Some of the philosopher Rousseau’s ideas were mention in Cohen’s Political Philosophy: From Plato to Mao. Rousseau’s theories describe a human in his primitive state (before the formation of societies) as being happier. Society, according to Rousseau, began when humans began to claim property as theirs and settled down in a specific location. Rousseau also supposed that, since the primitive person was happier alone, it must have been some kind of disaster that caused him to live in groups. Cohen then goes on to describe Rousseau’s ideas on inequality, which Rousseau assumed is split to two types. The first is natural or physical inequality, and the second is moral or political inequality. The second one is imaginary even preventative. (Cohen
The fundamental contradiction of Liberalism is that it produces inequality. In order to guarantee individual rights, in fact, a liberal government cannot force its citizens to promote equality. Furthermore, in a capitalist economy there is an incentive to produce on a mass scale, and the best way to increase productivity is to reduce the cost of labor; by reducing the cost of labor, the owners of the factories become richer, while the actual workers earn less money than they ought to. According to Karl Marx, this is the main problem of Liberalism: it somehow legalized inequality among people. So, in The Communist Manifesto, Marx explains why a total revolution of the society is inevitably going to happen.
It is evident that A Tale Of Two Cities written by Charles Dickens is told in Rousseau's perspective. Rousseau believed that people were born with a blank slate or Tabula Rasa and that their experiences form who they are. People who were brought up with bad experiences and hate show evil throughout their life. While people who were brought up with good experiences and love show goodness throughout their life. The Aristocrats were raised to believe that it was okay for them to abuse their power over the peasants. While the Peasants developed anger and hatred towards their oppressors. As a result the peasants committed heinous actions against the aristocrats. Rousseau's theory is clearly shown in the lives of Charles Darnay, Madame Defarge,
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.
Both Hobbes and Rousseau have different even opposing views on the topic of the natural state of man. These views play a major role on their beliefs and reasoning for why man needs society and government. These beliefs can be easily summarized with Hobbes believing in an inherent selfishness and competition in man, whereas Rousseau’s views on things is far more positive, believing that man is far happier in his natural state, and the root of his corruption is the result of his entrance into society. Rousseau’s theory is based on a state prior to the formation of society and any form of government. Thomas Hobbes, the founding father of political philosophy and who was in great opposition to the natural state of man, emphasizes that all people are selfish and evil; the lack of governmental structure is what results in a state of chaos, only to be resolved by an authority figure. Hobbes’s initial argument of natural state, in human nature, proves how society is in a constant state of destruction, mentally and physically, if not under controlled or command. Although Hobbes’s opinion was morally correct, Rousseau believes that all people are born in a state of emptiness, somewhat of a blank state and it is life experiences that determine their nature, society being a major driving force for people’s ill-will and lack of moral sensibilities. Hobbes, overall, is proven correct because all people need to be directed in order for society to properly function.
One of the interesting things about Rousseau was that he had different views then previous philosophers, such as Hume and Locke, on the state of nature. In Rousseau’s point of view humans in the state of nature would be most like a noble savage. What this means is that Rousseau believed that in the state of nature humans are naturally good, and are lead by basic appetites or sentiments. This would also be a prehistoric place where humans would not have discovered rationality or morality. This mainly applies because Rousseau believes that these prehistoric humans made, as later discussed, decisions based on sentiment and not on reason, thus since morality requires the ability to chose between right and wrong it would be impossible to be moral. Rousseau believes that evil starts to occur when civilizations are created. This is mostly due to increasing amounts of dependence on others and the need of unnecessary luxuries. In fact another possible reason that this evil arises and what sets prehistoric human apart from other animals is the need for self-improvement. Thus the prehistoric human would live in solitary state, in complete autonomy, and as his own sovereign. Along with this he would not strive for anything outside their imme...
In Rousseau’s book “A Discourse On Inequality”, he looks into the question of where the general inequality amongst men came from. Inequality exists economically, structurally, amongst different generations, genders, races, and in almost all other areas of society. However, Rousseau considers that there are really two categories of inequality. The first is called Natural/Physical, it occurs as an affect of nature. It includes inequalities of age,, health, bodily strength, and the qualities of the mind and soul. The second may be called Moral/Political inequality, this basically occurs through the consent of men. This consists of the privileges one group may have over another, such as the rich over the poor.
While the problems within civil society may differ for these two thinkers it is uncanny how similar their concepts of freedom are, sometimes even working as a logical expansion of one another. Even in their differences they shed light onto new problems and possible solutions, almost working in tandem to create a freer world. Rousseau may not introduce any process to achieve complete freedom but his theorization of the general will laid the groundwork for much of Marx’s work; similarly Marx’s call for revolution not only strengthens his own argument but also Rousseau’s.
Rousseau and Aristotle both believe that some people are naturally superior to others and together they create a well-rounded understanding of how superiority complexes are justified. While Aristotle believes that this implies that men are better than woman and the horribly disfigured (or slaves), Rousseau feels humans have evolved so much over their history that “civil” humans are naturally
While Rousseau praises the purity and freedom of humans in the state of nature, he favors civilization’s stage of development into the “hut society” stage and views contemporary society as a corruption of human virtue. Hut society significant inequality as people remained independent without the division of labor. Rousseau describes hut society as “A golden mean between the indolence of the primitive state and the petulant activity of our vanity” (150-151). He sees hut society as having the best of both worlds; limited in its vanity, but also enough so that people enjoy the company of others and are at least somewhat productive.
Political philosophers Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx dreamt up and developed unique theories of total revolution. Although similar in their intention to dissolve dividing institutions such as religion and class structure, as well as their shared reluctance to accept the rather less hopeful conclusions of government and man that had been drawn by their predecessors Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, the blueprints Rousseau and Marx had printed were cited to two very different sources. Rousseau approached the problem of oppression from a political standpoint, focusing on the flawed foundation of liberal individualism that has been continually adopted by democracies. Marx, on the other hand, took an unconventional route of concentrating on economics. By completely eliminating the economic class system, Marx believed there could be a society of which would transcend the realm of politics.
The political philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx examined the role that the state played and its relationship to its citizen’s participation and access to the political economy during different struggles and tumultuous times. Rousseau was a believer of the concept of social contract with limits established by the good will and community participation of citizens while government receives its powers given to it. Karl Marx believed that power was to be taken by the people through the elimination of the upper class bourgeois’ personal property and capital. While both philosophers created a different approach to establishing the governing principles of their beliefs they do share a similar concept of eliminating ownership of capital and distributions from the government. Studying the different approaches will let us show the similarities of principles that eliminate abuse of power and concentration of wealth by few, and allow access for all. To further evaluate these similarities, we must first understand the primary principles of each of the philosophers’ concepts.
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
The Republican Party, since its first convention in Michigan in 1854, has had a philosophy that has remained relatively unchanged. Its oath entices Americans to believe that "good government is based on the individual and that each person's ability, dignity, freedom and responsibility must be honored and recognized"
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, and Maurice Cranston. A Discourse on Inequality. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin, 1984. 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...