Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Rousseau's contribution to democratic philosophy
Rousseau's contribution to democratic philosophy
Rousseau on liberty
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Rousseau's contribution to democratic philosophy
Edmund Burke, as a conservative theorist, claims that England’s preference for restoration over revolution makes the Glorious Revolution more legitimate than the French Revolution. To substantiate this, Burke quips, “We are not the converts of Rousseau…” to hastily dismiss the French philosophe based on his Enlightenment reputation (75). In comparing Rousseau’s conservatism with Burke’s, it’s important to categorize conservative thought into two genera: foundationalism and traditionalism. While foundationalist conservatives believe that there is a distinct, morally correct way to govern, traditionalist conservatives are grounded in the continuity of government for the purpose of stability. While these two categories are reductionistic, the …show more content…
However, these two terms are not synonyms, and positing them as such creates a false equivalence, despite conservation one meaning to resist change, and correction to change. Despite this tension, both Burke and Rousseau include elements of both conservation and correction. Burke discounts Rousseau, but sounds remarkably similar to Rousseau in his support of revolution, followed by the condition of moderation. Clarifying that revolution would be advisable under some circumstances, Burke “do[es] most heartily wish that France may be animated by a spirit of rational liberty” believing that “a revolution will be the very last resource of the thinking and the good,” but cautioning that “the very idea of the fabrication of a new government is enough to fill us with disgust and horror” (4, 27). Burke further demonstrates his traditionalist views by cautioning, “A state without the means of some change is without the means of its own preservation,” demonstrating that the need for continuity is more significant than a need to respect foundational beliefs (19). Burke further demonstrates his conservatism when he explains the benefit of Britain’s ability to adapt (traditionalism), yet respect foundational principles: “in what we improve we are never wholly new; in what we retain we are never wholly obsolete (30). Burke expresses that he fears change as much as he fears societal
In his essay “The American Revolution as a Response to British Corruption”, historian Bernard Bailyn makes the argument that the American Revolution was inherently conservative because its main goal was to preserve what Americans believed to be their traditional rights as English citizens. He argues that the minor infringements on traditional liberties, like the Stamp Act and the royal ban on lifetime tenure of colonial judges (even though Parliament ruled that judges in England should exercise this right), made the Americans fear that they would set a precedent for future greater infringements on their English liberties. To prove this argument, Baliyan quotes famous primary sources, like John Dickinson, Sam Adams, and various colonial rulings.
Burke was as a political conservative, but he was a philosophical radical at heart (Bromwich, 2014). He attempted to legitimize America’s quest for independence by voicing his concerns to Parliament. His concerns were rooted in what he saw as beneficial for all parties involved. As a democratic support, Burke
Locke and Tocqueville were born nearly two hundred years apart from each other. This span of time corresponds to great changes in the European political spectrum, with Locke being born before the English Glorious Revolution (1688) and Tocqueville born after the French Revolution (1789). Much of what Tocqueville and his contemporaries would have written would have taken for granted the innovations to political thought which Locke and his contemporaries would have fostered. Thus, in areas such as the primacy of human self-interest, to the necessity of nominal societal participation in government, to the belief that “freedom cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith,” our authors share a common ground. It is from this common ground that Locke and Tocqueville most radically depart from one another, beginning with Locke’s conception of
“If we measure the radicalism of revolutions by the degree of social misery or economic deprivation suffered, or by the number of people killed or manor houses burned, then this conventional emphasis on the conservatism of the American Revolution becomes true enough. B...
According to Carl N. Degler, the entire Revolution should be viewed as a conservative change. In “A New Kind of Revolution,” Degler talked about how the new actions taken place by the English had help structure and shape the colonial government. Not only did the colonies lack the affection of their motherland, Britain, they were also taxed unfairly. On the other hand, “The Radicalism of the American Revolution,” by Gordon S. Wood talks about how the American Revolution was a radical movement. His thesis covered how the country was transitioning from monarchy to republic, and now, democracy. The framers wanted to create a free nation where no single person rule. As well as, the people of the nation having the ultimate say so.
The start of the American Revolution, described by Edmund Morgan as, “the shot heard around the world,” was the “Americans’ search for principles” (Bender 63). Although the world’s colonies did not necessarily seek independence much like the Americans, the world’s colonies were nonetheless tired of the “administrative tyranny” being carried out by their colonizers (Bender 75). The American Revolution set a new standard in the colonies, proclaiming that the “rights of Englishmen” should and must be the “rights of man,” which established a new set foundation for the universal rights of man (Bender 63). This revolution spread new ideas of democracy for the colonized world, reshaping people’s expectations on how they should be governed. Bender emphasizes America as challenging “the old, imperial social forms and cultural values” and embracing modern individualism” (Bender 74). Bender shapes the American Revolution as a turning point for national governments. The American Revolution commenced a new trend of pushing out the old and introducing new self-reliant systems of government for the former
Absolutism is a political theory giving rulers complete sovereignty. Louis XIV was one of the most popular successful absolute monarchs. He exercised absolute paternal rights of a father on France and his powers were unlimited by church, legislature, or elites. Calling himself the "Sun King" after the God Apollo, he worked to banish feudalism and create a unified state under his absolute power. To illustrate this power he built the Palace at Versailles and created an elaborate, theatrical royal lifestyle. His reign of 72 years, from 1638 to 1715, it is the longest documented reign of any European monarch. To establish absolutism in France Louis XIV used divers strategies including the centralization of the French state, diminishing the nobles' power and oppressing the third estate.
