Name
Professor Martin
ENGL-2332-3W1
27 June 2008 
Reconciliation of Rationality and Reverence Reaps Rewards
	If you were Neo, which would you choose – the red pill or the blue pill? The philosophical dichotomy of The Matrix depicts the two extremes of action - seeking the naked truth, and inaction - blissful ignorance. In Homer’s monster epic, The Odyssey, Odysseus faces the “Matrix pill dilemma” time and time again, having to decide whether he needs to take the initiative and rely on his intelligence, or play the submissive role and heed the warnings of the gods. In his 1987 analysis “Reckless Rationalism and Heroic Reverence in Homer’s Odyssey,” Darrell Dobbs argues that Odysseus prudently balances the extremes. Using logic as his weapon of choice, not only does Dobbs prove that rationality moderated with conscious reverence is the key to Odysseus’s success, but he bridges a lesson of the literary past to modern politics as well.
	Dobbs sets forth the claim that most literary critics and political science analysts do an insufficient job of evaluating certain fundamental messages in The Odyssey. While literary critics “regard Odysseus’s greatness as consisting exclusively in his intellectual resourcefulness” (Dobbs 493), political scientists dismiss The Odyssey as “adverse or, at best, irrelevant to contemporary liberal democracy” (Dobbs 491). Subsequently, Dobbs proceeds with sensible arguments and examples to render both assertions invalid. The key to Odysseus’s success, Dobbs contends, is that Odysseus moderates his innate intellect with a reverence to rationality’s limits that matures as the story progresses. Furthermore, Dobbs counters the claims of the political scientists by likening the political stances of Homer’s epic to several political philosophies spanning the last few centuries. To come to the aforementioned two deductions, Dobbs utilizes a wide array of logical techniques. To prove that rationality and reverence go hand in hand, Dobbs compares numerous characters to Odysseus and conducts a comprehensive coverage of all conflicting aspects. In addition, to prove that Homer’s epic is relevant to today’s politics, Dobbs intentionally structures the essay in a manner that rationally proves the point.
	Throughout his analysis, Dobbs contrasts the protagonist to the hero Achilles of The Iliad, to his crewman, and to his former self. The contrasts are intentional, as each pairwise comparison strengthens the argument that Odysseus’s balance of intelligence and reverence is superior to reckless rationality. After introducing the obvious discrepancies between Achilles and Odysseus as brawn versus brain and honor versus shrewdness, Dobbs suggests that the fundamental difference that influences the heroes’ outcomes rests on rashness versus reverence. Dobbs claims that “Odysseus learns that mortal men become godlike at the cost of their own souls…Achilles’s shade is not a true soul but merely a ‘witless and exhausted phantom’” (Dobbs 503). Therefore, Achilles’ rash irreverence for the gods, while winning him immortal glory, cost him his soul. On the other hand, Odysseus learns to “accept this reverential constraint on his intelligence…[and that] human beings, however may long for immortality, cannot rival the gods” (Dobbs 505). Willing to accept moderation, Odysseus wins back his home, regime, and ultimately his soul at the epic’s close (Dobbs 491). In addition, Dobbs draws strong comparisons with one critical difference in decision-making between Odysseus and his crewman. The crewmen are described as excessively rational in regards to their decision to devour Helios’s cattle despite divine admonition. Dobbs admits that Odysseus is, in many cases, as reckless as any one of his crewman. However, the crewmen fail to survive because of their “hatred in mortality [whereas] Odysseus stands out as an exception” (Dobbs 501). Thus, Dobbs deduces that the one crucial difference to survival, despite numerous similarities in mentality, is respecting Helios. Furthermore, Dobbs contrasts Odysseus to his former self, cataloguing his maturing insight into the significance of reverence. The critic cites that Homer described the early Odysseus, who was involved in the “sacrilegious plundering of the sacred temples of Troy …, [as] the opposite of reverent” (Dobbs 493). Yet Odysseus undergoes a complete change at the epic’s close, when he wholeheartedly yields to Zeus’s command to spare the families of suitors he had slaughtered. As Dobbs points out, Odysseus intelligently prevents revenge from recycling within the suitor’s families by the virtue of reverence. Thus, Dobbs strategically draws comparisons between Odysseus and other characters to exclusively prove that the combination of intelligence and respect for the gods is favorable.
