Another influential philosopher was the french Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who wrote the Bill Of Rights. It protected the people's right from the government. These new ideas influenced in the French Revolution just like other revolutions did too. In 1776 the American revolution took place and inspired the French people. The British colonies in the America’s declared their independence from the English Court and the lower class in France saw the possibility of throwing down the French
Unit 2: Absolutism and Revolution Portfolio In this unit, you examined the American and French Revolutions. The American Revolution, sparked by conflict over British rule and influenced by Enlightenment ideas, broke colonial ties with a monarchy and yielded a new nation. The French Revolution, inspired by the American Revolution as well as the Enlightenment, freed French citizens from an absolute monarchy and secured equality before the law for all male citizens. In your unit study, you explored the causes and effects, characteristics, as well as the consequences, of each of these revolutions. What did they have in common?
The most well-known work he created are Discourse on the Origins of Inequality, the Discourse on Political Economy, The Social Contract, and Considerations on the Government of Poland. One of his works “The Social Contract” explains how the state need to be guided by the member’s general will. That means everyone should decide how to run the state. His first major work is “Discourse on the Sciences and Arts”, it was the winning response to an essay contest conducted by the Academy of Dijon in 1750. In that particular book, Rousseau argues that sciences and arts progression has led to the corruption of virtue and morality.
The idea expressed by Rousseau in The People Should Have Power that “Man is born free. No man has any natural authority over others, force does not give anyone that right. The power to make laws belongs to the people and only to the people” influenced people who been suppressed by the royals and the aristocrats, and the independence of the United States is a perfect example for the Frenchmen to follow. Some people, such as historian Albert Mathiez, claims that leadership fell to the middle class with their knowledge of the ideas of the Enlightenment that “The middle class… was sensitive to their inferior legal position. The Revolution came from them- the middle class.
Instead, there were people on the National Committee with him who helped contribute to the Reign of Terror (Linton). Robespierre discussed this in his speech by stating that the government was “despotic,” but it did not have a tyrant as a leader which would, in turn, protect the people (“Modern History Sourcebook”). He, however, executed his own people, contradicting his own statement. Robespierre also stated in the speech that terror was, in fact, a virtue and it was only appropriate to exemplify it. He, himself, acknowledges that he was truly an autocrat in France, which ultimately proves what Robespierre really was (“Modern History
As a result of publishing this piece, it brought hate to Paine and yet praise to him. The simple fifty page pamphlet attempted to drive many Americans unwilling to break from Great Britain and to rebel and become part of the independence. By doing so, he declared that Britain was overtaking the American’s lives, the English form of government had an unscrupulous King. Despite this happening, George Washington believed that after reading “Common Sense” to the soldiers, they were refreshed and developed the desire to fight the war unconditionally till a winner was brought upon the two sides. George Washington declared that “Common Sense” drove the war into their favor, and thus quoted, “I find Common Sense is working a powerful change in the minds of men” (Bigelow 102- 103).
English and French both had a type of government that they didn't like either and they just wanted to change it. These two wanted to change their government instead of being like Latin America and America and get rid of it completely. The English Revolution emphasized the idea of natural rights and having a selfish leader should be different. The idea of natural rights is from John Locke and having a selfish is from Thomas Hobbes. The American Revolution emphasized the idea of Montesquieu.
John Locke and Baron de Montesquieu were political philosophers that debated the question of who was best fit to control the government. Locke and Montesquieu shared similar political beliefs such as natural rights and the separation of government powers. However, both philosophers did, in fact, have their personal views that helped them accomplish important achievements. John Locke published “Two Treatises of Government” and “ An Essay Concerning Human Understanding,” which present a detail philosophy of the mind and thought. Locke’s “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding,” lays out his philosophical project.
Hence I’d like to devise two questions out of the quote: “Is history a lie?” and “Then what is the degree of truth in history?” “Is history a lie?” Let’s take a look at why Voltaire saw history as a lie. Having already summarized his views on the society, it is easy to extract the disgrace that he associated with the bourgeoisie. He believed that those who had the power over the general population also had the power to influence how the past was interpreted to be written as history. Something that George Orwell stated as: “Those who control the present, control the past and those who control the past control the future.” Voltaire considered that the dominant ideology greatly influenced the writing of
Rawls believed that everyone in society should have had equal political rights, although social and economic inequalities existed, but only under the condition that they were to the maximum advantage of the least advantaged people in society. On the other hand, while philosopher Robert Nozick paid a generous tribute to the brilliance of Rawls’ philosophical construction, he provides a rejection to Rawls’ claims from a libertarian perspective. Libertarians have the desire to divide and limit power. That is, government will be limited generally through a written constitution limiting the powers that the people delegate to government (Boaz, 2015). Nozick stated that Rawls’ idea would have resulted in the restriction of free choice or forced distribution within the society.