Kant And Jean Jacques Rousseau

Jean Jacques Rousseau was a French philosopher in 1712-1778. He believed that all humans are born innocent and what corrupt them and makes evil is society. He believes that if there was no society it would not make human beings feel so judged, shy or depended on others. Without society people would feel more equal they would not want to compare themselves Humans would feel freer. Rousseau thought that society weakens humans that if someone were to grow up in a natural place and place far from society they would be stronger. Compared o the people that grow up in a society they weaken.

Later social philosophe, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, believed that people are naturally good, but due to society, they become bad. In later years, Rousseau put all of his ideas and thoughts into The Social Contract. In this work, Rousseau states that society and government limit people’s behavior too much that in the end it creates a negative. He believed that people need some rules to act as guidelines and such, and that these rules should only be passed by freely elected governments to enable everyone’s

Society becomes corrupt and there will be violence and as a result will lead to revolution in the society. Rousseau believes in a direct democracy. These views will not be successful because good ideas will be hard to accomplish because of practical difficulties of the people living in the society. Rousseau says that a section of the society will provide certain types of jobs to their own relations and friends. This will create partiality and deprive the talented ones.

Rousseau wanted the state to be a legitimate democracy, a society that united together the people in freedom, equality and civic devotion. Rousseau believed that an individual fulfils his moral potential not in isolation but as part of a community where all members are committed to helping each other. This belief led Rousseau to ancient Greek society for which he felt a great admiration. He believed the Greeks lived in 'organic communities', cities where the citizens set aside personal interests in order to attain the common good. Rousseau's ideal state was one of a smaller size but one where the citizens were welded together in the spirit of 'fraternity'. People would therefore have the opportunity to get know each other, resulting in an enthusiastic contribution to all public affairs. Such a political environment produces free and committed citizens. In contrast, the large modern day states are ruled by an absolute monarch, creating 'servile subjects', which Rousseau despised.8

Rousseau thought that man was born weak and ignorant, but virtuous. It is only when man became sociable that they became wicked. (Cress, 80) Since civil society makes men corrupt, Rousseau advocated “general will”, more precisely the combined wills of each person, to decide public affairs. General will would become the sovereign and thus it would be impossible for its interests to conflict with the priorities of the citizens, since this would be doing harm to itself. Virtue came from the freedom of men to make decisions for the good of the

In an effort to understand progress and its goal in humanity, philosophers Immanuel Kant and Karl Marx each present their theories with Kant believing progress is made through the reform brought on by antagonism and social instability in humanity which will ultimately lead to perpetual peace, while Marx argues progress comes in the form of a worker’s revolution and the adoption of true communism that will lead to utopia. These German thinkers seek to define the guiding the force beneath humanity’s constant state of evolution to understand where it is headed and advise towards a goal they find ideal for humanity.

Rousseau believes that even when one votes in the minority they can obey the law and still be free. But, “how can the opposing minority be both free and subject to laws to which they have not consented?” (Rousseau, pg. 153) Rousseau’s response is that citizens must consent to all the laws because “ to inhabit the territory is to submit to the sovereign.”(Rousseau, p.153) In accordance with the social contract, when a citizen votes they should completely surrender their personal interest and vote for what they believe to be the general will. The general will of each individual is considered to be their real will when it comes to social policy. The majority vote will depict the general will, and the

Rousseau is theorizing from the concept of the general will, which promotes individuals to become conscious citizens who actively participate as a community to form policies for a governing structure. The general will advocates for a commitment to generality, a common interest that will unite all citizens for the benefit of all. Rousseau states, “each one of us puts into the community his person and all his powers under the supreme direction of the general will; and as a body, we incorporate every member as an indivisible part of the whole” (Rousseau 61). The general will is an expression of the law that is superior to an individual’s

Topic #1 Jean-Jacques Rousseau makes the provocative claim that the transfer of sovereignty involves in the election of representatives signifies a loss of freedom: "The instant a people chooses representatives, it is no longer free." (On the Social Contract, p.103) Do you agree with Rousseau?

In contrast, Rousseau had a generally positive view on human nature though a rather negative view on modern society. He proposed that humans had once been solitary beings and had learned to be political. He believed that human nature was not fixed and was subject to changed. Likewise, he believed that man was good when in a state of nature, but was corrupted by society as shown in his quotation, "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” Also differentiating himself from other humanists, Rousseau taught that the sciences and the arts were not beneficial to man. Rousseau believed the general will must always be right and to obey the general will is to be free.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Friedrich Nietzsche are both prominent figures of Modern Political thought even though they lived more than a hundred years apart from each other. Rousseau and Nietzsche tend to differ from each other in terms of their views on what we now call “globalization”.

By joining civil society and becoming a part of the general will, man is enriching his actions with a morality and rationality that was previously lacking. As he states in Book I, Chapter VIII, “although in this state he deprives himself of several advantages given to him by nature, he gains such great ones…that changed him from a stupid, limited animal into an intelligent being and a man” (Rousseau 56). What man posses in nature is an unlimited physical freedom to pursue everything that tempts him, although this is viewed by Rousseau as almost an enslavement towards one’s own instincts. In a civil state man is benefited by “substituting justice for instinct in his behaviour and giving his actions the morality they previously lacked” (Rousseau 54). In acting in accordance with the general will man is granted the most important form of all freedoms, civil freedom.

The works of German philosopher’s Immanuel Kant and Karl Marx have played significant roles in the development of different sects of philosophy and religion. Immanuel Kant was born in 1724 in Konigsberg, East Prussia, now presently Kaliningrad, to a devout, poverty-stricken family of eleven children. Through his works, it is evident that Kant was raised in the religious teachings and values of pietism as his theories show a heavy influence of his religious upbringing. Kant as a young boy was accustomed to a routine of working and studying, and despite never travelling far from his hometown, he grew to be sociable and witty. Karl Marx was born almost a century later in the town of Trier, present-day Germany, in the year 1818 into a middle-class family. Marx studied a variety of disciplines, including law, philosophy and history, and became a preeminent philosopher, a revolutionary economist and a great leader. The revolutions of his time and his profound disapproval of the capitalist economic state inspired his works, particularly his concepts on authority and exploitation and his theory of history.

In light of this change in man’s nature, several of Rousseau’s more shocking claims can be reconciled. The most striking—that man must be “forced to be free” by compelling him to obey if he does not wish to abide by the decision of the general will voluntarily—appears much less paradoxical when viewed in the context of society’s shaping effect on the individual. Rousseau sees human nature as a constantly changing set of predispositions, and law is one of the forces shaping these dispositions. This is most clearly seen in his justification of censorship, in which he contends that “not nature but opinion determines the choice of [people’s] pleasures” and that “when legislation weakens, morals degenerate,” establishing a causative relationship between good laws and good natures (IV.vii.3-4). Thus, for a man to be forced to be free is merely for his nature to be fully

As with many philosophers worth studying, a common theme present amongst René Descartes, David Hume, and Immanuel Kant is the fact that all three philosophers challenged the traditional ways of thinking about philosophy respective to their eras. In certain aspects, all three of these philosophers also grappled with understanding, discovering, and logically explaining the power of the mind to shape whole truths. From Descartes’ foundational work with methodological doubt to Kant’s contribution to previous philosophical concepts such as synthetic judgments, all three men made undeniably valuable advances in epistemological thought despite the occasional controversies associated with their forward thinking during their time.