Category: Rousseau

Rousseau and Nietzsche are both prominent figures of modern Western political philosophy, even though they lived over one hundred years apart from one another. In this essay I will try to compare and contrast the idea of autonomy in Rousseau’s and Nietzsche’s political theories through their discussion of the state of nature, general will, slave morality and the will to power. Ultimately, I will come to the conclusion that Rousseau and Nietzsche view autonomy very different in human society.

Autonomy can be defined as ‘self-rule’ and is basically another word for liberty. If you have autonomy you have the capacity to make your own decisions. There are two basic types of autonomy: individual and collective. Rousseau discusses both individual autonomy (in Emilie) and collective autonomy (via the social contract), however he believed that in modern society (as man no longer lives in the state of nature), autonomy belongs to human beings as a group. However, Nietzsche argues for individual autonomy, in that he believed autonomy belongs to each individual human being via the will for power.

Rousseau used the promise of autonomy to criticise modern society by stating “man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” He believed that modern society must be judged by the virtue of its citizens – and, in contrary to popular belief, he argued the Enlightenment period was corrupt and led to social frustration and jealousy. However, Rousseau believed that naturally, human beings are born with an innate capacity for pity and empathy. Men fall when they come into contact with others and “the more (men) come together, the more they are corrupted.” It is only when man come into contact with each other that they develop the new need to depend on each other for satisfaction. In modern society, man becomes relative to others; and he compares and judges, and is compared and judged. According to Rousseau, individuals are controlled by property relations of dependency and by others’ approval and praise. When the dependency increases the individuals’ need for approval grows, and their thirst for popularity rises – man conforms to what others expect and what society demands. Man develop a sensation of false autonomy and a feeling of who they believe they are from the opinions of others. Due to social existence, human beings have had their body weakened, and their minds enslaved.

In his book ‘Emile’, Rousseau discusses how to cultivate individual autonomy where he writes about the upbringing of a ‘universal child’ Emile. As Emile grows up, he should be given no more than he needs and should be given as much freedom as his body permits. With the hidden care of his parent, Emile will learn to live and grow to look after himself. Rousseau roots man’s ethical behaviour in our human nature – as he saw in himself, human beings empathise with those around them and therefore has the capacity for suffering. So, if man build more relationships with others from their grown ethical behaviour, man can grow a bigger distinctive sentiment of pity towards others. And as man mature, we develop moral sentiments of right and wrong, good and bad, as we think about treating others like how we wish to be treated. Furthermore, this means that justice and goodness become experiences between ourselves and others. Rousseau suggests that natural moral education starts with sentiments of love and hate, so, in other words, we will either hate of love things that happen to us. From this, we grow to learn reasons for why an action is loveable or hateful and this then leads to ideas of justice, goodness etc. And from this, our conscience builds more reason – this thought of what we ought to do, rather than what we want to do – this is then an act of autonomy, rather than the influence of society which poses on most of man in modern society. So, according to Rousseau, society and moral autonomy are intertwined with one another; society conditions man’s potential of morality and individual freedom. In society, man should think of others when deciding what he out to do which implies man should be collectively autonomous. The possibility of individual freedom (and moral autonomy) goes alongside his perfect model of the republic. If ‘Emile’ is the vision of the moral autonomous individual, ‘The Social Contract’ is a vision of a state and society composed of Emiles – a vision of communal autonomy. To really be autonomous, is to not act in accordance to your own private or particular interest, but rather to act in accordance to your idea of what you ought to do – which is to act on your conscience that reason implies, should become a universal law. To disobey this is to deny your own moral autonomy to act according to it.

Furthermore, Rousseau discusses about his theory of society and government. He builds his idea of a legislator off his understanding of the state of nature – a time before man existed as a society and had a government. Rousseau argues man to be neither good nor bad – so not naturally sinful, and so man have the capacity to create good on earth and to be autonomous. Citizens with self-knowledge and the ability of moral autonomy is the key towards a legitimate state. However, to begin with, the state should be governed by a legislator – in other words a community is brought together by a powerful sovereign, and he is one of the people required to form the social contract. To move out of the state of nature, Rousseau believes that we have to give up our freedom and follow a social contract; in this case man loses their individual autonomy for the sake of society. The legislator is someone who can transcend the environment and shape it, and the people in it. As the legislator is capable of changing human nature, he able to make a ‘good society’ and so is autonomous – however he is not necessarily a leader, but more a creator and educator of the framework of how to lead and make laws. He almost guides man into good moral autonomy as he can appeal to divine authority if need. Rousseau goes on to argue that as human nature transforms, eventually the society becomes the legislator, and the legislator becomes society – ultimately making society a collective autonomous state.

However, in contrast to Rousseau, Nietzsche believes his argument of the social contract is a reflection of slave morality. He argues that modern society still lives in slave morality today and is based on resentment; this resentment is due to man feeling powerless, frustrated by being ruled by someone more powerful. Slave morality only exists if there is a legislator for man to be resentful towards – in this state of resentment, it is only the legislator who can be open with the self and truly autonomous. According to Nietzsche, the idea of a divine authority to judge the legislator is incorrect. He argues “God is dead” to imply that there is nothing that a political leader can use to justify his authority over others. With the death of God, the legislator has no justification of his authority and so cannot be autonomous in the way Rousseau argues. Nietzsche instead, argues that men who can philosophise, are commanders and legislators. He argues this point by putting forward the idea of the overman, which he defines as a man who is above the limits of humanity. In order for human excellence to develop freely, there should be no constraint of ‘equality’ on people – in other words, an overman should not be forced to be a slave, and a slave should not be made to be an overman. Nietzsche argues, that instead, human beings should be free to compete for power, at which naturally the overman will win the right of autonomy and so can be a ruler of society.

