Rousseau once said, “Liberty is a succulent morsel, but one difficult to digest.” What does the quote mean? Who is Rousseau? And most importantly, what is the French Revolution, and how does it have anything to do with succulent morsels? Rousseau is stating that liberty is indeed something that everyone desires, but for those who achieve liberty, it’s something that is difficult to handle, and without proper moderation, liberty can be more of a hindrance than an asset. The relationship between Rousseau and the French Revolution, however, may require some further research years prior to the revolution.
Before the French Revolution that occurred during the late 18th century, France was considered one of the most advanced and opulent countries in Europe. It was in the center of the Enlightenment era, a period of time from the 1600s to the 1800s that is considered today as one of the most significant intellectual movements in history by encouraging a new view of life. The age sparked hundreds of important thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Locke, Thomas Paine, and Adam Smith. The Enlightenment was the fuel that sparked a worldwide desire to reshape and reconsider the ways that countries were governed. Limited monarchies, direct democracies, limited democracies, and absolute monarchies, among others, were many forms of government that were disputed by these thinkers. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, one the many significant Enlightenment thinkers, believed in a direct democracy, a system in which a country is governed by many, and where no one person has a considerable amount of power. This idea that citizens should receive independence and a voice would later stimulate the French and result in what is now k...
... middle of paper ...
...took away rights that women had won during the French Revolution, such as the right to sell their property, and freedom of speech and the press were restricted rather than expanded. On December 2, 1804, Napoleon walked down Notre Dame Cathedral where he crowned himself emperor, and France had once again returned to a monarchic system.
Rousseau was spot on when he had said that liberty was a succulent morsel, but one difficult to digest. Years after his death, France would leave behind its monarchy to fight for liberty and freedom, only to return years later as a monarchy after finding liberty something too difficult to digest. The United States of America has been fortunate enough to find the perfect balance between liberty and restraint, although other countries in the past, such as France have not been so lucky in their quest for this succulent morsel indeed.
The enlightenment ideas affected politics for both the French and the American peoples through the form of government and individual rights. Thinkers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, believed in the individual right of man as a citizen of a sovereign nation. In 1789, Marquis de Lafayette used Rousseau and other free thinker’s ideas to draft his Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen to the National Constituent Assembly in France (http://www.pbs.org/marieantoinette/revolution/america_france.html). This established universal rights for individuals that always existed at all times. The document shows many similarities to American documents such as the declaration of Human Rights in the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. For instance, they all show a relationship through the declaration of individual rights such as free speech and freedom of religion. However, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen focuses more on individualism while American documents focus more on a community “We the People” (http://www.pbs.org/marieantoin...
...poleon was in power. Many important civil liberties were taken away, like the freedom of speech and press. Slavery was reestablished, to the chagrin of many. Women’s rights were dealt a huge blow. After the gains women had made during the revolution, they were stripped away by Napoleon and women were once again expected to be subordinate and subservient to the men in their household. The biggest loss was the loss of a republic. No longer were the rulers of France selected by the public. The king had been replaced by a king in all but name.
The Enlightenment was a major turning point in history. Multiple ideas that were established during the Enlightenment were eventually utilized in many government systems. Although some people known as “Enlightened Despots” did not accept the ideas developed by people such as John Locke, Baron de Montesquieu, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Ultimately, the Enlightenment ideas showed that they were more powerful and were more significant than the power of the army.
When the King of England began to infringe on the colonists’ liberties, leaders inspired by the enlightenment grouped together to defend the rights of the American colonies. As Thomas Jefferson writes in the Declaration of Independence, “History of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these States” (Jefferson 778). The citizens of France, inspired by the enlightenment, desired a government run by the people. Marquis de Lafayette wrote, “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights; social distinctions may be based only upon general usefulness” (de Lafayette 783).
Beginning in mid-1789, and lasting until late-1799, the French Revolution vastly changed the nation of France throughout its ten years. From the storming of the Bastille, the ousting of the royal family, the Reign of Terror, and all the way to the Napoleonic period, France changed vastly during this time. But, for the better part of the last 200 years, the effects that the French Revolution had on the nation, have been vigorously debated by historian and other experts. Aspects of debate have focused around how much change the revolution really caused, and the type of change, as well as whether the changes that it brought about should be looked at as positive or negative. Furthermore, many debate whether the Revolutions excesses and shortcomings can be justified by the gains that the revolution brought throughout the country. Over time, historians’ views on these questions have changed continually, leading many to question the different interpretations and theories behind the Revolutions effectiveness at shaping France and the rest of the world.