	Another aspect to Dobbs’s logical approach involves his comprehensive coverage of all viewpoints. He accomplishes this feat by first providing dissenting opinions followed by his own counterarguments, and by carefully evaluating all possible scenarios in some of Odysseus’s critical decisions. An example of the counterargument in action includes bringing forth the ideologies of the famed political scientists Tocqueville and Rawl. The former argues that “political liberty cannot be established without morality”, and the latter champions that progress is economic efficiency without much regard to morals (Dobbs 492). After introducing the thoughts of highly regarded political scientists, Dobbs follows with his own counterargument. Dobbs agrees with neither ideology, but presents a reconciliation of both arguments to be the optimal choice. Thus, Dobbs effectively employs the counterargument to strengthen his personal stance. Dobbs continues his comprehensive approach by thoroughly analyzing the alternative outcomes of the “cattle scenario” and the “revelation scenario”. The tables of all possible scenarios reveal that Odysseus’s decision to uphold reverence – namely not to eat the cattle and not to reveal his identity to Penelope – leads to the optimal outcome. Therefore, by refuting other arguments with his own counterarguments and singling out optimal scenarios out of several alternatives, Dobbs again logically proves that rationality and reverence are both key to Odysseus’s success.
	Not only does Dobbs employ logic to prove the literary critics wrong, but he utilizes a logical essay structure to strengthen his claim that The Odyssey can be a source of valuable lessons for modern politics. The essay is distinctly ordered into three sections – introduction of present conflicts, the lesson learned in The Odyssey, and the resolution of present conflicts by looking into past literature. The first section is dedicated to introducing the widespread skepticism concerning Homer’s relevance to modern politics, as well as the debate of rationalism versus morality as a means to run a society. At the start of his essay, Dobbs introduces the prevailing political science sentiment, consenting that “Homer’s politics are tribal, localized, and monarchial, while our own is pluralistic, continental, and democratic” (Dobbs 491). Dobbs also introduces Tocqueville and Rawl’s debate over whether morals or pure rationality is superior. The first section of the essay, in a sense, sets out the two premises Dobbs intends to disprove. In the second section, Dobbs uses logic and examples in The Odyssey, as mentioned earlier, to prove that rationality must be moderated with reverence. Finally, in the third section Dobbs logically proves that rational moderation in The Odyssey is in fact a universal lesson very relevant to our times. To illustrate, Dobbs brings up the example of modern commercialism, that “when taken to excess, holds nothing sacred” (Dobbs 505). Furthermore, Dobbs is able to make connections between the philosophy of Homer’s epic to the political ideologies as varied as the Founding Fathers, Lenin, and Thomas Hobbes. Thus, Dobbs again uses logic in the form of essay structure to ultimately prove that The Odyssey is relevant to modern politics.
	Although prevailing opinions dictate that The Odyssey is irrelevant to present-day politics and that Odysseus succeeds based on his intelligence, Dobbs thinks otherwise. Through key comparisons with Odysseus, an all-encompassing coverage of differing perspectives, and a logical essay structure, Dobbs is effectively employing logic as his weapon of choice. His logic proves that Odysseus requires both rationality and reverence to triumph and is able to apply that to numerous political philosophies. In a nutshell, Dobbs has answered the “Matrix pill dilemma” for us. One would be best choosing the purple pill – representing the balance of rationality and reverence.

Works Cited
Dobbs, Darrell. “Reckless Rationalism and Heroic Reverence in Homer’s Odyssey.” The American Political Science Review June 1987: 491-508. JSTOR 26 June 2008                             < http://www.jstor.org/>.
Homer. The Odyssey. Trans. Robert Fitzgerald. The Norton Anthology of World Literature. Ed. Sarah Lawall. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2002. 225-530.