The concept of the general will can be discussed to better understand Rousseau’s argument for autonomy and the rule of the legislator. The general will can be defined as the will of common good held by people in their quality and citizens – so man can make good moral decisions using their intuition and full knowledge. The ‘common good’ can only be achieved when members of the social contract surrender their rights. Rousseau describes that the general will is chosen when man put aside their selfish needs, and think about others’ particular interests. This implies that the general will provides individual moral autonomy and civil freedom. Rousseau then goes on to argue that the legislator is a representor of the general will, and his fundamental task is to achieve the common good amongst man. He discusses that the general will can only be understood in society, as it is not naturally imbedded in us by God. Human beings who do not want to reach the general will do not realise what is good for them, so, the legislator exists to educate the citizens into common good, as choosing the general will and common good requires proper guidance. According to Rousseau, the social contract leads to a just and fair political order – which can be viewed as an authority of collective autonomy (also known as the general will).

On the other hand, however, Nietzsche does not see the general will as an authoritative collective autonomy, instead he argues the general will to be a reflection of slave morality. He argues that Rousseau is an example of a man who represents slave morality. Nietzsche criticises Rousseau’s political theories, as they argue for somewhat of a dictatorship – a non-autonomous society; instead the general will just leads to a rule of people who follow the leader like a mindless herd of sheep. Unlike Rousseau, which I discussed earlier in this essay, Nietzsche believes that moralities are not natural, but instead creations by autonomous individuals rather than man as a whole. The strong man uses their autonomy and impose their will on the weak man and enslave them. Nietzsche argues that the strong do not repress their instincts, but instead, glorify them. On the other hand, the weak do not do this which leads them to a state of slave morality – which is a reaction of revenge against rulers and their values. Nietzsche discusses that in slave morality, man live life full of guilt and sin, and so have created the existence of God to provide comfort in getting revenge on the strong in a supposed ‘other life’, as they are unable to get the power they want in this life. Nietzsche argues that the will to power is what drives every living creature in the universe – everything wants to grow and develop. This idea of the will to power can easily be associated with the longing for autonomy like the overman, and the desire to dominate other human beings.

Introduction

Immanuel Kant answered the question of what is enlightenment. He said: ‘It is the departure of human from the stage of mental failure and reaching the age of maturity or age of majority.’ (2009). The Enlightenment was a broad political, social, cultural and philosophical movement that developed significantly in the 18th century in Europe. It originated in England but the real development was in France. The views of philosophers, including Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Charles de Montesquieu, who studied their writings, state of nature, The Social Contract, and sovereignty according of their political and social thought. The age of English Enlightenment was absolutely different from French Enlightenment in 18th century, the English knew the Enlightenment before the French, and the most famous enlightenment philosophers in England are John Locke, and Adam Smith. And without John Locke, the French Voltaire would not have been. But the events of each of Franc and England were aimed at human orientation; human was the first and last goal of each English and French philosopher, but since each of them came from a different time and lived within a different events each of them had different ways and different answer for the same question and that is how they affected the society and took them to the same aim through different roads and ways. And in the first section of this article I tried to explain the political background of Rousseau and how he influenced the French society and led them to a bloody revolution in 1789 by his writings and ideas. And in the second section I also explained the political background of Locke and his influences over the English people that led to the glories revolution in 1642.

Historical complexity behind writings of Rousseau

In his book Discourse on the origin of inequality Jean-Jacques Rousseau changed reader’s consideration of each social, political issue and about causes of establishing a states and law, and also about social contract. In this book Rousseau determined the origin of the existence of differences, and discord among people, the causes and the historical development of this inequality. He believes that human being or an individual in a pre-social or in nature of state was all equal in exercise of their freedom. But first stage that devoted differences between people began when they asked for a law and social contract and that is how there became someone who owns property and also those who not. And he thinks privet property has led to differences or inequality and people divided in to reach and poor. Second stage, started with creating authoritarians and ruling and in this term people divided in to those who have power and authority to rule and normal people who don’t have power, and that produced a new kind of differences which they are strong people and weak people. Third phase began when legitimate authority replaced with authoritarian authority, and this stage has produced masters and slaves. And all this was not acceptable for Rousseau and he said that people or individuals they has already given up so much to have a system or law in order to maintain security and to protect their life. While in state of nature there was equal freedom, but after third stage there was equal in slavery, individuals became slaves to the ruler and ruler became a slave to his desires and lust and power. (Rousseau, 2011) Since one of the reasons for taking taxes from people was that king does not have money to hold parties, especially after seven years’ war with Britain and American war of independence. And this brought society into a state of corruption and vice. In the Estates-General in 1789 the representative protested and separated from the council and they formed National Assembly and call for drafting a new constitution, and they issue the Declaration right of people. And here we see the influence of Rousseau of Franc revolution, for Rousseau the only solution is to change and he explained to ways of changing which they are peaceful change which is based on education and upbringing and second way is change via violence and revolution. In his book he explained the need for a revolution as only way to change and at the end of his book he explained that tyrannical ruler will remain in strong as long as he is has power and can only be removed by force from greater or at least equal power. He thinks use of violence in the revolution is legitimate as much as the power of the king. (McDonald, 2013) Therefore, people stormed the Bastille prison, which was a symbol of royal power and weapon store and they also arrested the king and executed on charges of treason in 21 January 1793 and that is how French got rid of absolutism and republican age began. In his book Rousseau also mentioned new civilization he thinks that interaction between individual interests even if intended to promote a new civilization could not result in any natural harmony. And this lead to Reign Of Terror in 5 September 1793, when commit of public safety which lead by Robespierre they killed 400000 people on charges of treason of revolution in order to make social and cultural changes.

