Rousseau claims that “Man is essentially good in the state of nature” and complete freedom can only be achieved when man is not connected with the society. State of nature refers to the conditions of men and women before the concept of society and civilization began to resurface. The moment somebody thinks that something is their property, their minds became corrupted.
After observing numerous governments, he concludes that people should only be governed by the Sovereign, a body with one collective will. In any other system, the people give up their freedom without any reason; it should be created only if all agree to it. The social contract would exist for the purpose of self-preservation, pushing the common will of the Sovereign. To convince his audience of these complex ideas, Rousseau must stay organized and be intentional in his rhetorical
He states that hierarchy actually does not exist in the state of nature, as it alienates and chains most of the population. Because of this hierarchy, anyone under property owners and the wealthy consequently suffer and do not benefit from the modern social contract. This displaces power and puts a strong emphasize on one’s political life which in return only benefits individual interests. This despotic society where one class rules everything and corrupts the masses, through a liberal social contract, is what Rousseau deemed the most destructive
Rousseau believed that men in the state of nature were the most natural and free they could be before they were corrupted by the unnatural grips of civilization. Rousseau’s hypothesis was similar to Locke’s in that man was naturally good and would be content in the state of nature. Rousseau was in favour of individual freedom and independence. In contrast to Hobbes he believed that human life in the state of nature would not be clouded by selfishness and that men would not have this unearthly desire to acquire more possessions, for which he would have no need or desire. Rousseau’s theory unlike Locke’s theory states that men would be independent and not need to rely on each other.
According to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the main problem of modern societies is that they do not promote either equality or freedom. Therefore, he proposes a model of government that is based on the “general will”. As I am going to explain in details later on, the general will for Rousseau is the only way to promote the common good for the whole society. However, in my opinion, his model of government ensures equality at the expense of personal freedoms. In fact, he believes that people need to be educated to a common civic sense that allows them to pursue a greater good; but for me his education is a form of indoctrination and Rousseau’s perfect government is destined to degenerate in a totalitarian regime.
While we can read about liberty and the state of nature in Rousseau and, at least implicitly, in Madison, we cannot necessarily determine where these views come from. Why does Rousseau view the state of nature as slavery to one’s instincts? Why does Madison think negative liberties are so important? While a possible explanation could refer to their views about human nature, this explanation is hard to support with Memorial and Remonstrance and On the Social Contract alone. More analysis of Rousseau and Madison’s other works could provide richer context for this particular disagreement, shedding light on the views of two tremendously influential thinkers about politics and
To be more specific the Rousseau’s motion of convention is wrong but the right one is the motion of agreement as he mentioned in glossary of The Social Contract book. In order to put some notable touches on the idea of both convention and ‘agreement’ as it can be seen in writing critical commentary. Moreover, Rousseau conception of agreement is like the contract between society and authority the other conception of convention is like when the ruling power or authority or even king as he mentioned on the quote has a power over the individuals in society as he refers to the term of Despotism which means the absolute power of the authority or king, as a similar to the term of Dictatorship now a
He 's a forerunner of Romanticism, and promoted the ideas of the return to nature, the Natural Law, the Noble Savage and the importance of natural education. His works influenced the leaders of the French revolution, since Rousseau rejected the restraints placed on man in his contemporary society. He encouraged man to embrace his emotions and to step away from the pretentiousness of society ("Jean-Jaqcues Rousseau"). Rousseau 's Romanticism was apparent in his visions of a regenerated human nature. He found man to be ultimately good in nature, and that society 's influence and pretentiousness are what spoiled man 's essential goodness.
Rousseau’s his political philosophies flows through his moral philosophies. In order to understand this better, let me begin by explaining in details both his moral and political philosophies ROUSSEAU’S MORAL PHILOSOPHY- Rousseau was of the one of the very few thinkers who felt that human beings are good by nature but it is the society that corrupts them. He necessarily talks about three components that form the basis of Rousseau’s moral psychology- amour de soi, amour propre and pitie. All these three elements have developed well in Emile and in Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. He begins by talking about amour de soi, which is a kind of self love and according to it human should cater to their own needs first and then help others.