In this essay I will argue about freedom, as George Hegel argues on freedom and that Geist is the spirit of time. Fichte’s theory argues that freedom means non-interference. According to Rousseau, man in the state of nature was free, wise, and good and the laws of nature were kind. Helvetius argued that only thing which men wish is pleasure and the only thing which men wish to avoid are pains, and there is one system of science which is morality and freedom. I will explain in details below all these theories, there are also similarities and differences in terms of criticisms for Hegel’s freedom, Fichte, Rousseau and Helvetius.
1.Hegel (1770-1831).
Hegel’s phenomenology of the mind, the typical forms of the geist are thoughts, beliefs and
…show more content…
The pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain are the only motives which in fact act upon men, as gravitation and other physical principles are said to act on inanimate bodies. If you want to know what is it that causes human beings to be as they are, that causes their character to be what they are, that causes their acts to be as they are, that is responsible for their loves and their hates, their passions and their ideas, their hopes and their fears, it is this conscious or unconscious pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain” (Berlin, 2002). By this Helvetius argues that man is self-interested, meaning he avoid pain, personal interest is the only motivation and men will always be the same (being self-interested). Self-interest, founded on the love of pleasure and the fear of pain. Human beings are motivated solely by the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Helvetius proclaimed that man is self-interested, there is one system of science, and to be free the government must provide rules which teach us good from wrong. He regarded the human mind as blank slates.
Since all men have the same natural potential, Helvetius argued, they all have the same ability to learn and education or knowledge improve society, and there is one system of science which is morality and freedom. Helvetius claims that man’s rule is positive since only perfect
…show more content…
The state is ruling you and is telling you what is right from wrong, that’s leads to an absolute lack of freedom. Rousseau’s criticism is similar to the criticism for Helvetius in terms of utilitarianism and totalitarianism argument.
Criticism for Helvetius is that it sacrifices the pleasure of minority for the sake of majority, it ignores individuals. Helvetius’s theory is that there is absolute lack of freedom. It ignores human needs and personal aspirations. For Helvetius, to be free the government must provide rules that teach man right from wrong, and thereafter man would be free.
In conclusion, I have detailed explained the freedom and free will in reference to the one explained by the great philosophers Helvetius, Hegel, Fichte and Rousseau. I also took into account the criticism of their theories. From the above essay they are well described and that how does this theorist are the same and their criticism. The theorist’s arguments are well explained in a respective manner, and their criticism.
6.Reference.
Berlin, I. (2002). Freedom and Betrayal: Six Enemies of Human Liberty. Chatto & Windus publishers. Great
Rousseau’s beliefs coincided with the beliefs of other Enlightenment thinkers. This is shown when he writes, “Duty and interest thus equally require the two contracting parties [the people and the government] to aid each other mutually” (Document 3). In that period of history, it was typical for people to be ruled by a monarch and they had very little say, if any, in the laws and policies that impacted their day to day life. Rousseau felt that the system was outdated and it made citizens feel as if they were living in someone else’s home rather than their own, so he theorized that by fabricating a system in which the government and the people are forced to work together, it creates a sense of unity and equality. This works because “ … an offense against one of its members is an offense against the body politic.
Rousseau’s beliefs coincided with the beliefs of other Enlightenment thinkers. This is shown when he writes, “Duty and interest thus equally require the two contracting parties [the people and the government] to aid each other mutually” (Document 3). In that period of history, it was typical for people to be ruled by a monarch and they had very little say, if any, in the laws and policies that impacted their day to day life. Rousseau felt that the system was outdated and it made citizens feel as if they were living in someone else’s home rather than their own, so he theorized that by fabricating a system in which the government and the people are forced to work together, it creates a sense of unity and equality. This works because “ … an offense against one of its members is an offense against the body politic.
In his Second Treatise of Government, Locke revealed his interests in new science, developing theories of education and knowledge (SMW, 34). One of the main points in his Treatise is that of the law of nature, where all men are in natural state of perfect freedom (SMW, 34). Locke argues, “Men being…by nature all free, equal, and independent,
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" (Calhoun 625). The quote is the initial statement in the Declaration of Independence. However, John Calhoun made an argument about equality by claiming that the doctrine claiming all men to be born free and equal is a false and dangerous constitutional error. Calhoun also creates a sustained argument that refutes politics by a Lockean understanding of equality. In this case, he offers his personal explanation in regards to why men are not eligible for an equal amount of liberty.
