Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Rousseau's human nature
Rousseau essay reflection
Rousseau's essays
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Rousseau's human nature
In Rousseau’s critique of Moliere, he sees Moliere as being a perfect author. Moliere incorporates betrayal and distortion to stir the emotions and gain our interest, as well as sympathy. Rousseau feels that Moliere doesn’t help society, instead, he harms it. The reason is because Moliere is bringing down the value of society by using politics and comedy together. People are starting to see their flaws as being acceptable due to the content they see in Moliere’s work.
If the first thing that one learns about Rousseau is that he was a supporter of community, the second is almost always that that he was moralistically opposed to theater as destructive of community morals. The source for this judgment is the Letter to D’Alembert, a text Rousseau addressed to his cosmopolitan friend when the latter had (on the probable urging of Voltaire) suggested in his article on "Geneva" in the Encyclopedia that opening a theater in Geneva would bring together the "wisdom of Lacedemonia and the grace (politesse) of Athens."
Rousseau was not primarily concerned with the supposed corrupting effects of actors and actresses (D’Alembert had seductively suggested that with proper regulation
Geneva might have a group of morally well-behaved actors) but with the experience of theater itself. His apparent hostility has two elements, one moral, and the second epistemological. On the moral level, Rousseau’s concern is with the status of the audience. He argues that in the contempor...
Rousseau states “ Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains” and “A country cannot subsist well without liberty, nor liberty without virtue.” Rousseau’s impacts on American government include his position that people are what make a nation. Buildings and seats do not decide whether or not one votes, that is the role of people. What Rousseau means by bring the people into chaos is that the people must think for themselves and not just let those who are deemed more educated decide for them. As America is a Democratic Republic, the root word democracy is used, which means that the majority of the country’s wishes must be thought of and respected. He also believes that while an individual 's ideas must be recognized, they must stand down to ensure the majority 's vote is respected. This is shown in the way we vote, and the way that congress passes bills. Americans have a voice, but when the majority speaks, it is done. While the representation of the people is appreciated, the appointed representative must make sure that his ideas are in alignment with those whom he represents. When one who is placed in a position of authority over a select group of people does not respect their will, he loses his title of representative and just becomes one and of
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.
For instance, Meursault develops the theme of absurdity in two different contexts namely figurative and literal level. On the symbolic level, he is concerned to death after being found guilty. This is a portrayal of the human condition who have to face the consequences after committing a crime more so, a capital offense like murder. On the other hand, literally of the action is seen when he describes the character of a revolt, freedom, and passion. Meursault is not moved by the expectations of the society and does what he feels is best for him. In many cases throughout the novel, he refused to abide by the customs of the society and instead resorted to smoking. Other things he did against the society expectations includes showing indifference during the vigil of his mother, going to the beach with Marie, and spending time with her immediately after his mother was buried as well as writing a letter for his friend, Raymond. His ability to exercise what he believes in and his freedom make it difficult for the society to impose on him some restrictions on his life. He is constant pursuance of pleasure and experiences makes it difficult for him to conform to the norms and values of the
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 than 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 choose between right and wrong it would be impossible to be moral.
...ion with the general will. This may sound like a contradiction but, to Rousseau, the only way the body politic can function is by pursuing maximum cohesion of peoples while seeking maximum individuation. For Rousseau, like Marx, the solution to servitude is, in essence, the community itself.
Both Aristotle's “Politics” and Jean Jacques Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality address the natural right and superiority of man and his subsets. In his piece, Aristotle discusses the emotional feeling of superiority, while Rousseau discusses the more logistic aspects. Together, their writing begs the question of the morality of slavery. Aristotle seems more willing to accept slavery as a natural creation by humans, however, in the end both of their pieces show the immorality and abnormality of slavery.
...time onward, the concept of the enlightened despot had currency, calling for rulers governing with the betterment of the people's lot in mind. The idea of a centralized, authority-wielding confederation government is not terribly foreign to the notion of an autocratic, authoritarian, but enlightened despot, after all. This is but one of the conflicting ideas ranged against Rousseau's rather pessimistically realist conclusion; others are certainly possible.
Moliere was a moderate and against excess and obsession in all things. In Tartuffe, he has
... can be commonly accepted as he lived and thought in the Enlightenment era where he saw that humans were more pure when born due to the sheer amount of religion during that time period and religion made people pure do to the beliefs of the most common religions back then. On the other hand Golding lived in another time period in which a major war was taking place. He probably saw how the barbaric tendencies of uncivilized attackers showed how a well-built civilization makes all the difference in man and makes them good. All in all I believe in both sides but have come to the conclusion that if I truly had to choose one side of the argument I would side with Rousseau due to the fact of modern day humans wanting so much freedom that when they had it they could be peaceful because they could do what they want without anyone else ever interrupting or stopping them.
[8] Brown, Frederick. Theater and Revolution: The Culture of the French Stage. New York: Viking, 1980. Print.
Rousseau, in the Second Discourses, examines the differences between natural and modern man. As used in his writing, natural man refers to mankind unfettered by social norms, morals, obligations, and duties. Modern man, however, is bound by these factors. Conformity with these factors allows modern man to experience virtue, whereas non-conformity results in vices. In the passage in question, Rousseau explores how natural man is better for himself and society because natural man has no moral relationship or obligations to other men and no subjugated inequality. He then offers a solution to how modern man can return to the natural state.
"I cannot improve on it, and assuredly never shall," said Molière of his satire The Misanthrope, {1} and the critic Nicholas Boileau-Despréaux concurred by accounting it one of Molière's best plays.{2} But the French public did not like it much, preferring the dramatist's more farcical The Doctor in Spite of Himself--a play that, according to tradition, was written two months after The Misanthrope's premiere to make up for the latter's lack of success.{3} In fact, The Misanthrope horrified Rousseau, who thought that its aim was, in Donald Frame's words, "to make virtue ridiculous by pandering to the shallow and vicious tastes of the man of the world."{4} Both he and Goethe after him regarded Alceste, the protagonist, as a tragic figure rather than a comic one.{5}
In this attempt to put the critics of religious morals to the acid test, Johnson begins with Rousseau, highlighting his self-centeredness, sexual perversity (“liked to be spanked” and was a public exhibitionist of his “bottom”), his ironic abandonment of his own children at birth, and his naive political status.
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