Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "The State of War"
Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "The State of War" elegantly raises a model for confederative peace among the states of Europe, and then succinctly explains its impossibility. Rousseau very systematically lays out the benefits of such a "perpetual peace" through arguments based only in a realism of pure self-interest, and then very elegantly and powerfully turns the inertia of the self-interest machinery against the same to explain why it can never come to be. However, this final step may be a bit too far; in his academic zeal for the simple, I will argue that he has overlooked the real, or at least ignored the possible. His conclusion may be appealingly reasoned, but it is still insupportable.
The perpetual peace that Rousseau treats is that proposed by the Abbé de Saint-Pierre, a fact that doesn't become clear until the latter end of the piece. Rousseau tells us that the Abbé has, over time, advanced a fair number of plans for peace and prosperity, all to the ridicule of contemporary thinkers (125). That Rousseau takes up this one plan, in particular, may simply be masturbatory: as a writer, Rousseau was not averse to cutting his teeth on the works of others that he found to be disagreeable, as evidenced by his disdainful treatment of Hobbes (112). However, before criticizing Rousseau's work or speculating as to why he carried it out, it serves first to understand it properly.
From his figurative window, Rousseau sees a Europe ravaged by conflicts resulting from supposedly peaceable and civilized institutions (111). He posits that the essentially problematic flaw, the cause of conflict, is a contradiction in modes of relating: while individuals live within a framework of enforced norms ("l...
... middle of paper ...
...time onward, the concept of the enlightened despot had currency, calling for rulers governing with the betterment of the people's lot in mind. The idea of a centralized, authority-wielding confederation government is not terribly foreign to the notion of an autocratic, authoritarian, but enlightened despot, after all. This is but one of the conflicting ideas ranged against Rousseau's rather pessimistically realist conclusion; others are certainly possible.
In conclusion, Rousseau very convincingly points out the strengths of a confederation of states for ensuring peace, but overstates the case in discussing obstacles to the formation of such a union. He presents an elegant and appealing, but overly simple, explanation of the impossibility, giving no consideration to any other possibilities, including the historical example of the enlightened despot mentioned above.
Rousseau, however, believed, “the general will by definition is always right and always works to the community’s advantage. True freedom consists of obedience to laws that coincide with the general will.”(72) So in this aspect Rousseau almost goes to the far extreme dictatorship as the way to make a happy society which he shows in saying he, “..rejects entirely the Lockean principle that citizens possess rights independently of and against the state.”(72)
Jacopo del Sellaio’s Virgin, Child, and St. John is a characteristically iconographic tempera panel painting of Madonna, the Christ Child, and the infant St. John from the early renaissance, dating to the early 1480s. Sellaio was a Florentine painter under the apprenticeship of Sandro Botticelli, which reflects through his style and symbolism in the painting. In this work, he depicts a classically devotional scene filled with biblical symbolism. Sellaio’s Virgin, Child, and St. John expresses Mary’s loving role as Christ’s mother, the protective power and warmth of her maternal bond, and the significance of the birth of Christ.
...eing mandated for protection. Rousseau’s conception of liberty is more dynamic. Starting from all humans being free, Rousseau conceives of the transition to civil society as the thorough enslavement of humans, with society acting as a corrupting force on Rousseau’s strong and independent natural man. Subsequently, Rousseau tries to reacquaint the individual with its lost freedom. The trajectory of Rousseau’s freedom is more compelling in that it challenges the static notion of freedom as a fixed concept. It perceives that inadvertently freedom can be transformed from perfectly available to largely unnoticeably deprived, and as something that changes and requires active attention to preserve. In this, Rousseau’s conception of liberty emerges as more compelling and interesting than Locke’s despite the Lockean interpretation dominating contemporary civil society.