Historical complexity behind writings of Locke

English were one of the first peoples to move towards democracy in the age of enlightenment and they did not get their gains at once but it was a gradual issue. And in that period, john Locke lived in England and experienced political, social conflicts, civil wars and many conflicts between parliament and the king. And the most prominent of these conflicts that lasted for a long time between the individual and the king over the powers and authority, and this conflict has many forms sometimes it was directly with the king and sometimes it was with those who were supported the expansion and strengthening the power of the king and there was also a historical conflict between stat authority and church authority. The most important events of emancipation and democracy are the English revolution that took place in England in seventeen century. On the contrary of democracy although the majority was Protestants but they ruled by a minority catholic monarchy and the caused conflict between people and king. It was impossible for kings to change the doctrine of most people and this was a threat of their absolute power. Locke explained the need of limiting the church authority and not to interfere in the political and social life in general. Although parliament supported Protestant people but the king’s authority was absolute and he appointed to the highest position and the royal court only those who from Catholics and the army were taking orders from a king and people rebelled and revolted. Locke was in favor of parliament against the king and against the absolute power of the king because he believed that those religious’, sectarian wars in England in that period and even before has been led to loss of the lives of millions of people. Because of all this John Locke felt the need to define a clear concept of power or governance, and the relationship of this authority to society, and how it is formed? For Locke the social contract depends on to sides ruling and people. The task of ruler is to protect liberty, property, and equality and the common good of the people, and also people have an obligation to abide by the laws, duties, and resolve their disputes by resorting to the judiciary. He also said that it is the right of people to cancel the contract, and remove the ruler if he neglects his duties and this right came from people who give up their rights to this authority for the public interest not in favor of the king. (Boucher, Kelly, 2017, p. 184) And this exactly happened in Glorious Revolution when people united with parliament against the king or Catholicism and in the first step the began the right of anti-Catholic in 1679, and they refused to let the catholic dynasty lasts in England after the birth of the sun of king James||, that is why parliament offered the crown to the Dutch prince William orange, he was husband of Mary the daughter of James ||they said that Locke had met the prince in 1687 and he tried to persuade him to comes to England (LG Schwoerer, 1990, p. 3). And because he was a protestant and he also accepted the contract that wanted by people which based on limiting royal power, freedom of speech, and free elections. The English Revolution differed from the French Revolution, which was peaceful and it was not bloody like the French Revolution, but still achieved its objectives.

Conclusion

We note in this quick and simplified view that the era of English and French revolutions, and the West in general in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, provided a fertile ground for the ideas that followed these two centuries, in liberalism, democracy and human rights, as we also note how much the West preceded us in philosophy, thought, politics and the study of morality and virtue From a high human perspective, while we stand today reluctant to adopt or reject Western thought, but if we study each of those philosophers and their theory’s we can know or choose the most appropriate ideas that fits with geospatial and temporal geography in which we are now.

Reference

1. Boucher, D. and Kelly, P. eds., 2017. Political thinkers: from Socrates to the present. Oxford University Press.
2. Rousseau, J.J., 2011. Discourse on the Origin and the Foundations of Inequality among Men. Bedford/St. Martins.
3. McDonald, J., 2013. Rousseau and the French Revolution 1762-1791. Bloomsbury Publishing.
4. Kant, I. and Nisbet, H.B., 2009. An Answer to the Question ‘What is Enlightenment’?. London: Penguin Books.
5. Schwoerer, L.G., 1990. Locke, Lockean Ideas, and the Glorious Revolution. Journal of the History of Ideas, 51(4), pp.531-548.

“We the people…” is a phrase from the United States Constitution that represents the embodiment of social contract principle born out of the Enlightenment age by Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke. Social Contract Theory has had massive influence in western governments, as one of the oldest theories pertaining to the ordnance of citizens in society. The basis of Social Contract theory is citizens sacrificing their individual rights for the greater good of society in return for protection and resources that are beneficial to everyone. In contrast, Dewey’s view of the origin of ethics represents practicality and priority of action. Dewey’s theory doesn’t rely on fixed principles or universal authority, instead he believed in citizens being encouraged to equip themselves with the reflective skills that will improve their moral judgements. Having high moral citizens in society would in turn influence an ethically correct society. Both ideas are essentially instruments of righteous societal construction.

According to Hobbes, “Government is necessary not because man is naturally bad…. But because man is by nature more individualistic than social. “He believes that since it’s in human nature to be competitive and ruthless a social contract is required to provide structure and order to a society. Without society and government accountability, no restrictions would ignite what Hobbes views as “war of all against all.” In order to prevent said war from happening an alliance has to be established in order to keep everyone civilized. Social Contracts serve as social protection and security. Citizens create social contract while the government protects the social contract ensuring that it is maintained and being obeyed. Both society and government ensure that everyone follows the social contract, or they’ll be punished in their society. Social contract is meant to provide alliance and structure to an otherwise war-stricken environment.

Unlike Thomas Hobbes, John Dewey had a more pragmatic view of societies structure. John Dewey’s beliefs fell in line with individualism and modern boot strap ideology. Dewey denounces social contract theory and even criticizes it as a ‘myth’. His philosophy on society wasn’t invested in socialist theories nor did he find need for universal sacrifice for the improvement of society. In Dewey’s View of the Origin of Ethics, Dewey argues, “Complete morality is reached only when the individual recognizes the right or chooses the good freely.” Instead of believing in what he considered to be a limiting social agreement, he heavily emphasizes the objective of those in society improving their own individual values. He describes individuals as their own entities that help influence society with their own moral code and standards. Dewey believes that social contracts do not improve society values and their importance only lie in the fact that they’re upheld as standard, as opposed to being what he considers as “personal and voluntary.”

