Rousseau

I think Rousseau”s most effective criticism of Plato”s is on the importance of family. Both philosophers have opposing views on this issue; however I tend to agree with Rousseau”s view on family mostly because it is more reasonable than Plato”s. Rousseau also seemed more concerned that people enjoy life whereas Plato seemed too tied down with the idea of making the world just, that he forgot about individual happiness. According to Plato there should be no such thing as family. Instead we should all be men born of the earth.

Everyone according to Plato should think themselves to be everyone else”s brother or sister. He thinks that children should be removed from the mother upon birth so no attachment is made between mother and child. In speaking of peoples “education and rearing” Plato writes: “If by being well educated they become sensible men, they”ll easily see to all this and everything else we are now leaving out-that the possession of women, marriage, and procreation of children must as far as possible be arranged according to the proverb that friends have all things in common. (423e)

Again he reiterates the idea of having all things in common when he writes: “All these women are to belong to all these men in common, and no woman is to live privately with any man. And the children, in their turn, will be common, and neither will a parent know his own offspring, nor a child his parent. ” (457d) Rousseau firmly disagrees with Plato”s view on family. He thinks that having strong family values is the key to becoming a good citizen. Since Rousseau is all about taking the natural approach to education, his view on family values make sense. Family is quite obviously in accordance with the laws of nature.

A mother gives birth to her child and according to Rousseau it is only natural for the mother to nurse the child herself. That is the first natural bond that takes place within the family thus it is necessary in forming a close family unit. This is seen on page forty-six when he writes: “But let mothers deign to nurse their children, morals will reform themselves, nature”s sentiments will be awakened in every heart, the state will be repeopled. ” If you stop here this goes completely against Plato”s belief that only certain women are made to be nurses and therefore only those women should nurse children.

But Rousseau goes on to say: “Thus, from the correction of this single abuse would soon result a general reform; nature would soon have reclaimed all its rights. Let women once again become mothers, men will soon become fathers and husbands again. ” Maybe Rousseau exaggerates this idea that by mothers nursing their children family values will be set in place. But to an extent I think this is true, because it is the first way a mother can care for her child, and by having someone else do it for her she is giving up this sacred bond a mother should have with her child.

Rousseau says: “We are born weak, we need strength; we are born totally unprovided, we need aid; we are born stupid we need judgment. Everything we do not have at birth and which we need when we are grown is given us by education. ” (pg. 38) This education no matter how you look at it starts in the home, and with the family. If a child is to grow someone needs to be there to guide them. And without a proper family a child will never be educated properly. Rousseau”s theory on family is much more realistic than Plato”s.

Without having family values or even knowing who your real family is how is one supposed to learn to love and care for one another? If we lived as Plato would like we would not know what it means to have a close family because everyone would literally be considered your family. There is no way that you would develop the same feeling of love as you would by living in a family as most know it today. Or family in the sense that Rousseau writes about. Plato was more concerned with the city being just then the individual, so in that context his wanting to eradicate the natural family makes since.

But his education follows that everyone be a professional at one trade. In my opinion that is no way to live life. To spend your whole life perfecting one thing, and never experiencing what it is to love. Rousseau took a much different approach believing that education was accomplished through centering on each person individually. The way a child is raised quite obviously affects who they are when they grow up. If they grow up in a family with strong values children learn if nothing else how to love and respect others. By learning these values ideally they will one day pass the lessons along to a family of their own.

Daniel Davis Philosophy D 12/01/11 What is amour-propre? What role does it play, according to Rousseau, in the Discourse on Inequality? Tutor: Robert Cowan In May 1755, Jean Jacques Rousseau’s Discourse on the Origin of Inequality was published. The Discourse challenged contemporary philosophers in regards to the nature of man, and the fundamental principles of inequality. He highlighted that the inequality in current society developed due to the increase amour-propre has had on individuals.

Examining amour-propre shows that it is fundamentally much more complex than simply being misconstrued as vanity; it could be described as a range of things such as pride, aggrandizement and prestige within society. It has played a decisive role within the development of society and has been attributed to being the source of the existing inequality within modern society. Although amour-propre is described in the Second Discourse as largely negative, it is responsible for the development of socialization and the individual drive for recognition.

Amour-propre is a reflective trait that is triggered when human beings started coming together, as it requires a human to be compared with another being. It is the need for self-love and the intrinsic need to feel a sense of importance within society. Rousseau suggests this trait is the fundamental drive in all human beings. It gives way for the need to be recognised as a rational human being.

