I.
In class we covered a number of political lessons taught through various political thinkers both classical and modern. Although there were many lessons, there are three that will be analyzed in this essay, through the views of multiple political thinkers. The three political lessons that were discussed in the many readings analyzed in class are a) individuals or antipolitical figures pose a threat to the political community, b) the rise of civil society and political institutions creates inequality, and c) the masses need to be active and educated in order for political institutions to be successful.
One of the first pieces of literature examined in class was the Iliad by Homer. With this, we discussed Achilles role as an antipolitical figure which brings us to the first lesson; individuals or antipolitical figures pose a threat to the political community. What it means to be antipolitical, is to prove that one can think and act for oneself without the crutch of the political community, and in fact one may even go against the norms of said political community. Achilles, for example, establishes himself as an antipolitical figure when he states, “Since he’s taken my prize out of my hands and cheated me, Let him not try to take another thing from me. I know him too well. He’ll never persuade me to agree” (Homer Book 9, 430) Here, he makes clear that he is now an individual no longer working towards the common goal of his political community by rejecting Agamemnon’s offering and stating his mission against him. Socrates also proved to be an antipolitical figure as he goes around questioning authority and the common way of life. When at his trial Socrates first attempts to claim that he did none of this on purpose however he la...
... middle of paper ...
...ated “put new fetters on the weak and gave new powers to the rich…” (122)
In this article, Rousseau’s argument about inequalities and the wealthy are brought to life. The wealthy are in control of the government and are arguing how to spend their money and the middle class’ tax dollars to help the poor, while the poor have no say in their fate at all. It doesn’t help that from afar, the poor do not look like they have it very bad. “Indeed, despite improved living standards, the poor have fallen further behind the middle class and the affluent in both income and consumption.”(Lowrey)
In conclusion, Rousseau would not be very much surprised if he saw the state of America’s political system today. The poor are still struggling to survive while the wealthy are in power and control the fate of the lower class in terms of financial stability and recovery from poverty.
Second Treatise of Government by John Locke and Discourse on the Origin of Inequality by Jean-Jacques Rousseau are books written to try and explain the origin of society. Both try to explain the evils and inequalities of society, and to a certain degree to discuss whether man in his natural state is better than man in society. These political science based theories do not appear, at first, to have anything in common with J. Hector St. John De Crèvecoeur’s Letters from an American Farmer, which are letters written by Crèvecoeur during the settling of America and the beginning of the American Revolution, however with examination we can see reflection of both Locke’s and Rousseau’s ideas about things such as human nature, government, and inequality.
With each class comes a certain level in financial standing, the lower class having the lowest income and the upper class having the highest income. According to Mantsios’ “Class in America” the wealthiest one percent of the American population hold thirty-four percent of the total national wealth and while this is going on nearly thirty-seven million Americans across the nation live in unrelenting poverty (Mantsios 284-6). There is a clear difference in the way that these two groups of people live, one is extreme poverty and the other extremely
After reading Rousseau’s Discourse on the Origins of Inequality, it is imperative that one is not impressed by the blue ribbon attached to this faulty account of society’s development and flaws. While he does make valid points in regards to man’s nature and his progression into the world of civilization, Rousseau’s words can mislead one into seeing progress as a force to be avoided, which would be a shame.
They were able to take advantage of the growing technology and exploration to advance out of the middle class and become extremely rich. Through their wealth, the bourgeois were able to gain an enormous amount of influence in society. For example, they have “exclusive political sway” (Marx 18). In other words, the state exists entirely to serve the needs of the bourgeois. However, even more importantly so, their existence is bringing about a gradual disintegration of sentiment and true relations. People are now measured by the amount of material goods they own. Therefore, doctors, lawyers, and other originally honest occupations have become based entirely on wages and familial relationships no longer exist. They have instead been replaced by purely money relations. The bourgeois are also constantly exploiting the lower classes, otherwise known as the proletarians. (Marx
The subject of Homer’s epic poem, the Iliad, is very clearly stated--it is “the rage of Peleus’ son Achilles.” The reader remains continually aware of the extent of Achilles’ rage, yet is never told the reason why Achilles remains angry and unreconciled. There is no definitive answer to this question. Achilles is not a static character. He is constantly changing; thus the question of why he remains angry solicits different answers at various stages throughout the poem. To find an answer, the reader must carefully examine Achilles’ ever-changing dilemma involving the concepts of mortality and honor. At its simplest, Achilles’ dilemma is that if he goes to war, he will die. But he will die with glory.