In spite of the differences between the two contemporaries; whether it be an individual effort or a collaborate one, both philosophers agreed on social responsibility. Both ideologies are grounded in having an established moral code to positively impact their societies wellbeing. Thomas Hobbes believes society has a monolith responsibility to institute policies influenced by a mutual moral code that will socially and politically push forward the greater good. John Dewy holds similar expectations in regard to the influence of moral values in the decision making of society. Dewey’s theory sanctions the high standing citizens to use their moral code to control the social temperature that dictates the ethics of the community. Both men’s philosophies differentiate in who’s to determine and what’s to determine the ethical climate in society.

In conclusion, Thomas Hobbes and John Dewy theories are essential for comprehending modern western government. Both philosophers’ beliefs are the basis of standard principles of democratic society. John Dewey insists on individuals having governance of themselves, whereas, Thomas Hobbes believes in established alliance and government protecting the order of society. Both theories serve to further political and social dialogue of government engagement, all the while serving as debate of ethics, morals, and structural influences on society.

My goal in this article is to examine whether the ideal political society proposed in Jean- Jacques Rousseau’s book successfully resolve the problems of three types of the dependence identified in his book. To examine the effectiveness and the limitations of Social Contract in regard to the problems of dependence, I will look closely into botH. On the one hand, I will start by identifying three types of dependences, addressing the origin, and defining the consequences in society. On the other hand, I will focus on the solutions proposed by the Social Contract, explaining each aspect of the proposed political society and addressing the goals of it corresponding to the problems. Finally, by linking the solutions to the problems, I will argue the effectiveness and the limitations of Rousseau’s ideal political society.

In Rousseau’s book , he recognized two types of human dependences that result into the moral inequality as the consequences of human revolutions. The state of nature, as Rousseau argues, was initially a static condition where humans enjoyed their freedom and they were able to live on their own without outside influence. The human concerned only about his preservation (69)- things that would satisfy his own needs of food, sleep, and sex. However, as humans exited from the state of nature and started to form a society, various environmental forces, described as “difficulties”, multiplied, and such difficulties forced them to introduce corresponding differences in their lifestyles. The first evolution began when the human started to use tools and build habituations that host the families. People started to live with each other, and this sparked the cooperation. As the humans spent less time on their tasks, they began to use activities like dancing in their leisure time. It further helped to spread their relationships and tighten their bonds. They began to look at each other and wished to be looked at themselves and compared themselves to the others. This first type of dependence, social dependence, is therefore formed, as humans needed the others to validate their own self-worthiness. As humans continued living with each other, they began to split the complex tasks among labors. For Rousseau, this is when the second revolution started. The division of labor created the second type of dependence, the economic dependence, in human society. Rousseau illustrates the example of agriculture and metallurgy industries and he argues that labors of both industries rely on each other because the organized farming accelerated the agriculture production and the innovations on the iron tools stimulated the organized farming. Furthermore, the cooperation in agriculture constituted the institution of property, as man can apply his labors his own property. In order to preserve their dominations, the rich designed political societies and made the poor to believe that they agree to give up their freedom for the safety guaranteed by such political society. Therefore, the social and economic dependence finally led to the political dependence such that humans are able to find a way to protect their own properties. In the end, Rousseau points out that the economic and social dependence results in the political dependence that eventually made the poor to give up their freedom in the “chains” created by the rich, and Rousseau’s goal here is to measure how much physical freedom does the citizen need to give up in exchange to his civil freedom. To do so, he developed a social contract that represents not only the rich but every member in the society and form a government that represents the general will.

In Rousseau’s work , he proposed that the legitimate political entity should be the one that is founded upon a social contract that is agreed by all the citizens for their common preservation. He designs his ideal state from three aspects: administration, legislation, and executive power. Starting from the administration, he first defined the “sovereign” as the collective group of all citizens and argued that such “sovereign” should be viewed as an individual person. Here, the sovereign represents the general will that aims at the common good and the sovereign enjoys its absolute authority within its domain. People within its domain ought to be called regularly to address their opinions on the administration. Apart from the administration, Rousseau also requires the legislation system to follow certain rules. First, the general and abstract laws of this political entity will be clearly expressed by the general will and will be created by an impartial lawgiver who is not part of the society. Second, under any circumstances, all laws should preserve the liberty and equality. Thirdly, all the laws should be applied generally and fairly. Furthermore, Rousseau also sets up standards for the executive power. He argues that there exists different types of governments and, among all of them, the strongest one is the monarchy and the most stable one is aristocracies. Thus, from Rosseau’s perspective, such an ideal political society that is established upon the social contract will ensure citizens’ civil freedom at the expenses of their physical freedom embodied in the human nature.

Now, I am going to examine whether Rousseau’s ideal political society will solve the problems of social, economic, and political dependence. I will start my arguments from the political dependence, followed by economics dependence and social dependence.

