Main Philosophy of Rousseau - Essay Example

Philosophy 08 June Main Philosophy of Rousseau Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) was a prominent philosopher of the enlightened politics. His main ideology revolves around his perception of liberty and human nature in a political society. Every human being is born free to act the way he wishes. But when people give preference to their self-interests, then community interests take a back seat. Innate abilities of human beings are good but suffer corruption when they interact with other people in the society. A state of war continues when individuals sought to satisfy their personal wills which can only be given a halt by imposing a contract of becoming an alleged member of the sovereign. Rousseau is of the view that general will is the sum of differences of specific individual interests. It is in the best interest of everyone e.g. personal interests are often benefited at the expense of other people’s collective interests. Therefore if this individuality is cancelled out entirely then all citizens within a society can enjoy freedom. By subjugating our desires for the betterment of nation, voluntarily embracing the society’s administration as our own, freedom can be achieved which will make us more rational and moral (Rousseau 26). Under the social contract, Rousseau is in favour of alienated totality of all rights within the society. By exchanging innate freedom with civil independence we are able to maintain equality between all members of society. When the community rights surpass individual rights a sovereign state comes into being. “Finally, each man, in giving himself to all, gives himself to nobody: and as there is no associate over which he does not acquire the same right as he yields others over himself, he gains an equivalent for everything he loses, and an increase of force for the preservation of what he has” (Rousseau 24). In his book, the social contract Rousseau envisages sovereign as a collective effort of all citizens. Through continued collaboration they form the state principles and general will for common good. According to him the government and sovereign are in constant friction that may result in a diminishing society but healthy nations never give up and last for ages to come e.g. the Roman realm. Everyone is free to practise their own beliefs in privacy but a public religion established by the state is preferred that favors active citizenship. In his ideology citizens are not forced but motivated to affirm to the community for their own mutual interest. His main aim is to seek how freedom can develop in a civil society in existing conditions. By giving reference to the first political societies, Rousseau in his book the social contract mentioned that in nature only father has power over his child which only exists for the preservation of the child. Philosophers, Hobbes and Grotius claimed that relationship between ruler and his subjects is the same as that of father and child. But this political authority does not exist in reality as this supreme power is generated by force not by natural means. People succumb to rulers not because they like it but because they are left with no choice (Rousseau 14-21). Philosophy of Nietzsche Nietzsche raised a voice against socialism, nihilism and anti-Semitic movements when people of Europe blindly followed racism, scientific principles, religious dogmas etc. In his book Beyond good and evil, Nietzsche explained the phenomenon of “sublimation”, how every human being can become a free spirit by restraining their innate desires. According to Nietzsche most great philosophers make complex theories in order to justify their own prejudices. Examining their philosophies in a deeper perspective will help us reveal their real character. Contrary to that Nietzsche preferred the concept of free spirit that is flexibility of mind that is not bound to a specific opinion. He further wishes that philosophers of the future would follow experimentation to drive conclusions rather than being inclined to previous theories. Nietzsche negates Classic Greek philosopher Plato’s ideology and considers it a rubbish heap of childish imagination because most of his assumed theories can’t be proven. His main argument with Platonism was the fact that such dogmas provide a fixed comprehension therefore enslaving human mind, making it numb, unable to think forward (Nietzsche 17). In his philosophical thought “will to power” is of great significance. Once the will power is in proper control, man can abstain from evils like hatred, rape, murder etc. Instead of exerting this will power on others one should use it against oneself overcoming instincts and in turn becoming stronger. In order to become more humane we need to curtail our cruel instincts and overcome such desires. He termed this punishment of the inner self as “self overcoming” (Nietzsche 54). Nietzsche hates “the herd” constituting people who act according to group norms and lack individualism. He urges people to become broadminded, rejecting every prior belief just to become different from their predecessors (Nietzsche 81). Nietzsche considered that absolute truth cannot be singled out. We should conceive truth from different point of views. Nietzsche believed in nihilism, i.e. faith in nothing because science described the world governing under fixed principles. Nietzsche believed that humans are both creature and creator. He condemns utilitarian concept of pain and pleasure. To take pity for the miserable is pity for the in living creature that is simultaneously driving towards something bigger. Nietzsche adopts a sorry attitude only for the creator within every human being who is muted by the contemporary society. Suffering cannot be avoided but