His idea supported the fact that each individual had natural rights and that a monarch was not able to abuse their power and force any person to give up their rights. Rousseau promoted a civil state where all people enjoyed security, justice, liberty, property, and protection. I believe that Rousseau’s ideas were vital to the development of an American democracy because he supported the idea of giving power to the people and believed that they should vote for their own laws, but I do not agree with his idea of allotting all the political power to the people and having no separation of powers. Ensuring that people have power is crucial so that the voices of the people are heard, but the separation of powers is necessary to prevent any person or part of the government from becoming too powerful. If the political power was simply handed to the people without balance, there could be corruption.
Human freedom as defined by Dr. Ambrosio is to find meaning in one’s own life in one’s own way. Frankl view also differs in that it is not just being responsible to all for all, but through the responsibility of choosing how to respond to suffering, humans produce their own freedom. Frankl defines the term freedom as the ability of the human ability of choice, how to live when faced with suffering. This is not the suffering produce by one’s one errors, but that unavoidable suffering from external
In contrast to Hobbes, who argues social bonds form to regulate human nature, Rousseau argues that the formation of the civil state results from and in a “change in man,” that humans must of necessity be denatured in the process of forming society. There are similarities between the two’s philosophies, but it is Rousseau, through his arguments that human nature can be changed, who articulates a political vision more consistent with the claim that humans are asocial by nature. In the beginning, the arguments of both Hobbes and Rousseau are similar. Man in nature is isolated.
The questions of the whether social inequality is justified and the extent of government to address said inequality are some of the foundations upon which societies and economies are built. Two key philosophers on this issue – John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau – differ on this subject. In Two Treatises on Government, Locke holds that individuals have a right to property derived from their labor, citizens consent to the existence of inequality in society, and governments are instituted among men to protect said property. In contrast, Rousseau writes in Discourse on the Origin of Inequality and The Social Contract that inequality should be strictly limited and that governments have a duty to act in the best interest of its citizens by maintaining
Introduction: While freedom as a concept feels fairly intuitive, nuances in interpretation can change the basis of an argument. John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government and Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America do not define liberty in precisely the same way, which in turn guides two different visions in how a government should function. When examining a core concept in an argument, it is important to inquire to whether its treatment is adequate. Is either definition of liberty sufficient, and does either author’s envisioned government adequately address liberty in that system? This paper will argue that Locke’s definition of liberty remains in the literal sphere while Tocqueville’s is more conceptual, but neither Locke’s nor Tocqueville’s
Two Concepts of Liberty Summary of the essay: In this essay, the famous political theorist Isaiah Berlin tries to differentiate between the notions of positive liberty and negative liberty. Berlin briefly discusses the meaning of the word ‘freedom’. He says that a person is said to free when no man or body of men interferes with his activity. He makes reference to many philosophers in the essay, but there is more emphasis on the thoughts of J. S. Mill and Rousseau, the former being a firm advocate of negative liberty while the latter believes strongly in the ideals of positive liberty.
“Freedom is the power to choose our own chains” (Rousseau). Rousseau discusses the idea that freedom gives us enough power to pick who or what has control over us, which is an idea that is continually presented in the novel A Separate Peace by John Knowles. When in a position to choose, people will strive to lack personal control as a way to relieve their physical or mental pain. People like to live without control to lessen the burden of their suffering.
Freedom is more simply explained. It can be defined as one 's ability to dictate one 's own actions. In the book, Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, individual freedom has been sacrificed the purpose of a supposedly secure and happy society. The world is controlled by an all-powerful state which is dominated by the study and practice of selective breeding.
INTRODUCTION Jean Jacque Rousseau was born in the city state of Geneva, Switzerland in 1772. Rousseau is primarily known for major works like- The Social Contract, Emile, Discourse on the origin of Inequality, the Constitutional Project for Corsica, and Consideration on the Government of Poland. What makes Rousseau such an important figure in the history of philosophy is because of his contribution to both political and moral philosophies and his concept of ‘general will’, which also gained him a lot of criticism. Apart from his philosophical and political contribution, he was also a novelist, an autobiographer, botanist, composer and also a music theorist.
Thus, both men would evaluate the statement that “in a legitimate state all men are free and there is no inequality,” differently. Rousseau would mostly disagree, holding that the state itself is the impetus for inequality. Hobbes would largely agree, contending that men are equal both in a primitive state of conflict and under a sovereign’s awesome power. These different responses result from the philosophers’ opposing views on fundamental human nature, civil society’s raison d’etre, and government’s inevitable form. --- Rousseau begins his
Introduction The assignment will be investigating the democracy of Aristotle and Jean Jacques Rousseau. Democracy in itself can be very different and varies from form to form. The assignment will investigate Aristotle’s view and Jean Jacques Rousseau concepts on state and man, the governess of the state, freedom and man .Each of these topics will be contrast on the views of Aristotle and Jean Jacques Rousseau alongside each other. Each of these philosophers’ key points will be looked and the inner working of out they thought a city should be run.