Rousseau Holds More Persuasive Than Roseau's

1361 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: John Locke and Rouseau COMPARISON

My personal views coincide with the second excerpt, which praises Locke’s utility at the expense of Rousseau’s over-abstraction. I agree with the author’s analysis that Locke’s theory holds more merit and is more persuasive than Roseau’s. The author of the excerpt makes a compelling argument that Rousseau’s theory is one that looks good on paper; however, it is not applicable to reality. Rousseau’s conception is unrealistic because it is far too idealistic and fails to acknowledge the self-interested aspect of human nature. The excerpt from the essay prompt serves as a strong analysis of the philosophers because it is able to effectively use a personal anecdote to support Locke’s theory that human beings are driven by a want for personal …show more content…

One particular aspect of Rousseau’s theory that the prompt criticizes is Rousseau’s naivety in regards to how human beings act when push comes to shove in reality, rather than in the abstract world of theory. Rousseau’s proposal that man is naturally good and yearns to live in a state of harmony fails to properly acknowledge that by doing so, man is putting himself in a position of uncertainty. This uncertainty lies in regards to whether his peers will act in a same manner or use his inaction to capitalize for their own personal gain. In his text, Rousseau describes the fall of his perceived natural utopian state of mankind as occurring when “The first person enclosed a plot of land, took it into his head to say this is mine” (Rousseau,44). The particular situation that Rousseau describes can be analogized as a prisoner’s dilemma situation. In this situation, all of mankind could default on taking any action for personal gain and all live in harmony; however, the first person who decides to reach out and go against the norm, for personal gain, stands to profit more than those who choose to remain idle. Rousseau’s theory acknowledges this occurrence as a singular event that altered the course of human nature, whereas Locke acknowledges that this uncertainty is persistent amongst human beings in every aspect of their

Show More
Related

  • Similarities Between Locke And Tocqueville

    1499 Words  | 3 Pages

    Locke and Tocqueville were born nearly two hundred years apart from each other. This span of time corresponds to great changes in the European political spectrum, with Locke being born before the English Glorious Revolution (1688) and Tocqueville born after the French Revolution (1789). Much of what Tocqueville and his contemporaries would have written would have taken for granted the innovations to political thought which Locke and his contemporaries would have fostered. Thus, in areas such as the primacy of human self-interest, to the necessity of nominal societal participation in government, to the belief that “freedom cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith,” our authors share a common ground. It is from this common ground that Locke and Tocqueville most radically depart from one another, beginning with Locke’s conception of

    Read More

  • Lord of the Flies

    1148 Words  | 3 Pages

    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 ...

    Read More

  • Rousseaue and the Ideal Society

    349 Words  | 1 Pages

    For Rousseau society itself is an implicit agreement to live together for the good of everyone with individual equality and freedom. However, people have enslaved themselves by giving over their power to governments which are not truly sovereign because they do not promote the general will. Rousseau believed that only the will of all the people together granted sovereignty. Various forms of government are instituted to legislate and enforce the laws. He wrote, "The first duty of the legislator is to make the

    Read More

  • Exploring Rousseau's Discourse on Natural Humanity

    1559 Words  | 4 Pages

    In his book A Discourse on Inequality, Jean- Jacques Rousseau turns to the state of nature in search of the real “essence” of man. What made humans to be humans? Rousseau is trying to determine the prodigious events, such as the acquisition of knowledge and errors, the mutations that took place in the constitution of the body, and the constant impact of the passions that eventually led to the separation of man between the state of nature and society (67). He describes how as time change, humanity change as well. He figures that if by first looking into the origin of man, it can lead to the “source of inequality among men” and the unnatural ways man has evolved to become (67).

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Locke And Napoleon

    1289 Words  | 3 Pages

    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)

    Read More

  • Locke and Rousseau

    1787 Words  | 4 Pages

    At the core of their theories, both Locke and Rousseau seek to explain the origin of civil society, and from there to critique it, and similarly both theorists begin with conceptions of a state of nature: a human existence predating civil society in which the individual does not find institutions or laws to guide or control one’s behaviour. Although both theorists begin with a state of nature, they do not both begin with the same one. The Lockean state of nature is populated by individuals with fully developed capacities for reason. Further, these individuals possess perfect freedom and equality, which Locke intends as granted by God. They go about their business rationally, acquiring possessions and appropriating property, but they soon realize the vulnerability of their person and property without any codified means to ensure their security...

