Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The impact of gender inequality
The impact of gender inequality
Influence of gender inequality in society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The impact of gender inequality
In this essay I will be assessing the extent to which Rousseau and Wollstonecraft work contributed to the development of social thought and focus on the key ideas both of these researchers encountered, jean- Jacques Rousseau remains an important figure in the history of political philosophy and moral psychology, Rousseau views often very negative seeing philosophers as the past- hoc rationalizers of self interests, as apologist for various forms of tyranny, and as playing a role in the alienation of the modern individual from humanities natural impulse to compassion. The major concern that dominated Rousseau’s work was to find a way to preserve human freedom in a world where humans are increasingly dependent on other for the satisfaction of …show more content…
The principal tension is between a democratic conception, where the general will is simply what the citizen of the state have decided together in their sovereign assembly, in simple terms Rousseau is saying the people generally settle for what the leaders of their individual communities lay down and out for them, and an alternative interpretation where the general will is the transcendent incarnation of the citizens common interest that exists in abstraction from what any of them actually want. Both views find some support in Rousseau’s texts, and both have been influential, modern and contemporary epistemic conception of democracy often make reference to Rousseau’s text and have both been …show more content…
Much of this reputation was owed to Godwin 's frank, arguably unnecessarily frank, account of Wollstonecraft 's life, in Memoirs of the Author of a ‘Vindication of the Rights of Woman’ (1798). It revealed, amongst other personal details, her relationship with Imlay and thereby cast a deep shadow over her reputation. In any event, John Stuart Mill 's Subjection of Women (1869) was to eclipse most other contributions to feminist debates of the
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)
Jean Jacques Rousseau in On Education writes about how to properly raise and educate a child. Rousseau's opinion is based on his own upbringing and lack of formal education at a young age. Rousseau depicts humanity as naturally good and becomes evil because humans tamper with nature, their greatest deficiency, but also possess the ability to transform into self-reliant individuals. Because of the context of the time, it can be seen that Rousseau was influenced by the idea of self-preservation, individual freedom, and the Enlightenment, which concerned the operation of reason, and the idea of human progress. Rousseau was unaware of psychology and the study of human development. This paper will argue that Rousseau theorizes that humanity is naturally good by birth, but can become evil through tampering and interfering with nature.
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.
Rousseau suggests that the first convention must be unanimous, and the minority has no obligation to submit to the choice of the majority, “as the law of majority rule is itself established by convention and presupposes unanimity at least once” (Rousseau, 172). For Locke and Hobbes, one’s self-preservation (and the protection of his property, which is quite synonymous to self-preservation to Locke) is the first principle , and if it is threatened, one has the rights to leave the “body politic” or rebel. Moreover, one also has the right to decide whether he wants to stay under the government when he grows to a certain age . Such arguments give the minority a passive freedom: their voice may not be powerful to change the society, but they can at least leave the society that is against them. Furthermore, Rousseau disapproves factions within a state, especially big ones, as their wills, namely the majority’s wills, potentially nullify the general will . His continual emphasis that the general will should represent the entire people indicates his concern for the
While the problems within civil society may differ for these two thinkers it is uncanny how similar their concepts of freedom are, sometimes even working as a logical expansion of one another. Even in their differences they shed light onto new problems and possible solutions, almost working in tandem to create a freer world. Rousseau may not introduce any process to achieve complete freedom but his theorization of the general will laid the groundwork for much of Marx’s work; similarly Marx’s call for revolution not only strengthens his own argument but also Rousseau’s.
The charge of sexism on Rousseau and the badge of feminism on Wollstonecraft render their arguments elusive, as if Rousseau wrote because he was a sexist and Wollstonecraft because she was a feminist, which is certainly not true. Their work evinced here by the authors questioned the state of man and woman in relation to their conception of what it should be, what its purpose, and what its true species. With an answer to these questions, one concludes the inhumanity of mankind in society, and the other the inhumanity of mankind in their natural, barbarous state. The one runs from society, to the comforts and direction of nature; the other away from nature, to the reason and virtue of society. The argument presented may be still elusive, and the work in vain, but the point not missed, perhaps.