Amour-propre could also be described as the drive to find distinction within society; this could be manifested as the need to be championed as the best at something, having your views being considered as rational and valued, or establish superiority over one’s peers. The nature of amour-propre is interminable, and the more it is used the greater of an influence it becomes on a person’s character; the more someone is held in esteem, the more passionate they become in maintaining their status. As it becomes more powerful, it becomes a source of athologies such as shame and vanity; it is described as the ‘’the source of personal corruption and suffering and social evil’’ (Dent, 1992, pg. 34) due to the overwhelming nature of it. Moreover, as people are influenced more by amour-propre, their drive for a fulfilled life relies solely on their status. As everyone has the same drive it creates ‘’a world in which the amour-propre of all but himself is ignored’’ (O’Hagan, 1999, pg. 173). Rousseau highlights amour-propre as being a reflective trait by examining the state of nature.

As savage man is an unreflective and solitary being, the awareness of status would not yet be in his realms of understanding. Moreover, at this point, Rousseau highlights that they have no sense of morality, and only possess two main unreflective traits: amour de soi (self-preservation) and pitie (compassion). The former gives the savage man a drive for survival, addressing only the most basic needs e. g. food, water, sex. Rousseau highlights the primary distinctions of amour de soi and amour propre in the Second Part in the Discourse.

He believes that amour-propre is a modification of our amour de soi. The two are very different by virtue of their nature; if amour de soi could be described as the wellbeing of self, amour-propre could be described as the wellbeing of social status. This wellbeing of self doesn’t impose on other savage humans for a number of reasons: being naturally solitary beings, having an abundance of supplies to adequately satisfy their basic needs, as well as not having the unreflective concept of what another savage human is. Although there is a basic natural inequality between savage humans (i. . strength, height) the absence of society as well as reasons that led to one imposing on another makes this somewhat inexistent, further highlighting in Rousseau’s argument that society and the existence of amour-propre leads to the essence of inequality and corruption. As amour-propre displaces amour de soi it leads to it ‘’substituting for the intact self-possessed good with which the latter is concerned the delusive good which consists in procuring invidious personal dominance over others’’ (Dent, 1992, pg. 34).

As amour-propre is the main drive for distinction and self-importance, competition between humans becomes more violent and deceitful which creates a greater degree of inequality within society. Moreover, as the sentiment is an artificial and reflective trait, it could be described as morally unjustified. The artificial trait is highlighted by Rousseau when he writes ‘’amour-propre is a purely relative and factitious feeling which arises in the state of society’’ (Rousseau, f/n pg. 73); it is due to the need for comparison with other human beings that it arises only in society and the coming together of human beings.

It is this correlation that the trait has with society that leads it to having a significant role within the development of society. The development of amour-propre has played a pivotal role within society: Rousseau believes it is solely responsible for the ills, and inspires all evil in modern society. Civil society was founded when ‘’the first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying ‘This is mine’, and found people simple enough to believe him’’ (Rousseau pg. 84).

The state of civil society could not have happened overnight, that leap would require great conceptual development in humans, but from the moment that men started staying in communities was the first real sign in the development of amour-propre; humans started comparing themselves with other beings and ‘’from these first distinctions arose on the one side vanity and contempt and on the other shame and envy’’ (Rousseau pg. 90). Although in early stages of society ‘’amour-propre is morally neutral’’ (O Hagan, 1999, pg. 162) Rousseau suggests that it is the true cause of society’s discontent.

This is due to the pathologies that develop from the first distinctions of men. These first distinctions also gave way to the prestige of status; status is the main ambition behind the trait of amour-propre; the egocentric need to prove your importance and standing in society. From this point, amour-propre becomes more established within human behaviour and becomes a major influence on the development of society. The pathologies, such as vanity and pride, then have a chance to develop. The overpowering nature of these pathologies begins to overshadow the fundamental needs for survival.

As the influence of these pathologies grows, human beings initial drive becomes overwhelmed by their reliance on artificial needs. Although the initial drive for status can create a healthy competition, this drive can quickly become vehement and deceitful as we start to expect it from others. Moreover, the progress of these pathologies shows how our nature changes due to increased influence from amour-propre. In modern society, the omnipresence of amour- propre has changed people from being championed for what they can to do to what they can appear to do.

This increases the amount of influence deceit has on society as people can be held in greater esteem for having the quality of convincing their peers of their abilities rather than showing them in practice. Amour-propre can have more negative effect on society: as the growth inequality increases, this attribute becomes consuming as we become obsessed about our status, esteem and personal possessions. As more sentiment is bestowed on our artificial needs, such as personal possessions, the unreflective attributes of human beings are overshadowed.

