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.
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
Things in the Middle East, Syria and Iran are in some complex situations right now, Mr. President, with the outcome of the Arab Spring and the issues the United States has with its allies and enemies. The United States needs to repair its alliances, make peace with its enemies and cautiously tread into understanding and gathering knowledge with the situation in the Middle East before declaring any actions to be taken.
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.
“Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains”. Prominent, influential, relevant and most important of all as human as they come, Jean Jacques Rousseau was truthfully, brilliant. Rousseau was born in Geneva Switzerland to a watchmaker in 1712, lacking of a formal education his father taught him to read, exposed him to literature and he managed to educate himself while living with Madame Louise de Warens,in the kingdom of Sardinia, modern Italy. Jeans childhood was far from easy “His autobiographical Les Confessions (1783) offers a thorough account of his turbulent life in her household, where he spent eight years studying nature and music, and reading English, German, and French philosophers. He also pursued the study of mathematics and Latin and enjoyed the theater and opera” (Hager 1). After leaving de Warrens in 1744, Rousseau eventually made his way to Paris, where he befriended French philosopher Denis Diderot who actually invited him to contribute to the Encyclopedie a major work of the enlightenment period, which he did, Rousseau wrote articles on music and political theories. Then in 1750 he wrote A Discourse on the Sciences and the Arts. Where he claimed Human beings were naturally good, he argued; it was only the corrupt institutions of civilization that led them to do evil. Rousseau continuously returned to that theme in his subsequent writings in fact he stated A new-born he thought was intrinsically perfect: all society could do was to limit his views and maim his mind. Hence, the more civilized, the worse. A savage was nearer perfection than a philosopher. Yet he was a philosopher but Rousseau's own view of philosophy and philosophers was firmly negati...
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.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx both had the similar notion that property was the root of inequality, even though they both lived in different eras. Rousseau, who lived during the 18th century, was a staunch proponent of the idea that property gave rise to inequality, due to its unequal distribution. Similarly, Marx, who lived during the 19th century, contended that property gave rise to inequality because it created a class conflict between that of the upper class bourgeoisie, and the working class proletariat. However, for Rousseau, there was an underlying force that gave rise to property and that was amour propre. In simplest terms, amour propre is the vanity and self-love that leads one to seek personal gain, even if it may be at the expense of others (Rousseau 63). Rousseau argued that amour propre and private property were the sources of inequality because they drove man away from his natural state where he was equal amongst others.
Jean-Paul Sartre claims that there can be no human nature, or essence, without a God to conceive of it. This claim leads Sartre to formulate the idea of radical freedom, which is the idea that man exists before he can be defined by any concept and is afterwards solely defined by his choices. Sartre presupposes this radical freedom as a fact but fails to address what is necessary to possess the type of freedom which would allow man to define himself. If it can be established that this freedom and the ability to make choices is contingent upon something else, then freedom cannot be the starting point from which man defines himself. This leaves open the possibility of an essence that is not necessarily dependent upon a God to conceive it. Several inconsistencies in Sartre’s philosophy undermine the plausibility of his concept of human nature. The type of freedom essential for the ability to define oneself is in fact contingent upon something else. It is contingent upon community, and the capacity for empathy, autonomy, rationality, and responsibility.
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”.
Political philosophers Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx dreamt up and developed unique theories of total revolution. Although similar in their intention to dissolve dividing institutions such as religion and class structure, as well as their shared reluctance to accept the rather less hopeful conclusions of government and man that had been drawn by their predecessors Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, the blueprints Rousseau and Marx had printed were cited to two very different sources. Rousseau approached the problem of oppression from a political standpoint, focusing on the flawed foundation of liberal individualism that has been continually adopted by democracies. Marx on the other hand took an unconventional route of concentrating on economics. By completely eliminating the economic class system, Marx believed there could be a society of which would transcend the realm of politics. Despite their different approaches, both theories conclude in universal equality, a real equality between humans that has never before been observed in any lasting civilization. While both theories operate on reason and seem to be sound, they remain unproven due to their contingency on various factors of time and place, but mainly on their prerequisite of incorruptibility. Now, while both theories may very well have the odds dramatically stacked against their favor, I believe they must be thoroughly dissected for their content before attempting to condemn them to utopianism.
“We are left alone, without excuse. This is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free” (Sartre 32). Radical freedom and responsibility is the central notion of Jean-Paul Sartre’s philosophy. However, Sartre himself raises objections about his philosophy, but he overcomes these obvious objections. In this paper I will argue that man creates their own essence through their choices and that our values and choices are important because they allow man to be free and create their own existence. I will first do this by explaining Jean-Paul Sartre’s quote, then by thoroughly stating Sartre’s theory, and then by opposing objections raised against Sartre’s theory.
The problem is to find a form of association … in which each, while uniting
Liberty impacts two main areas of political thought; the state of nature and the social contract. This essay will examine wither or not it is proper to characterize Jean Jacque Rousseau as holding a positive theory of liberty. To determine to what extends this is true the following areas must be taken into account and explored; the definitions of liberty and freedom, Isaiah Berlin’s concept of positive and negative liberty, Rousseau understands of Liberty and also why Rousseau’s theory can be characterised as positive liberty. The main argument of this essay is that Rousseau does hold a positive theory of liberty.
Rousseau and Totalitarianism Rousseau clearly promotes totalitarianism in The Social Contract, and hints at it in a few passages from his Second Discourse. He desperately attempts to lay down a form of government that eliminates any chance for the people to be victims. Rousseau specifically shows us the faults in the other types of government and tries to prevent them in his ideas. He wants to create a political situation where people have as much sovereignty as possible. In order to reduce the chance of victimhood among the peoples, there must be equality between them all.
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.