Locke and Rousseau present themselves as two very distinct thinkers. They both use similar terms, but conceptualize them differently to fulfill very different purposes. As such, one ought not be surprised that the two theorists do not understand liberty in the same way. Locke discusses liberty on an individual scale, with personal freedom being guaranteed by laws and institutions created in civil society. By comparison, Rousseau’s conception portrays liberty as an affair of the entire political community, and is best captured by the notion of self-rule. The distinctions, but also the similarities between Locke and Rousseau’s conceptions can be clarified by examining the role of liberty in each theorist’s proposed state of nature and civil society, the concepts with which each theorist associates liberty, and the means of ensuring and safeguarding liberty that each theorist devises.
During the late 17th and early 18th century, many European nations such as France and Russia were absolute monarchies. Even countries such as England had kings who at least attempted to implement absolutism. Indeed the concept of absolutism, where the monarch is the unquestionably highest authority and absolute ruler of every element in the realm, is certainly appealing to any sovereign. However, this unrestricted power was abused, and by the end of the 18th century, absolutism was gone. Absolutism failed because the monarchs' mistreatment of the population caused the people to revolt against their rule and policies. There are many factors which caused this discontent. For one, there was a great loss of human lives. Louis XIV of France participated in four wars, while Peter of Russia ruthlessly executed anyone who stood against his will. Secondly, monarchs attempted to change religious beliefs. This was notable in England where rulers such as James II desired to convert the Anglican nation into Catholicism. Finally, the burden of taxation was more than the population could support. France was brought into huge foreign debt, English kings constantly attempted to raise money, and Peter of Russia increased taxes by 550 percent. These are some of the key reasons why absolutism failed in Europe.
The differences between Thomas Paine and Edmund Burke’s assertions on politics revolve around the two men’s views on the necessity of the French Revolution of between 1789 and 1799. Apparently, the social and political upheaval that shook France in the ten years questioned the absolute Monarchial rule of the French Monarch and in turn, sought to destroy the social hierarchies defined by the aristocrats. In other words, power was subject to the lineage in which an individual is born and for that reason, social infrastructures remained rigid with little to no mobility for the low-class citizens. In answer to the changes sought out by the rebelling French communities, Edmund Burke’s release of the “Reflections on
Puritanism as a religion declined, both by diluting its core beliefs and by losing its members. This phenomenon was at work even in colonial days, at the religion’s height, because it contained destructive characteristics. It devolved into something barely recognizable in the course of a few generations. We can observe that the decline of Puritanism occurred because it bore within itself the seeds of its own destruction.
The Founding Fathers of the United States relied heavily on many of the principles taught by John Locke. Many of the principles of Locke’s Second Treatise of Government may easily be discovered in the Declaration of Independence with some minor differences in wording and order. Many of the ideas of the proper role of government, as found in the Constitution of the United States, may be discovered in the study of Locke. In order to understand the foundation of the United States, it is vital that one studies Locke. A few ideas from Hume may be found but the real influence was from Locke. Rousseau, on the other hand, had none.
The most compelling argument for Burke against Locke is his idea that “government is not made in virtue of natural rights, which may and do exist in total independence of it… but their abstract perfection is their practical defect.” (Burke 564). Burke looks at the rights laid out by Locke and Rousseau and scoffs at them, stating that they have no merit in the real world, attractive as they are in principle. He believes that the pretended rights of these theorists are all extremes, and are therefore morally and politically false. Burke believes that “the rights of men are in a sort of middle,” (Burke 565), and their incapability of definition completely contradicts the extreme rights as defined by Locke.
The two topics, the sublime and the beautiful are very common in romantic poetry and novels. According to Edmund Burke’s essay, On the Sublime and the Beautiful, He explains the opposition of beauty and of sublimity by a physiological theory. Burke made the opposition of pleasure and pain the source of the two aesthetic categories, deriving beauty from pleasure and sublimity from pain. Edmund Burke describes sublime objects as “vast in their dimensions” and beautiful objects as “small and simple objects.” Edmund Burke goes into further detail describing the sublime and the beautiful in his novel. He describes the sublime as the strongest emotion, which the mind is capable of feeling and the beautiful as something little, humble and innocent. Authors such as Marry Shelly, William Wordsworth and Percy Shelly wrote various works infusing the elements of the sublime and the beautiful into their novels or poems. They took Edmund Burke’s explanation of the sublime and the beautiful and created works based upon his descriptions of the sublime and the beautiful.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, and Donald A. Cress. The "On Democracy" - "The 'Republican'" Basic Political Writings. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub., 1987. 179-80.