Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Theoretical perspectives on child development
John locke jean jacques rousseau
Theoretical perspectives on child development
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Theoretical perspectives on child development
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.
According to Rousseau, the greatest good that humanity could achieve is to become a self-sufficient, self-reliant, and independent human being. Humans were able to become self-reliant by being raised according to nature. Rousseau writes that "all we lack at birth, . . . is the gift of education."1 This education is to help humans achieve happiness. According to Rousseau, we gain this education from nature. Rousseau writes that a person's "first feeling is one of pain and suffering."2 Pain is an essential part to the development of a child; in fact it is the most important and useful lesson. It helps a child gain strength and experience. Rousseau holds that a child should run and "fall again and again, the oftener the better."3 The more the child falls the more accustom it will become to pain. When the child grows older, it will be more equipped to deal with hardships because it has already learned at...
... middle of paper ...
...hild. Lastly, this process of child rearing would not be able to take place in a present day setting. If a parent were to allow a child to put itself in pain, then the parent would have to suffer the charges of child abuse and negligence.
Rousseau writes that humanity is a mixture of good and evil. There are people who follow the education of nature and become self-reliant individuals. There are also those who tamper with nature and deprive individuals of their freedoms. They are the evil ones. Rousseau held such a position because he was raised much in the manner he wrote of, with no formal education until his twenties. His work is a production of the Enlightenment. Although he was unaware of psychology, his views on how to educate and raise a child are studied in current theories of human development. Rousseau had a mixed view if humanity was good or evil.
Why compare an important philosopher to a villain? Well the answer is simpler than it might seem. In the past many comics, books and movies were based on a change proposed to society often portraying the new idea as something bad and the traditional way of doing things as the good that must prevail. Just look to The Wizard Of Oz and how the yellow brick road is supposed to symbolize the safe way of going about things. Any other path in this story would have led to Dorothy’s destruction. The yellow brick road symbolizing the gold standard. In the same way the creators of the Batman comics and Batman begins likely fear what would come if education became more like Rousseau’s idea of education. Both Rousseau and Ra’s Al Ghul from Batman Begins, believe that society is what corrupts man and that people must learn through necessity though Ra’s Al Ghul
Machiavelli and Rousseau, both significant philosophers, had distinctive views on human nature and the relationship between the government and the governed. Their ideas were radical at the time and remain influential in government today. Their views on human nature and government had some common points and some ideas that differed.
Rousseau states “ Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains” and “A country cannot subsist well without liberty, nor liberty without virtue.” Rousseau’s impacts on American government include his position that people are what make a nation. Buildings and seats do not decide whether or not one votes, that is the role of people. What Rousseau means by bring the people into chaos is that the people must think for themselves and not just let those who are deemed more educated decide for them. As America is a Democratic Republic, the root word democracy is used, which means that the majority of the country’s wishes must be thought of and respected. He also believes that while an individual 's ideas must be recognized, they must stand down to ensure the majority 's vote is respected. This is shown in the way we vote, and the way that congress passes bills. Americans have a voice, but when the majority speaks, it is done. While the representation of the people is appreciated, the appointed representative must make sure that his ideas are in alignment with those whom he represents. When one who is placed in a position of authority over a select group of people does not respect their will, he loses his title of representative and just becomes one and of
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.
knowledge base of human kind increased man began to explore more possibilities and more options which gave them the idea that led them to become more evil. Rousseau explained his theories and thoughts in many of his books which inspired and influenced so many pe...
The question “What makes us who we are?” has perplexed many scholars, scientists, and theorists over the years. This is a question that we still may have not found an answer to. There are theories that people are born “good”, “evil”, and as “blank slates”, but it is hard to prove any of these theories consistently. There have been countless cases of people who have grown up in “good” homes with loving parents, yet their destiny was to inflict destruction on others. On the other hand, there have been just as many cases of people who grew up on the streets without the guidance of a parental figure, but they chose to make a bad situation into a good one by growing up to do something worthwhile for mankind. For this reason, it is nearly impossible to determine what makes a human being choose the way he/she behaves. Mary Shelley (1797-1851) published a novel in 1818 to voice her opinions about determining personality and the consequences and repercussions of alienation. Shelley uses the ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau to make her point. Rousseau proposed the idea that man is essentially "good" in the beginning of life, but civilization and education can corrupt and warp a human mind and soul. In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus (hereafter referred to as Frankenstein), Victor Frankenstein’s creature with human characteristics shows us that people are born with loving, caring, and moral feelings, but the creature demonstrates how the influence of society can change one’s outlook of others and life itself by his reactions to adversity at “birth”, and his actions after being alienated and rejected by humans several times.
