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
...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.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a great philosopher who lived in the Enlightenment. He was a very influential philosopher and “Thinker” he has written many books including The Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. Rousseau’s theory was in essence that humans were created naturally pure and innocent but over time and new technologies become more evil. He had thought that in the very first light of man he was completely innocent, a being who had no intention to harm anyone else. However as time progressed and the growing capacity for man increased and the
Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a man of philosophy, music, and literature. His philosophy was that humanity will do what’s best for the state as a whole, rather than the general “every man for himself” philosophy. He says that while we do have a piece of that individualistic philosophy, it is when they are in a healthy state that they value fairly the collective good for everyone around them, and express the general sense of good will. Rousseau believes that people will recognize that the will of all is the common good, but that in itself raises the questions as to the validity ...
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 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
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...
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.
He absolutely favors this stage over contemporary society for a multitude of reasons. These include the vanity and materialism promoted by other major enlightenment figures, as well as the rampant inequality in contemporary society. This inequality was the result of division of labor and property that required laws and powerful states to enforce them. Rousseau viewed hut society as a much more permanent state for humans than that of the state of nature, citing the existence of hut societies in his day. For Rousseau hut society, while it had its problems, still maintained much of the freedom and equality present in the state of nature making it the most appealing
Rousseau's contract was more optimistic than Hobbes and Locke, but that would be expected due to the time-line between the theories. Society had evolved somewhat, and become less regimented . The problems outlined makes it difficult for me to think that Rousseau had found a solution to his problem . I think, his ideas are probably more suited to modern day that when he devised his social contract theory. It seems to me he was a couple of centuries ahead of himself, a man before his time.
Confucius is known for stressing that human nature is intrinsically good. He stresses that human beings are born with the ability for differentiating between wrong and right. A person may not be aware from infancy which acts are tolerable and which acts are not, but all offspring feel shame, and once the children learn which deeds are bad or good, they have a normal tendency to consent of the former and criticize of the latter (Van and Bryan 27).
John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all dealt with the issue of political freedom within a society. John Locke's “The Second Treatise of Government”, Mill's “On Liberty”, and Rousseau’s “Discourse On The Origins of Inequality” are influential and compelling literary works which while outlining the conceptual framework of each thinker’s ideal state present divergent visions of the very nature of man and his freedom. The three have somewhat different views regarding how much freedom man ought to have in political society because they have different views regarding man's basic potential for inherently good or evil behavior, as well as the ends or purpose of political societies.
First, I outlined my arguments about why being forced to be free is necessary. My arguments supporting Rousseau’s ideas included; generally accepted ideas, government responsibility, and responsibility to the government. Second, I entertained the strongest possible counterargument against forced freedom, which is the idea that the general will contradicts itself by forcing freedom upon those who gain no freedom from the general will. Lastly, I rebutted the counterargument by providing evidence that the general will is always in favor of the common good. In this paper I argued in agreement Rousseau that we can force people to be
Biography of Jean-Jacques Rousseau MAN is born free; and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks himself
Are human beings born to be good? Or are we naturally born to be evil? A person’s nature or essence is a trait that is inherent and lasting in an individual. To be a good person is someone who thinks of others before themselves, shows kindness to one another, and makes good choices in life that can lead to a path of becoming a good moral person. To be a bad person rebels against something or someone thinking only of them and not caring about the consequences of their actions. Rousseau assumed, “that man is good by nature (as it is bequeathed to him), but good in a negative way: that is, he is not evil of his own accord and on purpose, but only in danger of being contaminated and corrupted by evil or inept guides and examples (Immanuel Kant 123).” In other words, the human is exposed to the depraved society by incompetent guardians or influences that is not of one’s free will in the view of the fact that it is passed on. My position is humans are not by nature evil. Instead, they are good but influenced by the environment and societies to act in evil ways to either harm others or themself.