The political philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx examined the role that the state played and its relationship to its citizen’s participation and access to the political economy during different struggles and tumultuous times. Rousseau was a believer of the concept of social contract with limits established by the good will and community participation of citizens while government receives its powers given to it. Karl Marx believed that power was to be taken by the people through the elimination of the upper class bourgeois’ personal property and capital. While both philosophers created a different approach to establishing the governing principles of their beliefs they do share a similar concept of eliminating ownership of capital and distributions from the government. Studying the different approaches will let us show the similarities of principles that eliminate abuse of power and concentration of wealth by few, and allow access for all. To further evaluate these similarities, we must first understand the primary principles of each of the philosophers’ concepts.
John Locke expressed that “All mankind…being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions” Locke’s view, which also was the idea of Enlightenment ideals, enlightened both American people and French people fought for their freedoms from absolute monarchs, and sought ways to firm their equality and natural right to life, liberty, and property during the eighteenth century. American revolution began as a conflict between thirteen colonies in the North America and the British Empire, and ended as the creation of the United State of America. French revolution was unleashed by the risk of France’s old regime and ended in 1799 when Napoleon staged a coup and seized power. Both American Revolution and French Revolution began with the same goals, which was the creation of a new government, but these were achieved in different ways: the American Revolution was a revolt that affirming the independence of the American to against Britain, while the French Revolution was civic wars among the people who turning France into a constitutional monarchy. In this paper, I will argue though the strategy of two revolutions might have been different, the outcome of their successful revolutions led to the creation of their Declarations, which defined the future of their government. A close look of their similarities and differences shows what led to their creation.
Sales, Nathan A. “The Patriot Act isn’t broken.” March 6th 2009, Vol. 101 Issue 69, Student Research Center. EBSCOhost. Frederick Community Coll. Lib, Frederick, MD July 10th
Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a philosopher that helped develop concepts such as general will, and improved on the early norms on child-raising. Born in Geneva, he was a “citizen” of the city. “Citizens” were the two hundred members of the Grand Council of Geneva, which made most of the political decisions in state. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was an important part of the Enlightenment. He led an interesting life, as told by his three memoirs, had a solid philosophy, did not believe in reason, and left a lasting legacy that still affects us today.
Rousseau is firstly justified in his claim that perfectibility led to the abolishment of the gentleness of natural man and resulted in a competition
Since September 11, 2001 many people can say that America has changed. Many people question if America has changed for the better or has it just gotten worse. Since the day those four planes crashed around the United States people’s lives have been changed. Many may not realize how their lives have changed, but with new laws passed life is different within America. The United States Patriot Act is one of the laws passed after 9/11: singed into order on October 26, 2001 just 45 days after the attack. The United States Patriot Act was put in place in order to protect Americans, yet has been affecting American’s civil liberties and caused controversy all over the United States.
Inferably, Rousseau admitted that only legitimate powers ought to be obeyed. But what is legitimate power? Where does it come from? If it all comes from God, how can w...
...ion with the general will. This may sound like a contradiction but, to Rousseau, the only way the body politic can function is by pursuing maximum cohesion of peoples while seeking maximum individuation. For Rousseau, like Marx, the solution to servitude is, in essence, the community itself.
Carl von Clausewitz, “What is War?” On War. Edited and translated by Michael Howard and Peter Paret, 89-112. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976.
Boykoff, J. (2006). Review of How Patriotic is the Patriot Act? Freedom Versus Security in the Age of Terrorism, by Amitai Etzioni. The Journal of Politics, 68(2), 457-487.
Rousseau's contract was more optimistic than Hobbes and Locke, but that would be expected due to the time-line between the theories. Society had evolved somewhat, and become less regimented . The problems outlined makes it difficult for me to think that Rousseau had found a solution to his problem . I think, his ideas are probably more suited to modern day that when he devised his social contract theory. It seems to me he was a couple of centuries ahead of himself, a man before his time.
Strickland, Lee. "Without Civil Liberties Homeland Security Will Fall." University of Maryland. N.p., 23 Dec. 2005. Web. 10 Dec. 2013. .