Compare And Contrast Roosseau And Rousseau

Wollstonecraft seems to agree with Rousseau when she says, “that the female in point of strength is, in general, inferior to the male” (Wollstonecraft, 8). She does not say that all women are inferior in strength to men, nor does she conclude from this that women, being physically inferior, should be dependent on men. Yet, she twists the argument when she says, “in order to preserve their innocence, as ignorance is courteously termed, truth is hidden from them, and they are made to assume an artificial character before their faculties have acquired any strength” (44). This is near contradiction to her previous admission of women’s natural physical inferiority. Her use of the word “faculties” is ambiguous as to whether she means physical or mental faculties, so perhaps, she is arguing that physical inequality could be part of the oppression of women, instead of it all belonging to nature’s fault.

woman should have proper education so that she may exercise her hidden power of the use of

Wollstonecraft transcended the notion that she is simply expressing grievances over the unjust treatment of women establishing herself as an articulate, intellectual thinker with innovative ideas and solutions for progressing society. Through voicing her opinions, Wollstonecraft created a small revolution for women’s rights that would encourage others to begin seeking equal treatment from the men of society.

In addition to education, Wollstonecraft brings the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau to the reader’s attention because he claims that women should not feel independent, and they should be a man’s companion. “…In 1792 the British writer Mary Wollstonecraft directly confronts Rousseau’s views of women and their education…” This “initiated a debate that echoed throughout the centuries followed.” Even today, this debate is still prevalent among both young and old people.

Wollstonecraft doesn’t only attack Rousseau, however. She goes as far to say "that all the writers who have written on the subject of female education and manners-have contributed to render women more artificial, weak characters, than they would otherwise have been; and, consequently, more useless members of society" (21). Although she appears to disagree strongly with Rousseau, I don’t believe that this is always the case. In her writing, Wollstonecraft is not necessarily breaking with Rousseau's central moral position; she is simply demanding that it be extended to women.

Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Woman addresses the causality between a lack of education and a lack of reasonability. She advocates for virtue through reason, rather than virtue over reason. Wollstonecraft argues that the minimal freedom of women has limited their view on life, and thusly, their potential intelligence. In fact, she stipulates “all the difference that I can discern, arises from the superior advantage of liberty, which enables the former [man] to see more of life.” Through this greater exposure to the world, Wollstonecraft argues that man holds greater capacity for the development of a thoughtful mind. She extends this reasoning when asserts that a female who attempts to grow her intellect is quickly quashed through deflection to a life of domestic rules and behavior. Wollstonecraft asserts, “if they have natural sagacity it is turned too soon on life and manners.” In summary, this piece of literature contends that women are shaped into subservient individuals who lack the capacity for original thought and discourse. This is portrayed in her comparison of women to a soldier. “[T]hey may well be disciplined machines, but they seldom contain men under

Rousseau sees the first step of exiting the state of nature and getting closer to origin of tyranny is when man decides to leave the lifestyle of being alone and always wandering to settling down and making a house and trying to provide for his basic needs and the ones that are not as necessary as: nourishment, rest, shelter and self-preservation. This is the stage where you see the element playing a part in man’s life and in the way civil society came to be. Man is no longer just worried about himself he has to provide not only for himself but for his entire family which he is searching for. Natural man or savage man lives within himself whereas Rousseau argues that civil man lives in the judgement of others. This is one of the big reasons has to how inequality fomed. All the inequalities Rousseau does take about or basically economic things that happen in nature. This type of economic ineuality is among the many other inequalities but is one of many that inequality originated from. If man had stayed restricted to working by themselves they would have remained free, healthy, good and happy as

states, “I may be accused of arrogance; still I must declare firmly what I believe that all the writers who have written on the subject of female education and manners from Rousseau to Dr.Gregory have contributed to render women more artificial, weak characters than they would have other wise been; and consequently more useless members of society” (22). Wollstonecraft believed that men who advocated for the trivial education that women received, if they received any education at all, did not even adequately prepare them for the one role that they were allowed, that of a wife.

