Compare And Contrast Thomas Paine And The Era Of Enlightenment

Government is necessary in all societies. The government offers citizens protection if the citizens agree to conform to the laws put into place. Laws are put into place to keep order and to protect people from hurting themselves. Without government there would be no laws or order and all societies would have complete chaos. There are many different forms of government and all leaders run their societies in different ways.

When Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote his Social Contract, the idea of liberty and freedom were not new theories. Many political thinkers such as John Locke and Thomas Hobbes had already evolved with their own clarification of liberty and freedom of mankind, and in fact John Locke had already publicized his views and ideas on the social contract as well. In Rousseau’s case, what he did was to transform the ideas incorporated by such substantial words, and present us to another method to the social contract dilemma. What would bring man to leave the state of nature, and enter into a structured civil society? Liberals believes that this was the assurance of protection - liberty to them implied being free from destruction and harm towards one’s property. Rousseau’s concept of freedom was entirely different from that of traditional liberals. According to Rousseau, liberty is meant to voice out your opinion, and participation as human being. “To renounce liberty is to renounce being a man” (Wootton, 454).

The Enlightenment era was a new intellectual movement that stressed reason and thought and the power of individuals to solve problems. Even though different philosophers approached their goal differently, they achieved it none the less. They all approached their goal differently due to their different upbringings, their different backgrounds, and most importantly their different environments. A few among the many enlightened thinkers were Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Baron Do Montesquieu, and Jean Jacques Rousseau. While some of their idea’s are not used in modern society, they were all instrumental to the modern society we live in today.

The 1770s proved to be a time of much chaos and debate. The thirteen colonies, which soon gained their independence, were in the midst of a conflict with Great Britain. The colonies were suffering from repeated injuries and usurpations inflicted upon them by the British. As a result of these inflictions, Thomas Paine and Patrick Henry addressed these injustices, and proved to be very persuasive through providing reasoning and evidence that moved many colonists to believe that to reach contentment and peace the colonies had to rid themselves of British rule. Henry and Paine were successful in swaying their audience, not only because of the rhetorical strategies used, but also because they were passionate about the cause they were committed

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

Thomas Paine was an English-born political philosopher and writer. The Crisis, published in December 1776, is one of his writings. Paine wrote this document for the American people to persuade them to believe that freedom is worth fighting for. Even though the overall passage has a straightforward message, the reader can also understand that not everyone was able to keep fighting.

In this book, Rousseau aims to discover why people gave up their liberty and how political authority became legitimate. In his case, sovereignty is vesting in the entire populace, who enter into the contract directly with one another. He explained, “The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remains as free as before.” That was the fundamental problem which Social Contract provides the solution.

In 1776, America was starting stand to up against the British government. America hated being taxed and having to house the solders. The British thought that the taxes that was imposed on the colonies was normal, their people were used to paying, but the colonies were so angry about the constant taxes. They rebelled against the government and it eventually led to a revolution. During that time period Thomas Paine, one of the American founding fathers, an English-American political activist, philosopher, political theorist, and revolutionary was in favor of declaring independence from Britain. In the doing, he wrote a phaplet called Common Sense that was meant for the colonial people to be inspired to revolt against Britain. Charles Inglis, Irish clergyman and bishop, responded to Thomas Paine’s Common sense with The Interest of America. From these two I will compare the two and decided who’s argument is more persuasive and if I would be a revolutionist in 1776.

Rousseau establishes the Social Contract (Compact) that will provide the solution for a protective community of free individuals, who submit their freedoms or duties to the betterment of the whole collective body. While the individual is still free to conduct his life in freedom, the same citizen has a requirement to conduct business and make decisions that will be what’s best for the body. If everyone in the body commits to the arrangements of the contract, then the general members will have no problems with compelling to the political structure (Rousseau pg. 11).

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

Throughout “The Age of Reason,” Thomas Paine gives several examples for why he is opposed to Christianity. Before I began reading this essay, I was absolutely positive that I was going to disagree with every point that Paine had to make and every opinion that he expressed. It did not take long for me to realize that I had made the wrong assumption. There was more than one occasion while reading “The Age of Reason” that I discovered I actually agreed with Paine's opinion/belief. This encouraged me to read “The Age of Reason” once again, but this time with an open-mind. I decided that I would also take notes on the similarities and differences between Paine's worldview and mine.

To better understand Rousseau’s thesis and social contract he proposed, we must first understand why Rousseau felt compelled to write and his main criticism of society during the 18th century. In sum, Rousseau argued that states (specifically France, though never explicitly stated) have not protected man’s right to freedom or equality. Rousseau began The Social Contract in dramatic fashion. He wrote, “man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains” (1). This quote is still used today, and is a powerful description of Rousseau’s central issue with society. He believed that every man is “born” naturally free—he has full autonomy and can do what he chooses. However, Rousseau argued that man is bound to the injustices of society.

By joining civil society and becoming a part of the general will, man is enriching his actions with a morality and rationality that was previously lacking. As he states in Book I, Chapter VIII, “although in this state he deprives himself of several advantages given to him by nature, he gains such great ones…that changed him from a stupid, limited animal into an intelligent being and a man” (Rousseau 56). What man posses in nature is an unlimited physical freedom to pursue everything that tempts him, although this is viewed by Rousseau as almost an enslavement towards one’s own instincts. In a civil state man is benefited by “substituting justice for instinct in his behaviour and giving his actions the morality they previously lacked” (Rousseau 54). In acting in accordance with the general will man is granted the most important form of all freedoms, civil freedom.

How to Create Social Contract for a Free Nation. Before the Declaration of Independence or the French revolution, a man named Jean Jacques Rousseau created “The Origin of Civil Society”, which would be a catalyst for the creation of democracy as it is seen today. This analysis will show how Rousseau believed that civil society is a concept that can be reached; but only when we go against our human nature and establish a social contract that would be for the people’s best interest. Rousseau begins his document by writing a short prompt about how he was trying to figure out if there was a way to have a stable government that was civil and what the framework of that society would look like (Rousseau).

What is government? Government is a person or group of people who control and make decisions for a country. It has a number of particular roles to help make a country survive and function successfully. I believe that without the roles a government provides a country would not function and would eventually fail. Therefore, I think government is necessary because without it there would not be any provided protection, resources, and regulations.