical there -- and saw another one of those books today ... if a bit longer this time -- on him. It also calls to mind an old C-SPAN series where they followed Tocqueville's route.] Paine is a character and his writings suggest a fellow traveller, if one whose flights of reason and passion was a bit haphazard at times.
His near death in France during the revolution he enthused about suggests as much. Paine changed his opinions about things ... Hitchens noted that he grew to see the importance of the independent judiciary in France, earlier focusing on the executive and legislative branches (the judicial character of the House of Lords ... and states like Connecticut ... at the time suggests the blending that went on, not just in the sense that the judicial was early on often deemed an executive duty -- "the king's justice" and all that). A moment of courage in his life was his passionate argument that King Louis XVI should not be executed ... or at least, deserved a fair trial. One thinks of Saddam Hussein.
That helped push the French authorities to arrest him, leading him to work on editing The Age of Reason in his prison cell. Hitchens, in one of various remarks that suggest why even those who think him an asshole on Iraq admit he's a good writer, notes that he started that work by candlelight (risking arrest ... and apparently not having a Bible available ... France in its Church of Reason mode), edited it in his death cell (a mixed up saved his life), and finished it (now with a Bible on hand) in a room provided by future President, James Monroe.
[Update: I linked to Paine's writings below and Wikipedia has some good background, the usual salt taken etc. He himself notes this lack of a Bible when writing the first half of The Age of Reason. I also found an old book I have of excerpts of "great thinkers," and among those highlighted is Burke's reflections on the French Revolution, the thing that pissed Paine off so much.
As with Paine, his writing is worth reading as much for the logic as the journey. See, e.g., Burke's use of "prejudices," suggested by the editors to mean "social myths." A telling word choice, I think, conservatives at times compelled to believe what rational thought would deem folly. Why? The alternative is in effect dangerous. Such ignorance is bliss logic is hard to deal with at times (the "reality community" sorts can feel self-satisfied, but what does it get them, really?), but does explain a lot.]
Hitchens also noted Paine's claim in this book to be guided only by reason was belied by his earlier appeals to the Bible, a useful book when your audience are not rationalists supportive of deism like himself but those who might have just one book -- said Bible -- in their home. Paine did gleefully attack the Bible as history in The Age of Reason, including actually reading the Isaiah 7 prophecy cited as proof of Jesus' virgin birth ... crossreferencing it to II Chronicles to suggest he was wrong in his immediate prophecy as to a Jewish king to boot!* Such things led him to be suspicious of organized religion, suggesting for him, his mind was his church.
The whole exercise might be deemed overkill after awhile, and overshooting his mark at times, except that some still take these things very seriously ... and not in a metaphorical sense. BTW, as Hitchens notes, what is this business about doing things so prophecy would be fulfilled? Isn't that sorta forcing the issue a bit? As Hitchens also notes, Paine -- who foresaw things social welfare legislation and UN-like organizations -- did not take these things to their possible logical conclusions. He was of his time in certain ways (women rights was not an issue for him). So, he basically just accepted life after death ... it's logically possible, right, and is a nice thing to conceive. Homer definitely nodded there.
[Update: It's useful to doublecheck. In his "creed," Paine "hoped" for an afterlife. This he deemed reasonable, which it is as a possibility, but not something he can "believe" exists since that can only be determine by experience. Not experiencing death, or seeing signs of life after death, an afterlife could only be something hoped for.]
Likewise, his deism was based on a sort of argument from design that Kant -- of his generation, though apparently Paine was not familiar with his work -- and others showed even then was a dubious enterprise. This reminds one of the whole natural law vs. natural rights deal ... Paine and Jefferson (who also had fantasies of Utopian Anglo-Saxons before the Normans corrupted everything) wanted to show that reason dictates that there was a deistic god out there that helped support their passion for rights and equality ... and freedom of the mind. John Adams, who surely believed in God too, had something over them really with his more cynical feelings on human nature and government. "Rights" are surely in some core way inventions to deal with our needs and at time rank desires. Inventions can be cool ... don't worry.
[One editorial comment pointed out that Paine bases belief in God on "the universal display of himself in the works of the creation and by that repugnance we feel in ourselves to bad actions, and disposition to do good ones." The latter reflects Jefferson's understanding of the basic goodness of humans. See also, Paine's remarks here.**]
But, we all have our moments, surely idealists. Overall, Paine had a lot good to say, and his writings still stand up nicely in many ways. And, his passion, active rational mind and sharp tongue only add flavor to the whole enterprise. Given classic material of this sort is often hard to take after awhile, this is well appreciated as well. The best seller success of Common Sense suggests it was then as well.
---
* Paine also is not so keen about this "love thy enemy" stuff. Revenge is dangerous and all, "enemy" often too vague and arbitrary, but the basic concept seemed to him more appropriate to the spaniel. His blunt and wicked tone is also shown in his discussions of the "Holy Ghost," and its connection with the pigeon (dove ... see Jesus' baptism, etc.).
A Few Words On Hitchens' P.O.V.
Though I found the book pleasant reading, it was a bit thin at times ... it is hard to compress so much in under 150 pages and small ones at that. And, apparently, we should take some of the history/analysis with more than a grain of salt as well though there was some criticism of that take. I don't know enough to properly judge all the details, but brief summary works should be taken with some salt all the same.
And, to the degree the book supplies basic history and Paine's (and Burke's) own words for us to judge, it is rather safe as well as a useful effort overall. Still, even a less critical review suggests some slant, shown most directly by Hitchens dedicating the book to the "first elected president of the Republic of Iraq; sworn foe of fascism and theocracy; leader of a national revolution and a people’s army."
But, this is not atypical. A discerning reader understands such things, but judges the work as useful all the same. This is how one should read the papers, for instance, especially given media criticism has ended a credible attempt to take a Pollyanna alternative view. So, overall, I do recommend the book, even if we should recognize Hitchens is an amateur historian with a dog in the fight.
---
** "Do we want to contemplate his power? We see it in the immensity of the Creation. Do we want to contemplate his wisdom? We see it in the unchangeable order by which the incomprehensible WHOLE is governed. Do we want to contemplate his munificence? We see it in the abundance with which he fills the earth. Do we want to contemplate his mercy? We see it in his not withholding that abundance even from the unthankful. In fine, do we want to know what GOD is? Search not written or printed books, but the Scripture called the 'Creation.'"
As Hitchens notes, Darwin was born the year Paine died, and brought with him another vision of "creation." Given the want and horrors of the day, "mercy" also seems a bit much. Many ... in England and elsewhere ... had such abundance withheld. Anyway, it is interesting how an argument (first cause etc.) which seems mechanical morphs into an personal one with "mercy" and all that. He had some of that faith mixed in with reason, sure enough.