Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Rousseau's theory of freedom
Social contract tradition of Rousseau
On the Social Contract rousseau
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In the Social Contract Rousseau discusses the best way to run a state
and uses philosophical arguments to argue his case. He also uses the
ideas of force, right and freedom to support his argument. He feels
we require a civil state, as opposed to living in the state of nature,
as ‘it substitutes justice for instinct….and gives his actions a moral
quality’ and describes the civil state as having ‘transformed him from
a stupid, limited animal into an intelligent being and a man’ (Unit,
p109).
He believed that it is not right that you should obey someone just
because of force and that for the state to be run properly the power
it has must be legitimate. He say’s ‘authority is legitimate if the
person (or institution) possesses the right to command others’ (Unit,
p.97), in other words, authority cannot use naked force to command
obedience. He also believed that ‘to be legitimate, the authority the
state has over the people must come from the people themselves, and
not from a single person such as the king.’ (Unit, P.97)
In order to prove the point that might does not equal right, that is
that ‘because you can force me to obey you, is it right that I should
obey you?’ (Unit, p100), Rousseau uses the example of ‘The strongest
is never strong enough to be master all the time, unless he transforms
force into right and obedience into duty….Force is a physical power; I
fail to see what morality can result from its effects.’ (Unit, p100),
in other words, unless the authority is legitimate and the people feel
obliged to obey, rather
than forced to obey, when the authority is absent, the people ‘will
not necessarily obey’ (Unit, p100).
Rousseau defines the fundamental problem of the best way to run a
state as how the people can live in the state and still remain free,
and he goes on to suggest that the solution is to ‘find a form of
association’, i.
Second Treatise of Government by John Locke and Discourse on the Origin of Inequality by Jean-Jacques Rousseau are books written to try and explain the origin of society. Both try to explain the evils and inequalities of society, and to a certain degree to discuss whether man in his natural state is better than man in society. These political science based theories do not appear, at first, to have anything in common with J. Hector St. John De Crèvecoeur’s Letters from an American Farmer, which are letters written by Crèvecoeur during the settling of America and the beginning of the American Revolution, however with examination we can see reflection of both Locke’s and Rousseau’s ideas about things such as human nature, government, and inequality.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau has been referred to as the father of the romanticism movement due to his philosophical writings challenging the status quo at the time. To help set the cultural scene surrounding him, he lived in Paris just prior to the French Revolution where turmoil was in the atmosphere. During this time in France’s history monarchs reigned, the Catholic Church was the leading religion, and those who were considered commoners were viewed as less than human. I believe Rousseau’s environment led him to ponder and write about assumptions regarding human nature, the government’s role in relation to humans, types of will people have, and educational methods. His works had some comparative and contrasting features
John Locke believed in limited government. He said that government should be like a contract and people can overthrow the government if the government abuses his or her position. He also believed that people have the individual rights to be heard. He mentioned that people are born with freedom. Everyone, regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, age etc. have the same rights as everyone else. I think John Locke would support Norman Rockwell’s painting, because the white soldiers seems to be protecting a young colored girl holding notebooks and a ruler which, I think, symbolizes the protection of education for different races. John Locke would respond saying that no one should harm another person in terms of life, health or possessions because everyone
The Enlightenment was an astonishing time of transformation in Europe. During this time in the eighteenth century there was a progressive movement that was labeled by its criticism of the normal religious, social, and political perceptions. A number of significant thinkers, with new philosophies, had inspired creativeness and change. These thinkers had many different thoughts and views on people and the way they act, and views on the government. Two well-known and most influential thinkers of this time were the English political philosopher John Locke and the French political philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. These two men had laid down some of the intellectual grounds of the modern day government and both had different opinions on what the government’s role in a society.
Throughout his life, Rousseau suffered from severe emotional distress, and feelings of deep inferiority and guilt. Rousseau's actions and writings reflect his attempts to overcome this sense of inadequacy and to find a place in world that only seemed to reject him. His political philosophy influenced the development of the French Revolution, and his theories have had a great impact on education and literature.
