The Social Contract and Discourses - Essay Example

Dayo Abbas Ali Dayo Number 09 June Philosophy Philosophy offers rational thoughts and ideas for the masses. It helps man find reasons and answers of problems of everyday life he comes across. Most primarily, philosophical study deals with fundamental and most basic issues such as: life values, existence and knowledge. Man is influenced by philosophical thoughts in all walks of life. Different philosophers started proposing their theories and ideas on different aspects of man. Out of all these thinkers, Rousseau and Nietzsche have contributed a great deal in this connection. In this paper we will discuss their philosophy and conclude it by offering logical arguments in support of one out of both great philosophers. MAIN PHILOSOPHY OF ROUSSEAU Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a remarkable personality in philosophical field. His contributions are praise worthy so far as philosophical approach is concerned. He also produced a monumental masterpiece in philosophical arena named THE SOCIAL CONTRACT. This is, in fact, a treatise on Principles of Political Right. He started this book with famous words “Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains; One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave than they” (Rousseau et al. 1). Within no time, this volume marked its existence as the most significant exertion of political values in the western practice. Further, he has also made an endeavor to theorize about the ways and means to set up a political community when commercial society is at variance with it. In this pretext, he asserted that in the inception man was without morals Dayo 2 and laws. There was an unruly public. People left this wayward society for the necessity of cooperation. According to him, if man joins together and develops a bond of community and forgets claims of natural right, he can preserve himself as well as remain free whereas in primitive society state of nature mad man prone to frequent competition by his fellow beings. In this way their freedom, liberty and safety is at stake. His deeply believed that direct rule of the people as a whole in lawmaking can ensure liberty so, citizens must evolve code of conduct collectively, for their survival and liberty. These rules may perhaps be altered at afterward occasions if need be. He categorically asserts that a citizen is fundamental individual in making a general will a popular sovereignty. To achieve popular sovereignty which is rule of law in actuality, he must put aside his egoist temperament which he has by birth and by nature and think of collective benefit and survival. Moreover, his egoism would lead him consider his personal interests superior to collective benefits of the society. Thus, this collective philosophy of a welfare society will encourage man think of general welfare as a whole by making rules a general will and all man including administrative head of the society must obey these rules in letter and spirit. Furthermore, if any citizen at any occasion lapses to follow general will, he would be forced to listen what was decided at the time of making rules for general will, but it does not necessarily imply that he cannot live free. He can assert himself free at any time provided circumstances. Thus, Rousseau’s main philosophy is all about a free and cared for society in which rule of law is actually general will. No citizen not even head of the state, in any case would be superior to these prescribed rules and regulations. All feelings such as ego and superiority must be abandoned to give collective welfare precedence over all. His philosophy mainly laid emphasis on inalienability and indivisibility of society and social members of the Dayo 3 same because theory of social contract is an agreement between individuals for collective endeavor for rule of law. NIETZSCHE’S MAIN PHILOSOPHY Friedrich Nietzsche was a German philosopher whose works criticize mainly religion, ethics, science, values and customs. His main philosophy deeply emphasized the need of re-evaluation of new values. He held values of then in the line of harsh fulmination. He considered himself an immoralist but did not want to destroy it as seemed from his critical approach towards morality, but endeavored to bring re-evaluation of moral values into existence. According to him morality in any system is a long constraint (Nietzsche 116). His aspiration was to bring about a novel and vital source of significance in the impulses itself. His philosophy in his remarkable text Beyond Good and Evil is mainly about master-morality and slave-morality. He asserted that master-morality is something which is natural and original system of morality whereas slave morality is simply a reaction of the former. His approach of bitter criticism led him to criticize Jewish and Christian traditions. He ultimately associated slave-morality with both these religions. He further asserted that man is evil through error (Nietzsche 120). His assertion was based on the philosophy that if man knew that evil is evil, he would never inflict injury on himself. Thus, evil is only through error which man could not avoid because of slave-morality. Moreover, if one is free from error, one will necessarily make good (Nietzsche 121). It can be then argued that natural history of the morals, which Nietzsche attempted to affirm in his manuscript Beyond The Good and Evil was consequences from evil doings and good deeds. And all evil activities are mainly due to the belief that evil is through error and not through deliberation. However, Nietzsche did not rule out morality altogether, but considered it to be good for the demography because it formulate