Debate on Rousseau's Statement - Essay Example

Debate on Rousseau's statement Jean Jacques Rousseau was born in Geneva and in his lifetime, he took some time to ponder about various philosophical questions that affect the daily lives on mankind. This essay will be primarily focused on what Jean Jacques Rousseau said at one time, that “the “fundamental problem” for political society is how to find a form of association which will defend the person and goods of each member with the collective force of all, and under which each individual, while uniting himself with the others, obeys no one but himself, and remains as free as before.” One of the answers to Jean Jacques Rousseau’s thinking is elated to his ideology of how necessary freedom is to the lives of people. Jean Jacques Rousseau uses nature to explain how much freedom is valued in the field of politics. He talks about how physically free man is, nit bound y any repressive state of other men. He also talks of how man is spiritually and psychologically free (Christopher, 18). Man is not forced to live with the artificial needs. If anything, it is these artificial needs that that have brought societal injustices such as exploitation, domination of the poor, depression and low self-esteem. Jean Jacques Rousseau believed that an effective government only comes into existence when its citizens are guaranteed freedom. Property and law are what constrain the freedom of people (Cladis, 22). Nature for Jean Jacques Rousseau was a focal point in determining the independence of an individual and the unity of many. According to Rousseau, the “state of nature” has been made impure in the modern society due to creations of law, property and moral inequality (Cladis, 26). Rousseau acknowledges that mankind cannot return to the original state of nature that he was once born in. However, humanity can try to understand how essential the state of nature is so as to bring out more natural goodness (Christopher, 23). The state of nature is compared by Rousseau to modern society by the use of human need as an element of human life. The state of nature requires that man desires the basic necessities that ensure survival such as sleep, food and sex. However, the modern society has constantly grown in corporation and division of labour (Christopher, 35). The result is an increase in the needs of men to include many unnecessary requirements such as entertainment, friends and luxury goods. Such needs maybe gratifying and pleasurable but has had the effect of making men slaves to such superfluous needs (Cladis, 29). According to Rousseau, the lives of men in the present day and age are quite inauthentic. While in the state of nature, man is supposed to spend more time with him than he ought to spend with others. This is in contrast to modern man who always strives to appear and to be (Christopher, 49). The increased needs for artificial materials has lead to lack of authenticity since many people are trying to outdo their friends or neighbours and such a case makes people rarely realize their individual needs. Rousseau ponders on the questions that deal with how and why human beings are equal or unequal naturally. These questions are fundamental to the larger philosophical enquiry (Christopher, 55). He draws conclusions and a finer line of reason and lays the arguments in the Discourse on Inequality. The basic points of his argument state that the human inequality we know does not exist in the state of nature. Rousseau talks of physical inequality as the only kind of natural inequality. Physical inequality exists among men in the state of nature in the form of those who may be “more or less able to provide for they according to their physical attributes” (Cladis, 37). The existence of different classes and domination or exploitation of others by some people creates inequalities that are prevalent in today’s society. Rousseau referes to these inequalities as moral inequalities, and sets out to look for ways that the government can eradicate these moral inequalities (Christopher, 61). Hobbes is another philosopher that was concerned with the issue that Rousseau was tackling, that of the state of nature versus the modernity of mankind. He developed thoughts on morality that would affect the political life of man. In his opinion, self-knowledge is the key to ascertaining if an act is deemed right or wrong. He goes on to talk of an artificial human being that is political organisation (Cladis, 39). According to Hobbes, human insight is unreliable since man’s actions are only guided by pains and pleasures of the moment thus self-interest. Hobbes was interested in finding out the motivation force behind man’s actions and behaviour. He believes that selfishness is the key motivator of man’s deeds. He however believes that man also acts on emotions higher than self interest such as sense of honour and pity. In looking at the political life of man, Hobbes does not believe that unity is productive. In his opinion, selfishness and arrogance reigns in the hearts of men. Other than that, man can only hope for a peaceful life under an authoritarian government. Total accountability to subjects in the government is the only option left. Man has never had any organized state of government formed although he aspires to. Man tries to build his trust o others but the key motivator in the end will be self-preservation. Many scholars have had the same line of thoughts as Rousseau and there have also been critics alike of Rousseau’s lie of thought. Focussing of the ideas of Hobbes, we experience a sharp divide in some of the ideals expressed by Rousseau (Cladis, 57). For example, Hobbes argues that the public has no other option other than to obey those in power if there is a system of power in place. Rousseau would not agree with this. He was of the opinion that law is part of the several elements that have infected the sovereignty of mankind’s freedom. Hobbes also holds in belief that the elements that drive man into action are pain and pleasure. To add on to this, Hobbes believes that man is sort of programmed to behave in a certain way (Christopher, 83). Rousseau would not be in agreement with this since in his writings, he states that man is motivated by basic needs of food, sex and sleep but has however been lately concerned with other non-essential requirements such as friends and entertainment (Cladis, 61). In his thinking, Hobbes comes up with the idea that science should guide the irrational human mind. He says that at times the thoughts of man are meaningless, and that often the result is violent disputes. This is especially so in the case of forming beliefs about the supernatural such as spirits, fairies and so on (Christopher, 89). Man is seen to be formless in his thoughts and even has imaginations of the future. The future is described as existing in the human mind alone hence is not real. Rousseau would not disagree with this point as much as I would too. Rousseau would be in support of such thinking since it shows a level of authenticity in man’s life. Science will only be a form of law that would suppress the creativity of the human mind (Cladis, 68). Rousseau's theory of sovereignty is different when compared to those other political philosophers. Unlike Grotius and Hobbes, Rousseau believs that the individual should act sovereingly other than be under an absolute monarchy (Cladis, 44). Coming together should be for the common good where each person acts as both a citizen, in a sovereign state, and also a subject of that sovereignty (Christopher, 74). Rousseau and Hobbes would be in agreement on the fact that self-interests are important to ensure the survival of man (Christopher, 99). This selfishness is only an effort to guard against an unpleasant death. Self-interest is vital in that it will ensure the success of one and will also be part of a group endeavour if an individual so finds himself or herself working within a group. References Eccleshall, Robert. Kenny, Michael. Western Political Thought: A Bibliographical Guide to Post-war Research. Manchester University Press: United Kingdom, 1995. Print. Christopher, Morris, W. The Social Contract Theorists: Critical Essays on Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers: United States, 2000. Print. Cladis, Mark, Sydney. Public Vision, Private Lives: Rousseau, Religion, and 21st-century Democracy. Columbia University Press: United States, 2007. Print. Read More