Obedience is when you do something you have been asked or ordered to do by someone in authority. As little kids we are taught to follow the rules of authority, weather it is a positive or negative effect. Stanley Milgram, the author of “The perils of Obedience” writes his experiment about how people follow the direction of an authority figure, and how it could be a threat. On the other hand Diana Baumrind article “Review of Stanley Milgram’s experiments on obedience,” is about how Milgram’s experiment was inhumane and how it is not valid. While both authors address how people obey an authority figure, Milgram focuses more on how his experiment was successful while Baumrind seems more concerned more with how Milgram’s experiment was flawed and
In the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau he describes what he believes is the state of nature and the social contract that humans form in civilizations. This discussion mostly takes place in his book called the “Social Contract”. The first area that will be covered is what Rousseau thinks is the state of nature. This will then be followed by what he believes is the social contract that humans enter to live in normal society or civilization. The last portion will be to critic and summarize his findings.
Through my research and findings of obedience to authority this ancient dilemma is somewhat confusing but needs understanding. Problem with obedience to authority has raised a question to why people obey or disobey and if there are any right time to obey or not to obey. Through observation of many standpoints on obedience and disobedience to authority, and determined through detailed examination conducted by Milgram “The Perils Of Obedience,” Doris Lessing “Group Minds” and Shirley Jackson “The Lottery”. We have to examine this information in hopes of understanding or at least be able to draw our own theories that can be supported and proven on this subject.
While the writings of Karl Marx and Jean-Jacque Rousseau occasionally seem at odds with one another both philosophers needs to be read as an extension of each other to completely understand what human freedom is. The fundamental difference between the two philosophers lies within the way which they determine why humans are not free creatures in modern society but once were. Rousseau draws on the genealogical as well as the societal aspects of human nature that, in its development, has stripped humankind of its intrinsic freedom. Conversely, Marx posits that humankind is doomed to subjugation in modern society due to economic factors (i.e. capitalism) that, in turn, affect human beings in a multitude of other ways that, ultimately, negates freedom. How each philosopher interprets this manifestation of servitude in civil society reveals the intrinsic problems of liberty in civil society. Marx and Rousseau come to a similar conclusion on what is to be done to undo the fetters that society has brought upon humankind but their methods differ when deciding how the shackles should be broken. To understand how these two men’s views vary and fit together it must first be established what they mean by “freedom”.
Both Aristotle's “Politics” and Jean Jacques Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality address the natural right and superiority of man and his subsets. In his piece, Aristotle discusses the emotional feeling of superiority, while Rousseau discusses the more logistic aspects. Together, their writing begs the question of the morality of slavery. Aristotle seems more willing to accept slavery as a natural creation by humans, however, in the end both of their pieces show the immorality and abnormality of slavery.
Obedience has many forms and there are multiple reasons as to why people are obedient, whether yielding to authority or as an effort to please someone. Every reason can lead to different outcomes, having negative and positive results. Obedience can oftentimes be a response to a situation as well. Both Stanley Milgram, author of “The Perils of Obedience,” and Ian Parker, author of “Obedience,” talk about the reasoning behind obedience and the variables that enable such responses but, in the end, they come to different conclusions.
Obedience is also seen by many as the path of least resistance; it isn’t as mentally demanding to follow someone’s orders. Assuming authority figures know what is best for everyone, it is simpler to do what we are told than to have to think for ourselves. But once we stop thinking for ourselves and begin following orders bli...
Sarah Snyder Professor Feola Gov’t 416: Critical Theory Assignment #2 On Foucault, “Truth and Juridical Forms” Michel Foucault may be regarded as the most influential twentieth-century philosopher on the history of systems of thought. His theories focus on the relationship between power and knowledge, and how such may be used as a form of social control through institutions in society. In “Truth and Juridical Forms,” Foucault addresses the development of the nineteenth-century penal regime, which completely transformed the operation of the traditional penal justice system.
During the 1800s many changes took place in both Europe and the United States. This change was a result of the oppressive nature of the government and other types of authority, leading people to taking a stand against them. In order for many movements to happen, a source of influence was needed. This influence would increase the chance that the government would take notice in the cause. There were movements for greater suffrage on both sides of the Atlantic, portraying the need for advertisement in order to help spread the movement. In order to get change in the government, one must have made sure their voice was heard, because otherwise the government would not notice, and change would never happen. From one side of the Atlantic to the other,
Rousseau describes democracy as a form of government that “has never existed and never will” ; yet twenty-six countries in the world are considered to be full democracies. How can this be possible? Rousseau’s concept of democracy supports the most fundamental and basic premise of democracy – one in which all citizens directly participate. While his idea of democracy cannot be considered an effective indictment of what passes for democracy today, it is not Rousseau’s account which is flawed but that in modern society is would be practically impossible to achieve this idea of democracy.