From my point of view, the political dependence is resolved under this proposed political system. Without the advent of the social contract, people are able to claim their ownerships by forces as long as they are powerful enough to do so. Since they are the powerful ones in the society, even though the properties they claim are not legitimate, they cannot be punished by the weak. Yet, the changes are made as the social contract is being generated, determined, executed, and monitored by all the citizens. Instead of protecting the property rights for rich people in the society, the social contract now protects the ownership of each individual. With this being said, a combination of rights comes as part of the general will to protect each individual’s property right. Unlike previously when the vulnerable man has to stand alone to protect his rights in front of the richer and more powerful individuals, the men now gives up its own rights to the group, unite with each other, and form a more powerful and protective entity to defend the ones who are against the general will. Such condition leaves no room for any man to hurt the other before hurting the whole group. It also makes it impossible to hurt the rights of the entire group without harming any individuals. Under no circumstances will anyone hold more power or enjoy more rights than the others. Therefore, the property rights of each individual in this society is protected.

Even though Rousseau’s Social Contract resolves the political dependence addressed in the Second Discourse, in my opinion, it hardly resolves the economic dependence. According to Rousseau, the economic dependence emerges as the humans started to cooperate in the production. As the industry diversifies, human cannot get what he/she wants solely on his own, they need to depend on others for the goods that they are not able to produce. I understand that the social contracts require human to give up their own desires in exchange for the common desire but giving over its own desire for the general desire does not mean that people are able to self-sustain themselves without the products offered by the others. I admit that by giving up his/her needs for the luxurious goods driven by the social interactions for the common goods, the economic dependence driven from the excessive desire for the consumable goods eliminated, but the economic dependence based on the basic needs of the man still exist. Although people might argue that, since the sovereign nowadays represents every individual in society, it could thus be viewed as an individual. If so, the sovereign could sustain itself without the dependence from the others. However, our discussion on the economic dependence stays on the individual level, and, consequently, Rosseau’s Social Contract fails to resolve the economic dependence.

Before start answering this question we need to know who was Jean Jacques Rousseau and the meaning of equality and democracy. Jean Jacques Rousseau was a Swiss philosopher known because of one of his works called general will, which is a theory collectively held will that aims at the common good or common interest, this theory supports Rousseau’s political thought that was a modern republican thought. Rousseau referred the general will as a way where everyone was going to have the same rights and what they deserve, without gender discrimination and as a democracy. That is the reason why I chose this question, because I like the connection those keywords that are equality and democracy have with Rousseau and some of his work.

To continue asking this question we need to know the meaning of those words; Equality is about ensuring that every individual has an equal opportunity to make the most of their lives and talents. It is also the belief that no one should have poorer life chances because of the way they were born, where they come from, what they believe, or whether they have a disability. Rousseau wanted a better society where everybody has the same rights and also the same opportunities, that is the reason why Rousseau is very connected with equality.

Democracy is also known as power of people, because is a way of governing which depends on the will of the people. Democracy, then, is not autocracy or dictatorship, where one person rules; and it is not oligarchy, where a small segment of society rules. Properly understood, democracy should not even be ‘rule of the majority’, if that means that minorities’ interests are ignored completely. A democracy, at least in theory, is government on behalf of all the people, according to their ‘will’.

Rousseau has the reputation of being a radical egalitarian. It means that he was always looking for equality in the society, so he was wanted the same for everyone, for example in his work about general will, he wanted the best for everyone, it means the same rights, without discrimination. He was undoubtedly disturbed by existing inequalities, especially as he observed them in France. He had an original and interesting theory about how inequality among men came into being; he also set out what he considered to be the connections between equality and freedom.

“All men are born equal” this is one of the most famous phrases, as I said before he was always looking for equality that’s why he said that phrase, it means that everybody is equal since they were born, so they have the same rights and the same benefits, it does not matter your gender, your age, preferences, because Rousseau´s point of view is that everybody is equal, no one is better than the other one, and that everyone is free to decide what to do and what they want, and there is the connection with democracy.

If you read some of his work you could think that Rousseau is the most radical democrat, because some of his work is very influenced politics, one example is the social contract, this contract was to suggest how they might recover their liberty in the future.

The Social Contract begins with the sensational opening sentence: “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains,” and proceeds to argue that men need not be in chains. If a civil society, or state, could be based on a genuine social contract, as opposed to the fraudulent social contract depicted in the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, people would receive in exchange for their independence a better kind of freedom, namely true political, or Republican, liberty. Such liberty is to be found in obedience to a self-imposed law.

Rousseau affected how we see equality and democracy because you can say something about equality, you can say that there are differences between some people, but after reading Rousseau´s work you are going to think different, because his point of view is very clear, it shows what he wanted to say, also the phrases he wrote are very meaningful because you can say a lot about a phrase of three or four words, but that is because he expressed what he thought about democracy and equality very clear in those phrases.

There are a lot point of view about democracy and equality, but Rousseau´s point of view in my opinion is the best because he was always looking for the general will, he wanted the best for every person, and that is the reason he affects equality and democracy these days, he changed how we were supposed to see them.

Introduction to Political Philosophies of Hobbes and Rousseau

Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries emergence of various works on political philosophy emerged, giving current political scholars a meaningful and rational foundation on politics and society. Various works have constructed a core knowledge and have influenced how we view the world around us today. Political philosophy seeks the application of ethical concepts in regards to the social sphere, and in turn, deals with the variety of forms of government and social existence that people could live in. In return, political philosophy provides a standard by which we analyze and judge existing institutions and relationships.

Thomas Hobbes was an English born philosopher while Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a Swiss-born philosopher. Both philosophers were influenced by various ongoing events and therefore their work inherently reflected this. Both were well known for their controversial interpretations of human nature. In this paper, an effort will be made to compare and contrast the works of both political philosophers. An analysis of the works and viewpoints of both Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau will be made, to determine how Hobbsian Rousseau is. An examination of the background and contributing factors to the philosopher’s writing will be made, in order to gain a better understanding of their views. Then, it will be necessary to examine their standpoints of human nature and the social contract. Furthermore, language will be explored as a tool of similarity and each philosopher’s thoughts on the sovereign will be presented to understand how Hobbsian Rousseau is.