    Read More

  • Rousseau Perfectibility Analysis

    1222 Words  | 3 Pages

    Rousseau is firstly justified in his claim that perfectibility led to the abolishment of the gentleness of natural man and resulted in a competition

    Read More

  • Compare and Contrast Locke and Rousseau

    570 Words  | 2 Pages

    Rousseau and Locke differ slightly on how the question of sovereignty should be addressed. Rousseau believed that men would essentially destroy themselves due to their "mode of existence"(more explanation of what is meant by "mode of existence"?) (Rousseau 39) and therefore must enter into a government that controls them. However, this control is in the form of direct participation in democracy where people have the ability to address their opinions, and thus sovereignty is in the control of the people. Unlike Rousseau, Locke believed firmly in the fact that government should be split up into a legislative branch and a ruling branch, with the legislative branch being appointed as representatives of the people. He contends that people give up the power of their own rule to enter into a more powerful organization that protects life, liberties, property, and fortunes. The two differ significantlyin that Rousseau wanted a direct or absolute form of democracy controlled by the people, while Locke prefered an elected, representative democr...

    Read More

  • Exploring Karl Marx and Jean-Jacque Rousseau's Views on Freedom

    1544 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Jean-Jacques Rousseau's The State of War

    1087 Words  | 3 Pages

    From his figurative window, Rousseau sees a Europe ravaged by conflicts resulting from supposedly peaceable and civilized institutions (111). He posits that the essentially problematic flaw, the cause of conflict, is a contradiction in modes of relating: while individuals live within a framework of enforced norms ("l...

    Read More

  • Jean-Jacques Rousseau's The Social Contract

    1773 Words  | 4 Pages

    Firstly, each individual should give themselves up unconditionally to the general cause of the state. Secondly, by doing so, all individuals and their possessions are protected, to the greatest extent possible by the republic or body politic. Lastly, all individuals should then act freely and of their own free will. Rousseau thinks th...

    Read More

  • Comparing John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau

    2030 Words  | 5 Pages

    Compare John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. 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. In order to examine how each thinker views man and the freedom he should have in a political society, it is necessary to define freedom or liberty from each philosopher’s perspective.

    Read More

  • Rousseau and Marx: Property and Inequality

    1831 Words  | 4 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • Difference Between John Locke And Rousseau

    1750 Words  | 4 Pages

    Rousseau presumes that in the beginning, humans were living in a peaceful state of nature and lived in equality, but as civilization progressed it began to change man as challenges became more elaborate, lives became more complicated, development of the possession of property began, and habitually more comparisons were made amongst us. The first law of nature also contributed to our sense of ownership. The first law of nature recognized by Rousseau is self-preservation; we care about ourselves then society and this law is used to defend or prove our own independence. As a result or this change of civility, we shifted to a state of nature that was far from grace, where we desired the suffering of others, only cared about ourselves, and developed the meaning of inequalities. People realized that their natural rights could no longer coexist with their freedom in the state of nature and also that they would perish if they did not leave the state of nature. Therefore, the state of nature no longer became desirable and society restored that motive; in this new societal environment we develop morals to handle conflicts and help preserve ourselves. Locke believes that while in our natural state we all have morals, though Rousseau challenges that belief by claiming that society generates a moral character within us. Rousseau insists that everyone can be free and live

    Read More

  • Similarities Between Hobbes Locke And Rousseau

    560 Words  | 2 Pages

    This indicates that the community will only be peaceful when the people are in the state of nature. However, this questions why a government is created if the result will only cause the government to be corrupt. He also believes that there are interest groups that will try to influence the government into supporting what they believe in. Rousseau sees that the people will only be involved in the government is they choose to participate in the voting. He also says that when the people are together as a collective, they work and are viewed differently compared to when they are as individuals. Although Rousseau does understand both Hobbes and Locke’s theories, it makes the audience wonder why he didn’t fully support the theory of leaving people in the state of nature. By doing so, it would allow the people to continue having individual freedom without causing a state of

    Read More

More about Rousseau Holds More Persuasive Than Roseau's

Open Document