Pessimistic Nature of Human Beings in Locke and Rousseau - Essay Example

Locke and Rousseau John Locke is one of the respected English Philosopher. His contribution to the field of philosophy led to a lot of enlightenment and most philosophers regarded Locke as a father of classical liberalism according to his contributions to the society. Jean Rousseau is also one of the most respected philosophers in the world. The French nationality is behind the great French Revolution. His sociological and educative thoughts are what have led to the modern political stance with his revolution greatly respected by the Republicans in the US. The two philosophers differ in the manner in which they rest their points to the society but have been keen to attack the pessimistic nature of human beings that prevented human beings from attaining liberation. They both believed that human beings could reason and therefore did not need to be told everything. People needed no revelation. Their arguments about man’s nature are not any different in substance as they both target a man’s weakness. This paper will be analyzing the different perspectives taken by these two philosophers in attacking the pessimistic nature of the human political governance that resulted to slavery. The paper will also be discussing the influence of these two philosophers to the society and how they led to revolution hence breaking the bondages of slavery leading to liberation. Locke and Rousseau The 18th century is mostly referred to as the age of reasoning and it comprised many philosophers who argued that people should think of themselves. Most philosophers referred to the theme as the theme of “Cause and effect”. The two philosophers can also be categorized as misanthropist in the manner in which they placed their views. Locke and Rousseau placed their heart so much on political leaders believing that political leaders will liberate people from slavery in the society. Instead the two philosophers developed hatred for the political leaders and governance since they did match up to their expectations. They then resorted to attacking the poor governance and the greedy nature of leadership that led to liberation and revolution. Rousseau is considered as the patriarch of pessimism. The reason is embedded in this author’s work of natural goodness. According to these philosophers humans naturally do not have a sense of self consciousness. Such humans express a higher degree of satisfaction and happiness compared to human who are corrupt in the society. According to this philosopher when man decided to move out of the state of nature, then inequality came in and man ended up lacking freedom. Rousseau believed that man was only complete if the qualities of natural state of man exist. Such qualities he expressed as nondestructive love for oneself and love. However Rousseau points out that these love and compassion has been gradually replaced by the greed that the human nature continually expresses. According to Rousseau, when man begins living outside himself he starts getting concerned with other men which results to demanding for some external objects which leads to greed. According to this philosopher the desire for external objects led to slavery since man also wanted to have political power. The philosopher also goes ahead and argues that the perfectibility nature that humans seek is the cause for derailing from the natural state. According to the philosopher, we tend to imagine about a perfect future which is different from what we can think in our natural state of mind. When man misses this perfect dream, they become disappointed and start looking for it from other men something which Rousseau distastes. The desire to be perfect has made man imperfect and this is what this philosopher is arguing about. Rousseau also uses the social contract theory to express the pessimistic nature of humans. According to this philosopher, the evolution of modern society happened through the replacement of the natural egalitarianism which was washed away by the alienation of class, power, race, and sex which was enforced by institutions of power (Rousseau 4). In this theory, the philosopher begins by informing is that, “man is born free and everywhere he is in chains” (Rousseau 1). The philosopher hates the fact that the human nature is bound to chains which does not lead to liberation. The philosopher further expresses that even the ruling classes have not been left out of this bondage and they are also not free. According to Rousseau the ruling classes are the greatest slaves due to their level of thinking. They cannot be liberal in thinking and their social class is demanding more esteem from others. According to the philosopher these people are constantly living outside themselves and are always demanding esteem from the people they rule. John Locke championed individual freedom and he is regarded as the father for democracy of liberalism. Locke fought for democracy even before the ages of democracy inauguration arrived. His writing about the two treatises of the government was a major contribution about Locke. By adopting a technique of social contract, Locke was able to explain that the authority that the state legitimately owned was from individual people in the society. This technique was also used by Rousseau which is an indication that the two proponents used similar dispositions to express their arguments. Locke argued that if the rights of individuals in the society are infringed and violate the legitimate authority of the state can be withdrawn. According to Locke humans were also living outside their natural state of mind and therefore opted to infringe on people’s rights by taking their properties. The law of nature describes the aspect of Locke’s argument and he states that human beings should not invade and infringe the rights of their fellows. Locke’s contribution to chapter XIX of the Treatise is clearly against degeneration of war by failure of the government to hold in the power that generates from the natural stage (Locke 104). Locke believed that people were free by nature, ‘Tuckness’. This is also similar to what Rousseau said in the social contact theory. According to Locke this freedom is not there since humans are chained in slavery by the rules they make and the officials they select. His notion and belief on freedom led to the foundation of freedom in Government. According to the philosopher, the government is existing in order to promote public good, protect life, liberty, and in general to protect the property of its people but he does not see this. Locke argues that those governing the country must be elected from the society in order for them to represent the will of the society. Locke refers to the dissolution of government and reformation of the government by the society since he refers to the society as one body that has the power to control the government. Locke is also against the will on the government of taking away private property and subjecting people into slavery. Locke speaks about the legislative role of protection and guarantees rebellion if the legislative fails to protect private property and allows subjection to slavery. According to Rousseau, freedom brought by the general will exists in two forms. One is the individual freedom while the other is the social freedom. According to Locke, natural law is directly correlated with natural freedom (Locke 125). Natural law protects the nature of humanity. In order to observe natural law according to the two philosophers, one must pledge its ligancy through the social contract. Both Rousseau and Locke believe that children ought not to go to school if they can be taught how to reason. The two philosophers are pessimistic about learning but are hoping that if man can be taught how to reason logically they ought not to go to school. Rousseau and Locke also contributed greatly to the liberation and freedom. Their combined concept of the General Will supports this argument. According to the two philosophers, the general will is a contract with a group of people who engage in the contract of free reasoning. The general will should be a product of the citizens. The citizens must give power to the rule and respect it. The two great minds, which came up with the rule of the general rule, have led to the revolution and freedom most people enjoy in the world. Almost all the governments in the world have a constitution. We equate the constitution to the general will. The constitution is the will of people. The two authors were referring to the nature in which leaders failed to express the general will of the people. Conclusion In conclusion, it is evident that Rousseau and Locke used pessimism to express their logical arguments which was meant to provoke humans into free thinking which leads to liberation. We can also conclude that the two philosophers achieved their mission by engaging human minds into fight for freedom and revolution. Their pessimism is widely expressed in the social contract theory where they both assert that humans are born with freedom but are chained everywhere. The two philosophers further suggest that the chains are as a result of thinking out of natural state of mind. The two philosophers also conclude that thinking out of our minds leads to greed for power which is a chain by itself. Works Cited Locke, John. "The Second Treatise of Civil Government." The Second Treatise of Civil Government (1690): 109-213. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. "The Social Contract." Social Contract (1762): 1-78. Read More