Influences and Backgrounds: Hobbes vs. Rousseau

Thomas Hobbes was influenced by traumatic conditions which greatly influenced his work. He was born in Westport, England on April 5th, 1588 (Duncan, 2017). Hobbes was influenced by the Spanish Armada. In his autobiography, Hobbes states “fear and I were born together” (Hobbes, pg.5). By which he refers to his premature birth due to the fear that his mother experienced when discovering that the Spanish Armada was sent to attack England. Fear is a significant theme in Hobbes writing and the Hobbesian philosophical system. The Spanish Armada was a planned invasion of England, due to the hostilities between Spain and England. King Philip II of the Catholic Church set out an attack on Queen Elizabeth’s Protestant England (History, 2018). This was a period of instability and insecurity and it was this particular upheaval that influenced Hobbes’ thoughts.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau was born on June 28, 1712, in Geneva, Switzerland (Biography, 2019). He was known as one of the most influential thinkers during the Enlightenment period. A time of social change and cultural prosperity. The Enlightenment period was known as the time of reason, where thinkers in Britain and in France and all throughout Europe “questioned the traditional authority and embraced the notion that humanity could be improved through rational change” (History, 2009). Rousseau witnessed the death of his mother, as well as his father’s exile and due to humiliation, he fled to France where he converted to Catholicism. It was the conditions of the French Enlightenment and his early childhood which influenced Rousseaus’ writing and views on human nature.

Differing Views on Human Nature

An analysis of human nature will be made to contrast both philosophers and their work. By definition, human nature is the characteristics, instincts, feelings and behavioural traits of a human that are shared across the globe (Merriam-Webster, 2020). Human Nature will greatly impact your societal, moral and political views, which in turn means that if you believe humans are either good or evil it can influence your entire viewpoint on how you view the world. This is evidently noticed throughout both philosopher’s works.

Thomas Hobbes did not believe in the soul, or in the mind as separate from the body. Instead, he saw human beings as highly sophisticated machines with thoughts and emotions operating according to physical laws and chains of cause and effect. Just like machines, human beings pursue their own self-interest, avoiding pain and pursuing pleasure. According to Hobbes, the state of nature was a state of human existence without any established form of government and society. He describes this state as “solidarity, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” (Hobbes, pg.107). In this state of nature, there are no moral or legal rules, which quickly turns into a state of war in which humans are constantly disposed to harm others to achieve their goals. Hobbes depicts the state of nature by saying “someone who comes with forces united to dispossess and deprive him, not only of the fruit but also his life or Liberty” (Leviathan, pg.57). In short, the state of nature is one of fear, violence and distrust, and would consequently have “no practical skills, no literature or scholarship, no society; and—worst of all—continual fear and danger of violent death” (Hobbes, pg.58)

According to Hobbes, moral ideas do not exist in man’s natural state. Hobbes states that it is an endeavour that motivates us, which he defines as “small beginnings of motion within the body of man before they appear in…visible actions” (Hobbes, pg.22). From endeavour, either appetite or aversion will arise. Hobbes states “This Endeavour, when it is toward something which causes it, is appetite or desire. . . when the Endeavour is fromward something, it is generally called aversion” (Leviathan, pg.52). According to Hobbes’ mechanistic universe, appetites and aversions are the product of transferred motion and depict human nature according to Hobbes. Hobbes recognized these two natural rights and concluded that a shift of power must occur to lift humanity out of this state of nature, and into what he recognizes as the social contract.

The social contract consists of moral and legal roles because it is essential to escape the state of nature, and allow men to flourish. Everyone must agree to these rules, and by doing so men must transfer their rights to all men in order to foster mutual reinforcement of the contract. Hobbes explains that it is in the hands of the sovereign to control appetites and aversions so that mankind could be lifted from the state of war which he refers to as human nature.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, contrary to Hobbes, was influenced by the French Enlightenment which influenced his conception of humans in the state of nature. Rousseau addresses freedom and aims to explain how a man in the state of nature is blessed with inevitable total freedom. Unlike Hobbes who believed that men are inherently evil, Rousseau believed humans are naturally neither good nor bad, however, the problem lies when society is imposed upon individuals because he believes this creates corruption. In comparison to Hobbes, who describes the state of nature as a place of chaos before the arrival of the sovereign power, Rousseau describes the state of nature as a morally neutral and peaceful condition in which individuals act according to their basic urges. It was a rich environment where humans were living solitary and peaceful lives. Rousseau describes the state of nature as a “state which no longer exists, which perhaps never existed, which probably never will exist,” (Rousseau, pg.34). Rousseau proclaimed the natural goodness of man and believed that one man by nature is just as good as his neighbour. For Rousseau, a man could be just without virtue and good without effort. According to Rousseau, a man in the state of nature was free, wise, and good and the laws of nature were good. It follows that it was a civilization that enslaved and corrupted man and made him unnatural.

Rousseau, was aware of the fact that humans changed over time and that they possess the faculty of self-perfection, he compares humans to animals by saying; “difference in this respect between men and brutes, there is another very specific quality which distinguishes them, and which will admit of no dispute. This is the faculty of self-improvement” (Rousseau, pg.6). Rousseau saw mankind in its natural state as being humble, wise, judicious and even noble and that every step away from the state of nature was one very much in the wrong direction. Rousseau takes an anti-enlightenment tone when he says “the first man who having enclosed a piece of land thought of saying this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him was the true founder of civil society” (Rousseau, pg.272). Here, Rousseau expresses the development of what we know about civilization and how it was founded on injustice, creating fundamental flaws. According to Rousseau, humans become violent due to “enlightenment, which develops only with great difficulty and by a very small number of people within the society itself.” (Rousseau, pg.35). The solution to this was referred to as the social contract.