Moreover, the need for such possessions becomes more overwhelming, as it gives humans a greater thirst for more materialistic things; as we own more things, our amour-propre not only lets us believe that we rely on such possessions, but more are needed in order to sustain our prestige and esteem. Rousseau gives evidence that these possessions don’t give any substantial happiness to their beholder, however in the Second Discourse: ‘’men would be unhappy at the loss of them, though the possession did not make them happy’’ (Rousseau pg. 8). The envious side of amour-propre is also heightened as competition between peers starts a tit-for-tat relationship on who possesses most of these personal possessions. Furthermore, the role amour-propre plays in society creates social standing, and inequality, by comparing your possessions with others: if you have more possessions, you are held in higher esteem. The more people own, however, the more they tend to rely on such things to maintain their social standing and in a way become enslaved by their personal possessions.

Rousseau highlights this in the Social Contract by claiming ‘’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 pg. 181): Rousseau believes human behaviour is consumed by amour-propre to the extent it enslaves an individual’s very nature. Rousseau also claims that amour-propre acts as a catalyst for the growth of inequality within society. We also become more enslaved to our status the higher we are held in esteem, desperate to maintain societies’ high opinion of ourselves.

Politicians are a good example of this, as their behaviour is constantly scrutinized they are bounded by constantly playing the role that society expects (that of an upstanding and honest role model; their freedom to behave in any manner they want is extinguished by constantly trying to uphold their status. Although it is described as largely negative within the Second Discourse, it is essential for the foundations of society. If humans didn’t have the drive for competition and standing, the socialization between humans would not happen as we require interaction to hold comparison between ourselves and our peers.

Within modern society, the innate drive to better one’s self could stem for the overwhelming nature of the trait. Without this drive, the determination within the human nature may only extend to necessities of survival and not the technological and scientific advances that society has discovered. Although Rousseau argues that many ills that exist in modern society are born through society itself, the advancements in dealing with such problems surely have been spurred on with the drive for recognition and status that is bestowed on people responsible for these advancements.

Amour propre also develops the desire to be respected and acknowledged, and gives us the sense that we matter. As we start to expect eminence from other humans, our nature changes due to ‘’societies which amour-propre runs rampant, people are alienated from their authentic or natural selves’’ (Riley, 2001 pg. 117). Our nature is augmented so much so, we would become vexed if we are individually disregarded in society, as it vitiates our status as a rational human being.

From this viewpoint, amour-propre could be regarded as a fitting trait to tackle the problem of inequality; examples of this in society could be the struggle for inequality in America during the 1960s when the black community fought to improve their status within society and decreased the level of inequality within the country. This concept is somewhat counter intuitive, however, as it suggests amour-propre spurs on inequality but also reduces it. Amour-propre is the intrinsic need for distinction within society.

The egocentric trait is fundamental in the development of human beings as it gives us a drive not only for this distinction but also gives rise to inequality due to its competitive nature. As each human being is only concerned with their own status, conflict and inequality are increased as people develop a competitive nature due to the need for prestige. This has led to amour-propre playing a pivotal role within society. Due to the overwhelming nature of the trait, social class and rank have developed which has led to an unequal society that is driven solely by the need to surpass ur peers. Moreover, the fundamental needs for survival are overshadowed by the reliance human beings have for artificial needs such as personal possessions. Bibliography The Social Contract and Discourses, Jean Jacques Rousseau, 1913, Everyman Publishing, Guernsey C. I The Blackwell Philosopher Dictionaries, A Rousseau Dictionary, NJH Dent 1992 Blackwell Publishing, Oxford The Cambridge Companion to Rousseau, Patrick Riley, 2001, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Rousseau, Timothy O Hagan, 1999, Routledge Publishing London

Looking to the science of the day, Hobbes determined that there was no soul and attempted to describe human nature as pure mechanics. Human nature was therefore driven by the need to satisfy the physical demands of the body and based on basic passions in life. These are to satisfy physical appetites, to seek power to maintain their wealth and to be superior to others by seeking glory. Hobbes saw the state nature as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. ” The state of nature is anarchy, with constant violence (or potential violence) by amoral leaders terrorizing the population.

Reason is the answer that will lead to a social contract and government. Individuals will give up their individual rights and freedoms to secure peace. Morality and property can then be dictated by the state, since human nature is not equipped to handle those concepts without conflict. This will allow each person to then pursue their own self-interests without fear of violence. The sovereign authority is the office or institution of government that is contracted by the people. It is the artificial construct onto which the powers are conveyed by the social contract.