it could be celebrated to relieve the pain (Nietzsche 224). Nietzsche is against nationalism. He gave the example of French and Greeks as being feminine races as they mingled with Asian races to produce fine literary works. He highly regarded Jews claiming them to be the strongest race in Europe but criticized the English race of being blind followers of the Christian belief, responsible for the infiltration of French ideas stated by Rousseau. Nietzsche, like Lamarckism, was against nationalism. He argues against English and was with the idea of a “Good European” who is purely individual in his thoughts regardless of any nationalism. According to him Goethe, Stendhal and Napoleon were Good Europeans (Nietzsche 289). Nietzsche was of the view that most philosophers view morality according to their own perspective e.g.by looking at a tree we do not focus our attention to the minute details, similarly while reading a book we only absorb a few words to the already existing knowledge in our minds. Thus Nietzsche believed that our gained knowledge is not real. It is our make belief (Nietzsche 148). Nietzsche gives the concept of noble as a sufferer who is aloof from the world and become completely misunderstood by people (Nietzsche 123). Comparison between the philosophies of Rousseau and Nietzsche Both philosophers’ thinking has certain pros and cons. Rousseau’s theory suggests a kind of totalitarianism. Somehow his ideas suppress individualism; people began to lack initiative by confirming to the societal standards. In present circumstances his philosophy is not applicable as our actions are more or less dictated to us rather than devised by the sovereign. Moreover the meaning of sovereign state as defined by Rousseau underwent tremendous changes. We lack that community spirit. In his ideology citizens obey the state laws by mutual consent but in reality economic crisis made citizens protest against their individual rights. He mentioned the civilizations of Rome and Greece to be the most prosperous ones because of their active citizenship but he fails to give account that those citizens were given space to express their individuality to their fullest. They were made to express creativity beyond boundaries. In the current scenario we are aware of the fact that there is a public and private sphere. Rousseau was unable to clearly define the private one. Furthermore there are limitation to the idea of general will. It encompasses the annihilation of those individual rights that are in major interest of the community. Although his philosophy allowed individualism to continue as long as it does not interfere in state affairs but somehow he preferred the public image to precede our private life. Nietzsche associated his philosophy with a criticism on dogmatism especially that of Plato who played an influential role in Christianity. Platonism states that sensory world is an illusion, what we perceive is not the reality, all material things are temporary but our soul is immortal which directs us. His propositions to attain the forms of good are the ultimate aim of human race on which all moral principles are formulated. Nietzsche philosophy often called ‘perspectivism’ emphasized that there is no such thing as absolute truth. Therefore his ideology is applicable to those people who do not consider doctrines as their guide to the right path in life. Even Nietzsche himself admits all his prejudices concerning women and also his racial attitude. His remarks on Christianity and women emancipation are objectionable. It seems that Nietzsche adopted an egoistic attitude, devoid of morality by treating the history in whatever manner he pleases by claiming that there are no objective facts in the world. Morality existed with the origin of humanity but its meaning changed with centuries. Moral philosophers of the present era lack this historical standpoint. In order to search for a rational morality, they just simplify their own morality without considering it a serious issue. I think despite of its shortcomings, Nietzsche philosophy is more valid as it enables our minds to think beyond the general confines. Nietzsche’s notable achievements included the reversal of stereotypical attitudes of people in general. Individualism is the essence of modern world. We cannot succumb to conformity without being aware of its consequences. Every man has the right to be heard in public. Nietzsche raised his voice at the time when the spirit of nationalism was at its peak. “Nietzsches ideal "philosophy of the future" is one that is free enough to shift perspectives and overturn the "truths" and other dogmas of rigid thinking. Such philosophy would see moral concepts such as "good" and "evil" as merely surfaces that have no inherent meaning; such philosophy would thus move "beyond good and evil"(SparkNotes Editors).The idea of free spirit and the will power to change static conditions seems more practical approach. The concept of order of rank is of wider acceptance as there is no universal principle of morality. What is considered right for one person may not be the same for the other one, also by restraining our instincts we are trying to become an over man, something beyond our thinking. On the contrary Rousseau’s arguments might be valid at the time of French Revolution but now things are way more different. We are living in an age where freedom of thought is given greater acclaim. His communitarian approach does not seem applicable anymore. Works Cited Rousseau, Jean Jacques. The Social Contract. Trans. Cole G.D.H. 1988. 137. Print Neitzsche, Friedrich. Beyond Good and Evil. Trans. Zimmern, Helen. 1989. 264. Print SparkNotes Editors. “SparkNote on Beyond Good and Evil.” SparkNotes.com. SparkNotes LLC. n.d.. Web. 7 Jun. 2010. Read More