Rousseau beings his work with a flattering dedication to his country of origin, Geneva. He praises the government of Geneva by stating that one is only free when everyone is governed equally by the same law. Even with Rousseau’s intention that law and government should be of the people, it is not a true form of freedom. Man is considered free when he has the ability to make laws for himself, natural law, instead of outwardly imposed laws that conflict with man’s personal morality. Rousseau's comparison of liberty to wine and meat is not parallel: Liberty is not something that turns negative when experienced in excess. It leads to constant progression which leads to an improvement in society. This idea that progress is negative in nature is a recurring and fundamentally wrong.
...ic interest that makes serenity possible. Others however are concerned about Rousseau’s argument the people can be “forced to be free,” that people can be required, under law, to do what is right. They see Rousseau’s idea as an opening to dictatorship or to “totalitarian democracy.” Some political realists doubt whether Rousseau’s idea of direct democracy is either wanted or practicable.
The French Revolution evokes many different emotions and controversial issues in that some believe it was worth the cost and some don't. There is no doubt that the French Revolution did have major significance in history. Not only did the French gain their independence, but an industrial revolution also took place. One of the main issues of the Revolution was it's human costs. Two writers, the first, Peter Kropotkin who was a Russian prince, and the other Simon Schama, a history professor, both had very opposing views on whether the wars fought by France during the Revolution were worth it's human costs. Krapotkin believed that the French Revolution was the main turning point for not only France but for most other countries as well. On the other hand, Schama viewed the French Revolution as unproductive and excessively violent.
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)
...eing mandated for protection. Rousseau’s conception of liberty is more dynamic. Starting from all humans being free, Rousseau conceives of the transition to civil society as the thorough enslavement of humans, with society acting as a corrupting force on Rousseau’s strong and independent natural man. Subsequently, Rousseau tries to reacquaint the individual with its lost freedom. The trajectory of Rousseau’s freedom is more compelling in that it challenges the static notion of freedom as a fixed concept. It perceives that inadvertently freedom can be transformed from perfectly available to largely unnoticeably deprived, and as something that changes and requires active attention to preserve. In this, Rousseau’s conception of liberty emerges as more compelling and interesting than Locke’s despite the Lockean interpretation dominating contemporary civil society.
While the Enlightenment criticized monarchy governments, it influenced democratic forms of government. Without the Enlightenment and the help of France, the United States wouldn’t be what it is today.
It is easier to describe what is not freedom, in the eyes of Rousseau and Marx, than it would be to say what it is. For Rousseau, his concept of freedom cannot exist so long as a human being holds power over others, for this is counter to nature. People lack freedom because they are constantly under the power of others, whether that be the tyrannical rule of a single king or the seething majority which can stifle liberty just as effectively. To be truly free, says Rousseau, there has to be a synchronization of perfect in...
During the late 18th century, both France and the British colonies in America experienced wars the opened the eyes of nations. The French Revolution and American Revolution drastically changed political thinking. In the French Revolution, monarchism was abandoned and political power was given to the people until the country became out of control, and a military dictatorship was necessary to regain control of France. In the American Revolution, a new nation was formed as the British colonies tore themselves away from the English monarchy. In the end, both France and the new United States of America moved away from absolute rule by a king or queen and wanted to put the political power in the hands of their people. However, there are many differences as well as similarities along the way to their political reformation.
To understand the Rousseau stance on claims to why the free republic is doomed we must understand the fundamentals of Rousseau and the Social Contract. Like Locke and Hobbes, the first order of Rousseau’s principles is for the right to an individual’s owns preservation. He does however believe that some are born into slavery. His most famous quote of the book is “Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains” (Rousseau pg 5). Some men are born as slaves, and others will be put into chains because of the political structures they will establish. He will later develop a method of individuals living free, while giving up some of their rights to...
This nullifies any freedoms or rights individuals are said to have because they are subject to the whims and fancy of the state. All three beliefs regarding the nature of man and the purpose of the state are bound to their respective views regarding freedom, because one position perpetuates and demands a conclusion regarding another. Bibliography:.. Works Cited Cress, Donald A. Jean-Jacques Rousseau “The Basic Political Writing”.