Rousseau thinks the behavior of savage man is unaffected by others. These individuals have no "moral relationship or known duties" (128) to others or to the world. Their actions are "neither good nor evil" (128) because they are not bounded by social rules, which dictate how people should act and think towards each other and the world as a whole. That is, a person does not have to worry about what others think of him or his actions. Rousseau further believes that savage man has "neither vices nor virtues" (128) because he has no commitments or relationships. One flaw with modern society, which is not shared by savages, is that people are concerned with their reputation, morality, and how others perceive them. They get caught up in the pressures of trying to conform to the expectations of others. Their personalities consequently change, almost to the point of non-recognition. In their quest to achieve material things, modern man misses or forgets the essence of who he really is.
The former, a product of the human empathy and responsible for the preference of seeing no harm come to other living creatures so long at the latter is maintained. Together these maxims form the basis of the savage man’s natural state and, by extension, his tenancy of gentleness towards his fellow man (121). The civilised man, in contrast, comes to be as a result of “perfectibility”. Perfectibility, according to Rousseau is an innate human attribute to want to learn and better oneself, particularly to overcome obstacles in one’s environment. Rousseau’s description of perfectibility implies that the conditions of one’s environment have a direct influence over their character and that one can therefore deduce that regardless of man’s natural gentleness, he can develop the capacity to be cruel if so prompted by elements in his environment. Such a prompt comes as man looks to collaborate with others out of mutual self-interest. Rousseau notes that, “their connections become more intimate and extensive … there arose on one side vanity and contempt, on the other envy and shame … Men no sooner began to set a value upon each other, and know what esteem was, than each laid claim to it … It
Rousseau describes humans as free-agents because unlike animals, who act on instinct alone, natural man has the ability to choose. Lives of humans in the state of nature are quite simple; they have basic desires such as eating, sleeping, and reproducing (Rousseau 2010). Natural man is ignorant, in the sense that he has no idea of existence as a thing and he has very little communication with other humans (Rousseau 2010). Humans in the state of nature are free because “the savage lives within himself” (Rousseau 2010:37). They are not concerned about anything else except for themselves and their basic needs which is why the state of nature is peaceful. Marx also claims that humans are free because “man is a part of nature” (Marx 2000:31). Since humans are a part of nature, they have the right to use nature freely and have the right to their own labour and hence the product that was produced by that labour (Marx 2000). For Darwin, free will exists in humans and other higher order species. However, Darwin believes that the moral sense and sociality of humans is what differentiates humans from other species and not free will. For Rousseau and Marx, to be human is to be free but for Darwin, to be human is to be moral and
Past that it does seem hard to believe, given the supporting data, that humans are not social animals and that there was a time when humans were completely good. If one of the two main points were to fail, as they truly are the foundation of Rousseau's arguments, it seems it would cause his conclusion to fail as well. Unfortunately, his arguments lack the backing they need to create a truly infallible argument or beyond reasonable doubt. This does not suggest at all that his ideas are false or are not supported, just that they are on shaky ground.
In the “natural state”, Rousseau suggests that we should strip man of all the “supernatural gifts” he may have been given over the course of time. He says we should “consider him, in a word, just as he must have come from the hands of nature, we behold in him an animal weaker than some, and less agile than others; but, taking him all around, the most advantageously organized of any.” He presumes that man’s needs would be easily satisfied. His food was easily gained, as wa...
Rousseau theorized that the “savage” in the state of nature was not selfish, like Hobbes idea, but rather it arose as a result of the person’s interaction with society. He argued that people naturally have compassion for others who are suffering and that the civil society encourages us to believe we are superior to others. Therefore, the thought of being more powerful will cause us to suppress our virtuous feelings of kindness and instead change us into selfish humans. Both philosophers agreed that humans are naturally self-interested, however, Rousseau fails to understand the concept that there are insufficient resources for every human and that brutal competition is part of survival. When discussing Rousseau’s theory on the corruption of society, an interesting question arises.
The problem is to find a form of association … in which each, while uniting
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.
Biography of Jean-Jacques Rousseau MAN is born free; and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks himself