The only limits to the sovereign’s powers are self-imposed, since it must exist outside of the population; although it should always strive for the good of the people to remain legitimate. Civil law is dictated by the sovereign. Civil law should be designed to promote well-being and progress for society with appropriate punishments for law breakers. Hobbes believed in an absolute monarchy. By making one man in charge, it would make it easy for the people to understand their roles and obey laws.

With no confusing dissension or contrary views, people do not have to waste time and effort making political decisions; after all, that’s why they entered the social contract in the first place. He did not, however, believe in the ‘divine right’ or hereditary kings; the contract was conveyed upon an ancestor, which has no bearing on the legitimacy of the heir to rule. Although Locke’s views are similar to Hobbes’, they are not quite as grim and fearful. Similar to Hobbes, he believes that people are naturally free and equal. Locke believes that man is social by nature and is naturally moral, rational and egoistic.

In a state of nature, man will generally act with a mutual trust and respect and honor their commitments and obligations to other. Although he emphasizes these positive traits of humanity, he recognizes that since that is not always the case, people will need to form a type of social contract to preserve their rights and liberties. For Hobbes, natural law is a selfish state where people do not recognize the rights of others’ property and liberty. Locke believes that, although they don’t always act in accordance with it, man inherently knows right from wrong and are capable of acting in a lawful manner.

The goal of government is to preserve the rights to life, liberty, health and property of its society and to pursue the public good even where this may conflict with the rights of individuals. It is also to punish wrongdoers and transgressors of the laws it sets for the common good. Since ones path to salvation and religious preferences fall outside those boundaries, government should not enforce or espouse any one form of religion over another. Class and hierarchy is a natural outgrowth of Locke’s views on property.

Credited as the founder of the “Protestant work ethic”, Locke believed that those who worked hard will possess more. By agreeing to have money be an equalizing factor for trade, this will naturally contribute to some having more wealth than others. This is fine and natural, as long as the producers are working without injustice or injury to others. In retrospect, Locke may be considered the father of feminism. Although he still believed women should be subordinate to men, he also noted that women were capable of rationality and equally shared in the paternal power of raising children.

Most notably, he claimed that marriage was a contract entered into by both parties and that both should be able to dissolve the contract at will; it took almost 300 years for society to catch up and instigate no fault divorces. Locke believed government should be formed with both an executive and legislative branches. The legislative determines the laws and may assign judicial, or magistrates, to exercise it. The executive is responsible for enforcing the laws and conducting foreign affairs. There should be a system of checks and balances between the two branches, to avoid despotism and illegitimate governments.

Since a monarchy puts the power of both branches into one person, Locke believed all monarchies to be illegitimate forms of government. By advocating some form of representative or democratic government, society can insure that there representatives are working in their best interests. Despotism occurs when either of the two branches of government exceed their authority and begin acting against the benefit of the people. Civil society can then remove the offenders from office through their electoral process or agree to set up a new form of government.

When the people are denied these means to choose their government, violent revolution may be the answer. Rousseau believes that the state of nature is solitary existence guided by two principles – self-preservation and compassion. Social interactions were driven by the necessity to satisfy their own needs; war and aggression would be unlikely, since primitive man’s compassion drove him to avoid suffering of others. Civilization and establishment of nuclear families led to the beginnings of society, which corrupted the state of nature and led to human nature.

Human nature is based on oppression and inequality, the haves dominating over the have nots. Society and governments were established to protect the rights and properties of the few landowners without regard to the rights of the laborers. His path to liberation is paved with a just, moral civil society that works for the benefit of all of its members. People must draw on their compassion and work towards the good of society, rather than selfish goals. In this manner, a social contract can be formed that will benefit all of society.

Rousseau’s social contract involves an overhaul of civilization and a community that is willing to that is willing to forfeit all of their rights. Although not necessarily a violent revolution, he suggests that liberated people form a new community and create a government. This moral body of citizens would only consider the greater good and not selfish, private interests. He does not envision this to be without economic inequality, however, as long as it does not interfere with political equality; there should not be a situation where one man is able to buy or sell a vote.

The basis of legislative power is the general will of the people. Although entrance into the community must be unanimous, voting is done by majority. All citizens must participate in open discussion before voting. Votes should only be counted from those expressing the general will; those voting based on selfish interests should be discounted, although no practical way of knowing or enforcing this is described. Since authority and freedoms all reside within the general will, transgressors against the general will can be coerced or forced to liberate themselves.