Rousseau advocates for a corrective social contract through which a proper society can be built. He claims that “man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains,” (Rousseau, pg.144), to which he refers to the rationality of man, thus allowing for a sovereign, that can be questioned if the general will is not upheld. The social contract eliminated the social dependence on one another while permitting each other to obey only themselves and to remain as free as before. Individuals must give up their right to control their lives in order to gain an equal voice in setting the rules of society. Thus, giving man equal power since our gradual escape from the state of nature is what Rousseau believed to be the origin of inequality. According to Rousseau’s theory of social contract, people leave an anarchic state of nature by voluntarily transferring their personal rights to the community in return for the security of life and property. According to Rousseau, the original freedom, happiness, equality and liberty which existed in primitive societies prior to the social contract was lost in the modern civilisation. Through Social Contract, which was a new form of social organisation, the state was formed to assure and guarantee rights, liberties, freedom and equality.

The Role of Language in Exiting the State of Nature

An extent of language and liberty will be made to examine how Rousseau is Hobbsian. It is no doubt that language plays a key role in both philosophers’ works. Hobbes and Rousseau agree that language plays an essential role in allowing humans to exit the state of nature. Rousseau believes that a language is a tool used to aid men’s ability to communicate their passions and ideas, thus resulting in enlightenment and rationality. The language was a key factor that separated man from animals in the Discourses on Inequality. According to Rousseau men and animals are equal, since both are exposed to the same conditions. However, when examining humans, Rousseau was under the impression that both humans and animals have senses and ideas, which allow us to “renew strength and to protect ourselves… from all that tends to destroy or disturb ”. Additionally, Rousseau believes that humans rely on passion and the ability to make decisions. Without this ability, humans would remain in the state of nature. Rousseau credits language as a tool of reason. Thus, allowing humans to exit the state of nature.

In comparison, Thomas Hobbes believes that language grants humans the ability to consent to a social contract. Hobbes emphasizes the importance of words and their universal meanings to ensure that thoughts are consistent. Hobbes claims that words with multiple interpretations “deceive others” (Hobbes, 38). Humans must consent to the social contract through a universal understanding of language. To Hobbes, the reciprocity of consent is what keeps men from breaking the contract, and binds people together. Both philosophers understand the importance of language, however, how it is viewed is the ultimate difference. While Rousseau believes that language will ultimately lift humans out of the state of nature, Hobbes views language as a tool used to create trust within the social contract, and without it, humans can fall into the state of nature.

Liberty and Sovereignty: A Comparative Analysis

Liberty is another important element to analyse. Although Rousseau does not specifically define liberty he makes many implications as to what it entails. Rousseau implies that freedom is not pursuing whatever man desires, instead, it relies on the foundations of freedom of the general will and it becomes the basis for what one can do. This motivating force behind freedom traces back to the social contract. In the state of nature, people have physical freedom however they are slaves to their own instincts. The social contract is a way to secure civil freedom. Rousseau however does define the sovereign as the citizens acting collectively. Citizens come together and create the will and laws of that particular state. The sovereign cannot be divided up in any way: only all the people speaking collectively can be sovereign.

Hobbes on the other hand explains that the nature of liberty falls under sovereign power. According to Hobbes liberty means the ability to act according to a man’s own hill without being obstructed. This means that without and hindering all subjects have absolute liberty. It can be noted that while civil laws are regulated by the sovereign and can be seen as chains, liberty still exists due to subjects creating thus chains. Hobbes believes the subjects write the social contract and therefore inherently have a connection with the sovereign’s power. Hobbes suggests that humans are required to transfer their natural right to follow their appetites and aversions to the sovereign, suggesting that “the liberty of subjects lies…only in those things which, in regulating their actions, the sovereign has permitted”. According to Hobbes liberty falls under the responsibility of the subject. In regards to the state of nature, liberty was non-existent due to fear of death. Actions were hindered by fear and power. While fear and power are present in the Leviathan, subjects have agreed to pass them onto the sovereign, therefore the subject has attained absolute liberty.

Conclusion: Synthesizing the Philosophies of Hobbes and Rousseau

In conclusion, although greatly differ on their opinions of human nature and their views on liberty. However, one can conclude that both philosophers valued language, and agreed that some form of government was needed to establish order as well as the idea of the social contract. While Hobbes believes that humans could be seen as machines, who were selfish and acted upon selfish impulses. These selfish tendencies are what will create a state of war. Rousseau believes that humans are rational creatures, however, they are corrupt when society imposes on them and they then become enlightened. To a certain degree, both philosophers share the importance of language and view it as an essential tool in allowing humans to exit the state of nature. While Hobbes views language as a tool used to create trust within the social contract, and without it, humans can fall into the state of nature, Rousseau believes that language will ultimately lift humans out of the state of nature. Finally, both philosopher’s view on liberty showcases their view on legitimacy and sovereign power, as well as the potential of governing forces. While Hobbes believes that all power should be transferred to the sovereign, given by the transfer of citizens rights. Rousseau believed the power falls under the people speaking collectively thus creating the sovereign. Although two very different philosophers, each influenced by various moments and conditions ultimately leading them to contrasting views of human nature, the concept of the sovereign and the government is what creates similar aspects in both of their works.