inner Dayo 4 laws. In primitive times, touchstone of actions was consequences of the former but morality had its origin in the motivation to do these works. Another significant aspect of Nietzsche’s philosophy was virtues rather our virtues which he elaborated in his work Beyond The Good and The Evil. In this chapter of the book Nietzsche started with European’s virtues. He criticizes Europeans in this chapter of the book that our virtues are only those which fulfill our requirements and come to agreement to our inclinations otherwise; populace of that age was cruel in sense and spirit. He further argued that these are not those virtues through which we hold our forefathers in esteem and consider them respect worthy (Nietzsche 175). His main philosophy criticizes virtues along with morality of then European traditions. He even did not relate good conscience to belief in one’s own virtues. He exemplified that love does not take place alone. It develops feeling of hatred among us simultaneously. The more we love, the more we hate when this love does not come in agreement with our nature. Thus he harshly criticized virtues of then Europeans. Moreover, he also argued virtues so far as weaker gender as well as old people is concerned. His attempt was to bring into light that women who used to be treated disrespectfully previously are now esteemed because of democracy not virtues. On the other hand people in old age are not given due respect. Though a woman in order to achieve this status has secured a honorable and dignified position yet she had to sacrifice her taste. To put it simply, Nietzsche’s philosophy was full of criticism for religion, morality and virtues, but most importantly victims of his fulmination were Jewish and Christian religions as well as European traditions and values. COMPARISON BETWEEN ROUSSEAU’S AND NIETZSCHE’S PHILOSOPHY Dayo 5 Since philosophy offers rational thoughts and ideas to comprehend problems man comes across in his daily life, different philosophers are tested on logical touchstone for validity of their philosophical approach. In this pretext, this last section of the paper will argue to validate philosophy of either thinker. To my perception and best of understanding, Rousseau’s philosophy is more valid and conforms to the minds to common man. To begin with, unlike Nietzsche’s philosophy, Rousseau’s philosophy does not contain any criticism. Rousseau attempted to give philosophical thoughts and brushed aside condemnation. This goes in the favour of Rousseau because his philosophy is for all men without any kind of discrimination of despise for any particular segment of the society across the globe. On the other hand, philosophy of Nietzsche is against Christianity and Judaism so, affected segment hardly takes any interest as a result philosophy find a way to disapproval. Further, Rousseau is given credit because he attempted to establish a community for welfare and rule of law. This rule of law is. In fact, general will of the public to establish moral values and rules to govern society in a smooth way. Under such society, even head of the state which could be a monarch is not above the law, let alone general masses. In contrast to such philosophical approach, Nietzsche adopted a criticizing look to even morality. He criticized moral values of particular nation which implied that their public can not establish rule of law and a political philosophy of Rousseau is not popular there. Speaking more explicitly, Nietzsche’s views rule out chances for a welfare state whereas Rousseau’s thoughts precisely stood for welfare and cared for state where general will i-e rule of law is supreme. Dayo 6 Besides, Nietzsche harshly condemns our virtues. This is a general philosophy that disparagement always is not likes among massed. Censure to bring about welfare is good but denigration to overshadow some particular sections is wrong and not popular with the masses. Thus thoughts of Nietzsche don’t appeal demography to a greater extent. On the other hand, Rousseau even went to the extent that man should keep aside their egoistic nature in favour of the general good. Rousseau also gave opportunity to separate allegiance from this welfare state barring a few occasions which call for strict adherence to rules made by the public with happy will and agreement. This is a true philosophical approach which stands for free and fair rational approach to make decisions, however, if need be, Rousseau’s community of welfare state could force individual for strict observance to this general will and supreme law which is law by the masses. Thus is can be argued based on above reasons that Rousseau’s philosophy is more valid than that of Nietzsche because it is for welfare of all and does not contain any disapproval for any segment of the society across the globe. CONCLUSION In conclusion, it is simply stated again that Rousseau’s philosophy was for a welfare state asserting general will of the masses as supreme law of the state whereas philosophy of Nietzsche was against morality and virtues. An analytical approach and reasoning has proved that philosophy of Rousseau is more valid than that of Nietzsche. Dayo 7 Works cited Rousseau, J.J, Cole, G.D.H. The Social contract and discourses, by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Translated with introduction by G. D. ... Cole. Print Nietzsche, Friedrcih. Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future. Print Nietzsche, Friedrcih. Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future. Print Nietzsche, Friedrcih. Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future. Print Nietzsche, Friedrcih. Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future. Print Read More