Rousseau's Comparison

The ideas of Enlightenment philosophers rippled throughout the globe, however, they seemed to have the most interesting effect on France. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a major contributor to Frances political and social structure post-French revolution. These ideas weren’t the only triggers for the French Revolution. A combination of strangling taxes, economic disparity, and an impotent ruler led to the development of an intense need for reform in France. “France spent an enormous amount of money during the American war which put them on the verge of bankruptcy” (McKay et al., pg. 662). To make up for this immense national debt, taxes were raised which put more pressure on the already struggling working class in France. The privileged classes

Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a Swiss-born French Enlightenment thinker most famous for the 1762, “The Social Contract.” “The Social Contract” is Rousseau’s most valued work due to its ties within the French Revolution.

Jack London’s novel, The Call of the Wild, is about the transformation of Buck. As a dog who was raised as a domestic animal, he must learn to adapt to his new wild surroundings after he is snatched away from civilization. The author's message of this novel is “survival of the fittest.” Buck’s only chance of staying alive is to display his strength and fight. This quote displays Buck’s thoughts on the rules of the wild; the only way to survive. It is clearly shown that having superior power is the only route to not being killed. Each dog, no matter which breed or age, learns these rules almost instantly and gets put into their place; their journey to proving themselves and rising to the top begins. This citation is significant to the theme, because it depicts the valuable law of the wilderness, which is “survival of the fittest.” This quote describes the “eat or be eaten” world that Buck is now adapting to in order to live. The theme, “survival of the of the fittest,” is shown in this quote, and seems quite gruesome. However, “...master or be mastered...Kill or be killed, eat or be eaten…” is exactly how the animals in the wild sustain their places in their “communities.”

The last paragraph of the prelude to the Second Discourse is an impassioned appeal whose scope transcends the boundaries of time and space alike, calling for readers to pay attention to the history of man and society that Rousseau is on the verge of putting forth. Beginning with this authorial intrusion—a form of literary apostrophe—the essay adopts historical writing as its primary narrative mode. This method stands in direct contrast with the approach Thomas Hobbes takes in his Leviathan, in which the Englishman sets out to prove propositions as one might do geometrically, by preceding from valid arguments and sound premises. Rousseau’s rejection of philosophy, at least as he understands it in the Second Discourse, embodies the emphasis

Rousseau, in his Discourse on the Origin of Inequality of Men, discusses the beginning and development of inequality of individuals. Rousseau seeks to discern whether the unequal treatment of men is dictated by natural laws or if it is a man made creation. When Rousseau analyzes humans in the state of nature, he claims we are all animalistic by nature. Humans in the state of nature are motivated by self-preservation much like animals and also pity. The difference between man and animals according to Rousseau is man’s perfectibility. Because man has very minimal needs in the state of nature, no concept of morality and limited interaction with other individuals, he is generally happy. Because in the state of nature man embodies the quality of perfectibility, he is able to adapt with his environment. As nature drives men to leave certain areas it forces them to learn new skills as they come in to contact with one another more often. As man connects with more and more individuals around him he becomes aware that he has more needs. As men begin to live in societies with more people they start comparing themselves to those around them and self-preservation and pity are no longer their main goals. Now, they have to do more work in order to be happy such as raise to greater heights then their fellow humans. Moral inequality is created as division of labor and property rights are invented. Owning property allows the rich to take advantage of the poor, leading to unstable relations

In the poem “Mock on, Mock on, Voltaire, Rousseau” by William Blake, the theme was to discuss the hypocrisy and misinterpretation of religion. It tells us there are people who have religious beliefs (Christians, Catholics, etc.), and others who believe in facts (Scientists). The author wrote this poem during the Enlightenment Era where religion was prevalent and practiced every day. Blake wanted us to know he only places his faith in religion rather than putting it into science. Voltaire and Rousseau weren’t exactly the best of friends in the beginning because they both had different ideas on teaching us how to improve ourselves to live a virtuous life. Voltaire believes our purpose in life is to make the world a much better place than it is now; however, Rousseau says the world is being corrupted by too many sins and will result in chaos and destruction. But that is to be expected because in the Bible it reads everybody is born with a sinful nature, some can’t control it some want to but don’t know how. The obvious way is to do what the Bible says, “accepting Jesus Christ as the Savior.” Voltaire and Rousseau believe that to be entirely untrue and ridiculous, so they rejected the whole Christian notion altogether and refused to accept it. In the first and second paragraph of the poem, it demonstrates how Voltaire and Rousseau’s scientific ideas and people with religious ideas were being ridiculed. The sand and wind metaphors represent Voltaire and Rousseau’s ideas, or beliefs being thrown into society’s face then having it thrown back into theirs because let’s be honest not everyone is willing to accept new ideas Voltaire and Rousseau have of religion for fear of the consequences with God. In the third paragraph of the poem, I think Blake was describing how human knowledge is only small and tiny as a grain of sand on a beach at the seashore and doesn’t compare to the knowledge God possesses. Here, Blake begins to have second thoughts about the science idea. Because the Atoms of Democritus and The Newton’s Particle of Light are both scientific discoveries can be best explained and demonstrated by people of science. But it still doesn’t change the fact; however, human strength and knowledge still have no equal