Jean- Jacques Rousseau a Genevan philosopher of 18th century who influenced the Enlightenment era of Europe and French revolution. Was he a revolutionary philosopher or a man that just wanted to became well known and successful? In this paper, I will refute Rousseau’s argument against Natural State being ideal for humanity by showing that it is based on hypocrisy and deception.

He deeply criticized modern, at that time, world and politics and in one of his notable works, “Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men” or simply “Second Discourse”, he described the ‘State of Nature’, which is in his opinion the ideal phase that people were in. Now, what is in Rousseau’s opinion the ideal state?

State of nature is the imaginary concept of the being of people on Earth before they started to develop. So, for Rousseau the State of Nature is the ideal period. There was love of the family, respect for the nature and awe of beauty of the universe. People were curious of other living and non-living creatures. Later they got hold of the music itself and developed some kind of a taste of it and entertained themselves. But was it really the ideal state? Is Rousseau adequately describing the picture? What he says is that people were free to do anything they wished. They actually were free with no laws and no rules. But together with not having laws and rules, people did not have the sense of morality and rationality, yet. They were narrow minded, uneducated, and basically stupid. The stupider the person is the happier he can be, right?

At this stage, people have this feeling called self-love (amour de soi) which is the self-preservation instinct. That is what made them survive because it is what satisfies our biological needs like food or sleep. Together with self-love they had the feeling of compassion (pitie) . This is a feeling that makes people to help and relieve others from suffering.

Humans have this inner thirst to progress and develop. And from the natural state it took several steps and centuries to develop and achieve some characteristics like morality, rationality and consciousness. But together with these people obtained other characteristics like jealousy and greed. They started to compare one-selves to others, who was handsomer or stronger. Because of physical strength some people could work more, and thus, gain more. People with more property were obviously richer and this way hierarchy was established in the community. This led to vice and sin. As a result of these developments we lost that naturel freedom that we had in state of nature. Was it worth it?

Are morality, rationality and consciousness bad? Are not these abilities that make human, basically, a human? If not these changes, which can be described as a progress, what is the reason of our lives? Would it even be called a life? What is life if we do not actually live and experience its bests and worsts? Rousseau in “Second Discourse” states: “Savage man and civilized man differ so much in their inmost heart and inclinations that what constitutes the supreme happiness of the one would reduce the other to despair. The first breathes nothing but repose and freedom, he wants only to live and remain idle, and even the Stoic’s ataraxia does not approximate his profound indifference to everything else.”

He refers to humans who lived in the State of Nature as savages. They were motivated to do something only by the self-love. Their only goal was to survive and do nothing more. He himself describes them as lazy beings. Is this life then? Do not we want to progress and actually live. To grow, not physically but, to evolve, to enlighten our minds and see improvements from year to year, or day to day. Why is it preferable for Rousseau to see savages only as just a reproductive system? Then he continues about ‘modern’ being: “By contrast, the Citizen, forever active, sweats and scurries, constantly in search of ever more strenuous occupations: he works to the death, even rushes toward it in order to be in a position to live, or renounces life in order to acquire immortality. He courts the great whom he hates, and the rich whom he despises; he spares nothing to attain the honor of serving them; he vaingloriously boasts of his baseness and of their protection and, proud of his slavery, he speaks contemptuously of those who have not the honor of sharing it.”

This is a very harsh description of what actually is going on. But at time, there was a problematic political and economic situation in France. People had to work a lot and very hard to earn enough to eat, which is also a self-love. They did it to survive the hunger. Savages had to work too, in order to not die of hunger. And regards the slavery, one can say that we always were and always will be slaves of something. Slaves of other human beings because of hierarchy, slaves of some vice or sins. We can be oppressed by something not only physically, but mentally too. And that is the way life goes. Was it better to be just a living organism that only knows how to reproduce himself? Maybe. Is it hard to progress and evolve? Yes. Is it worth it? Yes.

Looking at Jan-Jacque’s biography one can see that he tried a lot of different professions before he started writing on philosophical matter, but could not suite any of them. He changed his religion several times in order to stay in Geneva, Italy or France. He studied to become a priest but changed his mind at the end. At some point he decided to become a musician and stole someone’s identity to be praised as a great composer. And this is not the only dark deed he made. The other time he falsely accused servant of stealing . And this list goes on. Is not it weird how he accuses people of being selfish and slaves of success, while he is the example of those things? This is not the single case when he acts biased.

One of the notable works of Rousseau is the book “Emilie” or “On Education” where he describes the right way how to raise a child and how to educate him/her. He states that when the child is born, he or she is not yet influenced by the modern world, thus is sill in the State of Nature. The book is divided into several parts, in which he in detail describes how to raise and educate a person at different stages of his or her life. He did not trust the state schools or state educational systems because they were corrupted and wrote that a kid should be carefully raised by a tutor who is not corrupted by the state. While writing these, he himself had five children and put each of them into care social institution (or orphanage) – to be raised by corrupted state. This makes no sense. If Jan-Jacque is so much against state corruption, why does he make this decision? His whole life is full of hypocrisy.

Bibliography

1. Bertram, Christopher. 2010. ‘Jan Jaques Rousseau.’ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, September 27. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rousseau/.
2. Rousseau, Jan-Jaques. 1754. Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men.
3. Sharp, Elliott. 2012. ‘Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Greatest Con.’ Full.Stop. http://www.full-stop.net/2012/12/26/blog/esharp/jean-jacques-rousseaus-greatest-con/.
4. Wikipedia. 2019. Emile, or On education. MArch 14. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emile,_or_On_Education.