To make this argument I will first outline this thought with regard to this issue. Second, I will address an argument in support of Rousseau’s view. Third, I will entertain the strongest possible counterargument to my view; namely, the idea that the general will contradicts itself by forcing freedom upon those who gain no freedom from the general will. Fourth, I will rebut that counter argument by providing evidence that the general will is always in favor of the common good. Finally, I will conclude my paper by summarizing the main lines of the argument of my paper and reiterate my thesis that we can force people to be free.
According to Rousseau’s On the Social Contract, the general will is a collectively held common good or common interest (Rousseau 167). The general will is vital in Rousseau’s theory because the legislation must create laws that promote the general will of the public. To Rousseau, the sovereign’s main goal is to find the general will of society and create laws that promote the general will. Rousseau’s theory also includes that public discourse causes the legislation to stray from the general will (Rousseau 180). Rousseau did not want public discourse in his society because he believed too many particular wills in society would cloud the legislation and assembly from passing laws that promoted the general will. I agree with Rousseau’s argument
The opening line of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's influential work 'The Social Contract' (1762), is 'man is born free, and he is everywhere in chains. Those who think themselves masters of others are indeed greater slaves than they'. These are not physical chains, but psychological and means that all men are constraints of the laws they are subjected to, and that they are forced into a false liberty, irrespective of class. This goes against Rousseau's theory of general will which is at the heart of his philosophy. In his Social Contract, Rousseau describes the transition from a state of of nature, where men are naturally free, to a state where they have to relinquish their naturalistic freedom. In this state, and by giving up their natural rights, individuals communise their rights to a state or body politic. Rousseau thinks by entering this social contract, where individuals unite their power and freedom, they can then gain civic freedom which enables them to remain free as the were before. In this essay, I will endeavour to provide arguments and examples to conclude if Rousseau provides a viable solution to what he calls the 'fundamental problem' posed in the essay title.
...ons on what kind of government should prevail within a society in order for it to function properly. Each dismissed the divine right theory and needed to start from a clean slate. The two authors agree that before men came to govern themselves, they all existed in a state of nature, which lacked society and structure. In addition, the two political philosophers developed differing versions of the social contract. In Hobbes’ system, the people did little more than choose who would have absolute rule over them. This is a system that can only be derived from a place where no system exists at all. It is the lesser of two evils. People under this state have no participation in the decision making process, only to obey what is decided. While not perfect, the Rousseau state allows for the people under the state to participate in the decision making process. Rousseau’s idea of government is more of a utopian idea and not really executable in the real world. Neither state, however, describes what a government or sovereign should expect from its citizens or members, but both agree on the notion that certain freedoms must be surrendered in order to improve the way of life for all humankind.
Mary Wollstonecraft: the Mother of Modern Feminism Mary Wollstonecraft was a self-educated, radical philosopher who wrote about liberation, and empowering women. She had a powerful voice in her views on the rights of women to get good education and career opportunities. She pioneered the debate for women’s rights, inspiring many of the 19th and the 20th century’s writers and philosophers to fight for women’s rights, as well. She did not only criticize men for not giving women their rights, she also put blame on women for being voiceless and subservient. Her life and, the surrounding events of her time, accompanied by the strong will of her, had surely affected the way she chose to live her life, and to form her own philosophies.
Rousseau describes the necessity of, “the constitution of the government,” as the power at hand, which should be held responsible for dictating equality within a country. Rousseau
Along with these basic premises in Rousseau’s democracy, four basic conditions must exist to allow for democracy to flourish: a small state, a “g...
Jean Jacques Rousseau, a philosopher during the 18th century, believed that man are naturally good but become corrupted by the influence of human society and institutions. His belief was that human beings needed outside interventions to develop their natural propensity for good and the man needs to work with nature and not against it. Rousseau stated, “If man is left… to his own notions and conduct, he would certainly turn out the most preposterous of human beings. The influence of prejudice, authority… would stifle nature in him and substitute nothing.” His essential ideas consisted of freedom, that natural man is physically free and second that man are psychologically and spiritually free because they are not enslaved to any of the artificial needs that characterize modern society.
In this essay, I argue that Rousseau’s religion preference would be the most compelling one in the 21st century. Rousseau has an interesting, unique, and subtle view on religion in politics. I would examine my arguments by presenting the differences between Burke’s religion as the basis of civil society, Rousseau’s civic religion, and Marx’s religion as an impediment to communism. In the end of the essay, I am hoping to prove that through these various perspectives on religion in politics that Rousseau’s perspective would be the preferred choice to ensure and defend the safety of the laws.