There are underlying conditions necessary for the formation of the social contract. There must be a legislator, a divinely enlightened man who will lead the community into an understanding of its true public interest. He initiates the contract and then retires before he can be corrupted. A civil religion is necessary, one that does not divide the community’s loyalties. The civil religion is founded on the way of life of the citizens, including customs and traditions. It must include belief in God, immortality of the soul and the social contract.

The society must be small, modeled after the polis, and agricultural in nature, rather than founded on commerce or industry. The executive institutions are the bureaucracy of the sovereign. The magistrate lays down the laws and is supported by policeman and jailors. The censor is in charge of compliance with the civil religion, using education to guide people. The censor monitors the arts and sciences to insure people are not whiling away their time and distraction themselves from the common good.

Two other offices may be used in exigent circumstances to allow for checks on the government. A tribunate can be used to limit the magistrate or a dictator can be used as supreme commander in war or natural disasters. Government should take the form of a republic, with full participation in the legislature and delegation of authority for the executive. Depending on the wealth and size of the state, monarchy, non-hereditary aristocracy or democracy could be acceptable forms of executive. Rousseau was adamant that men and women were vastly different and should be educated appropriately.

Men should learn a trade and how to become an enlightened citizen. Women should learn how to raise children, tend house and be a good wife. He did not consider women rational enough to be citizens. Education is not to be done by rote memorization, but is instead to take the form of exploration and learning through experience. In direct response to Rousseau, Wollstonecraft argues that educating women in the same fashion as men makes them better able to function in the roles of wife, mother and daughter.

She argues that virtues are not gender specific, but without equal education, women cannot achieve virtues founded on knowledge. Since education begins in the home and mothers were to raise the children, women must be educated to be better mothers and provide their children with necessary education. Wollstonecraft sees human nature as truly equal, including equality between the sexes. The basic capacities of all humans are the same for reason and knowledge and the difference between the sexes has arisen out of the societal constructs that separate them.

She supported the concept of a social contract, albeit with the inclusion of women as fully realized citizens. She did not believe that either a monarchy or aristocracy could be a legitimate form of government since it perpetuates the subordination of women. She considers property to be as one of the ills of society because it gives rise to the societal problems, which contribute to keeping women ignorant and subordinate. Civil society must be founded on reason, which women are as capable of as men given the proper opportunities and education.

In Social Contract, Jean-Jacques Rousseau draws some interesting conclusions and makes some very interesting points about the dynamic that human beings have to go through when dealing with each other. His main points in the book have to do with the fact that men are not meant to be held down, nor or they meant to be restrained in any way. Instead, men were meant to run free and be able to make their own decisions as much as they possibly can.

I think that this book takes the completely complicated question of human nature and breaks it down in a way that is a little bit easier to understand. The first and most prevalent point in the book is about how people are not meant to be held down or restrained. According to the thoughts of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, freedom and liberty are things that help both people and societies thrive and survive. More than anything else, people desire this type of freedom because it makes them feel like they can do what they were meant to do.

In my opinion, this is a driving force for societies. Because of human nature and how we are wired, people are not meant at all to be held down and they are not meant to have to conform to what society tells them to conform to. When a society feels like they are being held down or enslaved by another group of people, it is just a natural thing to want to break free of that oppression and spread their wings. This book also takes an interesting look at the role of government and how it impacts the way people treat each other.

Like many of the prevalent thinkers of his time, Rousseau holds onto the opinion that big government is a limiting factor instead of being something that has a positive impact on the people it purports to help. With that in mind, government should be limited as much as possible, especially when there is a chance that some sort of corruption exists underneath the surface. I think this is a cynical way to look at life, but given the circumstances that were around for Rousseau and many of his fellow thinkers, it is easy to see where one might be compelled to think this way.

I don’t think that it is necessarily healthy to hold onto this opinion in terms of today’s government, but there are some very interesting lessons that can be gleaned. This book takes the opportunity to touch on a number of political topics and how they affect people and it does not miss. The author obviously has a healthy fear of big government, which was extremely important during his time. I think that the consideration of force among peoples is an extremely important consideration, as well.

Individuals can either conform to force as it confronts them or they can take the forces in their way and direct them. I think that it is difficult for most people to grasp having unnecessary force being put on them. As the author wrote in the first part of the book, men were not made to be enslaved, so that is not a natural thing for them to have to put up with. This understanding is essential to getting to know human beings and further, understanding society at large.