Throughout the Iliad the warriors' dream of peace is projected over and over again in elaborate similes developed against a background of violence and death. Homer is able to balance the celebration of war's tragic, heroic values with scenes of battle and those creative values of civilized life that war destroys. The shield of Achilles symbolically represents the two poles of human condition, war and peace, with their corresponding aspects of human nature, the destructive and creative, which are implicit in every situation and statement of the poem and are put before us in something approaching abstract form; its emblem is an image of human life as a whole.
In his “Discourse on the Origin and the Foundations of Inequality Among Mankind,” Jean-Jacque Rousseau attributes the foundation of moral inequalities, as a separate entity from the “natural” physical inequalities, which exist between only between men in a civilised society. Rousseau argues that the need to strive for excellence is one of man’s principle features and is responsible for the ills of society. This paper will argue that Rousseau is justified in his argument that the characteristic of perfectibility, as per his own definition, is the cause of the detriments in his civilised society.
This paper highlights a few fallacies that surround Socrates’ ideas about acting against unjust government.
At its core, the epic poem, The Iliad of Homer, is a story about a hero’s rage and how it affects the war that is taking place around him. This hero is Achilles and he shapes the epic through both his actions and inactions during the Trojan War. Achilles is the most powerful warrior among the Achaians and this is shown during his battles. In fact, his power becomes so great at times that he abuses it and wreaks havoc unjustly. This is the case with Achilles’s murder and subsequent treatment of the likewise powerful warrior Hector.
The Epic of Gilgamesh, the Iliad, and Oedipus Rex all center on morality in terms of each character’s social behavior from the beginning to the end of the story. Gilgamesh, Achilles, and Oedipus are three central characters that embody strong qualities of strength, however carry different experiences of morality. Furthermore, all three characters hold different moral codes that are dependent on their ability to resolve the unique situations that they are in. Nevertheless, morality has ultimately impacted the character’s perception of their role in society in terms of whether or not their actions benefit someone or something. This paper will be examining the morality of the three main characters as they undergo major character transformations
...th what little they have, however; why is it left to the poor to have to suffer the consequences of these political choices. The persistence of extreme poverty and social ills speak to a situation that bears for a different approach. It is clear that capitalism and free market solutions cannot spread wealth as advocated. American governments have shown their reluctance to admit this discrepancy through the strategic creations of welfare policies and welfare reform coupled with placing blame upon the citizens who possess little power to change market decisions that govern and effect their lives.
In his essay, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, Rousseau attempts to explain the relationship between the formation of political and social institutions and the state of human nature. Before going into depth regarding the state of human nature, Rousseau starts by first demonstrating the first crucial steps in human evolution and the effects these steps had on the development of inequality. Rousseau believes that the combination of these concepts are important to understanding where we came from, who we are now as a society and what our society will resemble in the future.
[1] Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Company, 1987. Print.
In his Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau hypothesizes the natural state of man to understand where inequality commenced. To analyze the nature of man, Rousseau “strip[ped] that being, thus constituted, of all the supernatural gifts he could have received, and of all the artificial faculties he could have acquired only through a lengthy process,” so that all that was left was man without any knowledge or understanding of society or the precursors that led to it (Rousseau 47). In doing so, Rousseau saw that man was not cunning and devious as he is in society today, but rather an “animal less strong than some, less agile than others, but all in all, the most advantageously organized of all” (47). Rousseau finds that man leads a simple life in the sense that “the only goods he knows in the un...
"In the Middle Ages men were united by custom and prescription into associations, ranks, guilds, and communities of various kinds. These ties endured as long as life lasted. Consequently, society was dependant, throughout all its details, on status, and the tie, or bond, was sentimental. In out modern state, and in the United States more than anywhere else, the social structure is based on contract, and status is of the least importance." This quote by William Graham Sumner in his 1883 speech "What Social Classes Owe to Each Other" illustrates my main focus of this week's proposed question, "Does American Government have an obligation to provide for the poor?" Sumner supports that the American Government does not have an obligation to provide for the poor because in America, all people have the opportunity to work hard and bring themselves out of poverty, where in Europe and their other native lands, people were trapped in a caste system in which they could not escape. In America, there was is a defined class system in which those living in the society were confined and hard work, followed by success, is a luxury offered in America. By living in a free state like America, Sumner says, its citizens live equally among one another in a society based on a contract, which allows the most leeway for individual developments and successes. Every man must fend for himself in this society that allows for personal establishment. Sumner also says, "It follows, however, that one man, in a free state, cannot claim help from, and cannot be charged to give help to, another." He directly says that it cannot be imposed upon the American Government that hard-working tax-paying citizens should have to financially assist the plight of the poor. The Populist Party Platform of 1892 says in its second declaration that "Wealth belongs to him that creates it...If any will not work, neither shall he eat." The Populist Party realized that men were fully entitled to their earned keep and should they not work, they should not be provided for by the government, especially not by collected tax money.