In Wollstonecraft’s work, she addresses the differences between men and women as being something that should be considered negligible, but instead is used to practically enslave one half of the population. The work details how women are akin to playthings when they lack an education, and that for her to truly be herself and practice her own free will, she must be knowledgeable. However, there are many different kinds of education, Wollstonecraft points out. Men received a formal education, consisting of a proper teaching of many subjects, while also aiding the young men in personal growth. Women, on the other hand, received a much less formal education. In their day to day lives, women observed, they leeched off

From obiendience to the father, to not subordinated to the husband, women are constantly chained with oppression. Rousseau stresses that feelings and passions are directed to the women, and that wit and rationale are for the men. Wollstonecraft, on the other hand, tries to bring together passion and rationale, rather than separating them and dividing one for women and one for men. Instead of trying to imply that women deserve the opportunity to take on the “man's roles,” Wollstonecraft tries to prove that by combinding both traits will better society as a whole. She provides a solution for men to, “generously snap our chains, and be content with rational fellowship instead of slavish obedience, they would find us more obervant daughters, more affectionate sisters, more faithful wives, more senseable mothers- in a word, better citizens” (Wollstoncraft, The Enlightenment Reader, Page 628). Wollstoncraft agrees with Rousseau's ideals of women needing to be good mothers and respectable wives, but she adds that men also need to take up more responsibilities in the household. She continues support the notion that men too need to be good fathers and decent husbands that meet an intellectual partnership with their wives; furthermore, both species can discuss rational thoughts as indistinguishable citizens in the household. It is only when there is gender symmetry in the

Rousseau’s state of nature differs greatly from Locke’s. The human in Rousseau’s state of nature exists purely as an instinctual and solitary creature, not as a Lockean rational individual. Accordingly, Rousseau’s human has very few needs, and besides sex, is able to satisfy them all independently. This human does not contemplate appropriating property, and certainly does not deliberate rationally as to the best method for securing it. For Rousseau, this simplicity characterizes the human as perfectly free, and because it does not socialize with others, it does not have any notion of inequality; thus, all humans are perfectly equal in the state of nature. Nonetheless, Rousseau accounts for humanity’s contemporary condition in civil society speculating that a series of coincidences and discoveries, such as the development of the family and the advent of agriculture, gradually propelled the human away from a solitary, instinctual life towards a social and rationally contemplative

The Age of Enlightenment encouraged writers to break away from conventional thought and express their ideas and opinions through reasoning. Mary Wollstonecraft’s “A Vindication of the Rights of Women” and Marquis de Sade’s “Philosophy in the Bedroom” examine the conventional norms in their respective author’s contemporary societies. In both accounts, Wollstonecraft and Sade prescribe the path humanity should take in order to improve the human condition.

However, when talking about reason as a trait, dictionary.com defines it as “the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences” or “sound judgment; good sense….Logic; a premise of an argument”. Moreover, the word reason can be more distinctly defined as “the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument” when used in philosophy. In VRW, Wollstonecraft supports this definition by saying "All their thoughts turn on things calculated to excite emotion; and, feeling, when they should reason, their conduct is unstable, and their opinions are wavering, not the wavering produced by deliberation or progressive views, but by contradictory emotions. " She is essentially saying that women don’t use logic to come to thought-out conclusions; rather, they are led by unstable emotions. Rousseau also seems to support this definition of reason in the following passage, where he implies that God gave men reason and gave women

Wollstonecraft is not advocating for physical equality because in terms of nature, men are built in a more superior manner. However, one’s mind was not built to be superior or inferior depending on one’s sex. Wollstonecraft states that men have caused women’s minds to be, “rendered weak and wretched” due to the stereotypes that became embedded in minds and cultures for hundreds of years.

Over the course of history this idea of freedom has been developed and defined by many famous political and philosophical thinkers. Many of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s ideas are acknowledged in the “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality” and more notably the “The Social Contract”. John Stuart Mill’s major points originate from a book called “On Liberty”. All of these works are still read today and taught in schools around the world. In particular, their ideas on freedom and liberty have drawn a considerable amount of attention. For instance, Rousseau is well known for his idea of “forcing citizens to be free”, while Mill claims that freedom can be found in “pursing our own good in our own way”. Therefore, it is evident that fundamental differences occur between Rousseau’s and Mill’s ideas on liberty and freedom. Rousseau’s rejects this classical liberal idea of freedom of the individual, and instead argues that the highest quality of freedom is achieved through a social contract where collective decisions represent the law and people have a duty to the state, while Mill sees freedom as not being constrained by the government (freedom from laws) and pursuing one’s own good as long as it does no harm to others.