According to Rousseau 's “Discourse on Inequality”, there are four stages to the social evolution in humans; it 's natural state, family, nation, and civil society. There are two types of inequalities, natural (or physical) and moral. Natural inequality stems from differences in age, health, or other physical characteristics. Moral inequality is established by convention or consent of men. One of the first and most important questions Rousseau asks is "For how is it possible to know the source of the inequality among men, without knowing men themselves?” (Rousseau, Preface) To answer this question, man cannot be considered as he is now, deformed by society, but as he was in nature. The problem is that as knowledge increases man’s ignorance. This essay, using Rousseau’s “Discourse on Inequality” as a backbone will try and identify the origins of inequality within race, class, gender and sexuality, and establish how these inequalities were brought out and maintained.

Due to state laws and policies, Marx and Rousseau both agree men are not living in a free society. In western democracies today, both philosophers’ ideas are clear and visible.

Rousseau clearly promotes totalitarianism in The Social Contract, and hints at it in a few passages from his Second Discourse. He desperately attempts to lay down a form of government that eliminates any chance for the people to be victims. Rousseau specifically shows us the faults in the other types of government and tries to prevent them in his ideas. He wants to create a political situation where people have as much sovereignty as possible.

To better understand Rousseau’s thesis and social contract he proposed, we must first understand why Rousseau felt compelled to write and his main criticism of society during the 18th century. In sum, Rousseau argued that states (specifically France, though never explicitly stated) have not protected man’s right to freedom or equality. Rousseau began The Social Contract in dramatic fashion. He wrote, “man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains” (1). This quote is still used today, and is a powerful description of Rousseau’s central issue with society. He believed that every man is “born” naturally free—he has full autonomy and can do what he chooses. However, Rousseau argued that man is bound to the injustices of society.

The term “civil or social liberties” is one that garners a lot of attention and focus from both Rousseau and Mill, although they tackle the subject from slightly different angles. Rousseau believes that the fundamental problem facing people’s capacity to leave the state of nature and enter a society in which their liberty is protected is the ability to “find a form of association that defends and protects the person and goods of each associate with all the common force, and by means of which each one, uniting with all, nevertheless obeys only himself and remains as free as before” (Rousseau 53). Man is forced to leave the state of nature because their resistance to the obstacles faced is beginning to fail (Rousseau 52). Mill does not

By nature, human beings are initially oblivious to morality. We are born without knowledge; hence morality cannot be part of human nature as we have yet to acquire knowledge of morality. Here Aristotle is not just making the suggestion that man is amoral but also that morality itself is a-posteriori (a learned experience) as opposed to being a-priori (indirectly acquired knowledge). The great philosopher Aristotle once claimed that “wickedness is voluntary”. By this he means that no one is born immoral, but it is our choices that we make after birth that make us either moral or immoral. Again this points towards the idea that that man is an amoral creature and that morality is a-posteriori. Another great philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, had an opposing outlook on the matter. He strongly believed that “man is by nature good” and not amoral, but he also believed that outside forces inevitably corrupt human beings. Thus,

Over the course of history this idea of freedom has been developed and defined by many famous political and philosophical thinkers. Many of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s ideas are acknowledged in the “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality” and more notably the “The Social Contract”. John Stuart Mill’s major points originate from a book called “On Liberty”. All of these works are still read today and taught in schools around the world. In particular, their ideas on freedom and liberty have drawn a considerable amount of attention. For instance, Rousseau is well known for his idea of “forcing citizens to be free”, while Mill claims that freedom can be found in “pursing our own good in our own way”. Therefore, it is evident that fundamental differences occur between Rousseau’s and Mill’s ideas on liberty and freedom. Rousseau’s rejects this classical liberal idea of freedom of the individual, and instead argues that the highest quality of freedom is achieved through a social contract where collective decisions represent the law and people have a duty to the state, while Mill sees freedom as not being constrained by the government (freedom from laws) and pursuing one’s own good as long as it does no harm to others.

Eighteenth-century philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau influenced many French revolutionaries with his ideas. In the time of the Enlightenment, people believed that humankind could progress and improve through the use of reason and science. One of them was French artist Jacques-Louis David, who was official artist to the French revolution (p158, Blk 3). Just as Rousseau had used his publications to reflect on his ideas, David had used art as a media to reflect the ideas and values of the society in the eighteenth century. In this essay, we will be examining the influence of Rousseau’s views on the relationship between the state and the individual in David’s painting “The Oath of the Horatii”.

The purpose which Rousseau ostensibly gives his social contract is to free man from the illegitimate chains to which existing governments have shackled him. If this is his aim, then it follows that he should be most concerned with the preservation of freedom in political society, initially so that savage man might be lured out of nature and into society in the first place, and afterwards so that Rousseau’s framework for this society will prevent the present tyranny from reasserting itself. Indeed, in his definition of purpose for man’s initial union into society, he claims that, despite his membership in an association to which he must necessarily have some sort of obligation if the