People have been yielding their basic moral and social rights to a higher power and the concept of a divine being for centuries. In 360 B.C.E., Plato’s Symposium discussed higher power in human culture and, in 1762 Jean-Jacques Rousseau discussed the same concept from a different perspective in The Social Contract. It is significant because, despite the long passage of time between these texts and today, people still yield to a higher power in modern society. In Plato’s Symposium, the idea that the gods hold ultimate power over human life shapes the actions of those in a society. Every aspect of life, from creation to the body’s physical shape to death, is controlled by the gods and could be taken at any moment if humans overstep the boundaries …show more content…
The sovereign power being God or the gods in both cases and the united society being the yielding of rights in favor of mutual benefit for all members of society. These rights are yielded not from physical force but out of a convenience and moral beliefs. Plato and Rousseau emphasize God’s or the gods’ ultimate control over the lives of humans. Both also give the reason for human obedience to the higher power being love, fear, and hope. The humans in Plato’s writing and the citizens in Rousseau’s writing seek to benefit themselves and they ultimately do by giving up some individual right to the whole. However, while Plato focuses more on the emotional aspects of a higher power and obedience, Rousseau focuses on survival and benefit as the reason for the obedience to a higher power. Plato inadvertently describes a hierarchy of power while explaining an origin story (Plato 63-66). On the other hand, Rousseau deliberately presents each level in the hierarchy and justification for each. Both Plato and Rousseau put God or the gods as the highest power with human and then other creatures below them (Rousseau 14-15). The hierarchy of power outlined by Rousseau and Plato is significant because it is still relevant in modern times. Modern culture, specifically the majority of the United States follows a hierarchy of power with God at the top, humans beneath God, and animals below humans. This form is exactly like Plato’s and Rousseau’s power structure. The yielding of individual right to benefit as a whole can also be found in modern culture. The social hierarchy defined by Plato and Rousseau is seemingly timeless and applicable to almost every
In the meantime while Rousseau was crafting both of his publications, Discourse on the Origin and Foundation of Inequality Among Men & The Social Contract, France was heading into a revolution that no one would have ever expected. Both Rousseau and Emmanuel Sieyes, a political theorist, came up with the general idea that men should be free and that power should be evenly distributed to form a better nation. But whose version on the way that society be governed is correct, Machiavelli or Rousseau? Machiavelli wanted a prince to be head of a power nation while Rousseau argued for a more governed society with equality being the main issue. Machiavelli’s
Jean-Jacques Rousseau was an Enlightenment thinker during the eighteenth century and is most noted for his work The Social Contract. The Social Contract published in 1762 and is a philosophical document that expresses the ideas of popular sovereignty. Popular Sovereignty is a form of government in which “the doctrine that sovereign power is vested in the people and that those chosen to govern, as trustees of such power, must exercise it in conformity with the general will.” This is basically a fancy way of saying that the people have the power of authority of their government and the people should decide how they are governed. Like The Social Contract, the Declaration of Independence is a document that sets out to explain the relationship between a government and its people based on an an understanding of that relationship. The Declaration of Independence was composed by Thomas Jefferson in 1766, and shares many of the same ideals as The Social Contract. The Social Contract and the Declaration of Independence are more similar than different because Jean-Jacques Rousseau influenced John Locke, whose Social Contract Theories directly influenced Thomas Jefferson during the writing of the Declaration of Independence.
In Rousseau’s critique of Moliere, he sees Moliere as being a perfect author. Moliere incorporates betrayal and distortion to stir the emotions and gain our interest, as well as sympathy. Rousseau feels that Moliere doesn’t help society, instead, he harms it. The reason is because Moliere is bringing down the value of society by using politics and comedy together. People are starting to see their flaws as being acceptable due to the content they see in Moliere’s work.
What entity dictates life on the most fundamental level? Is it the government or the people who permit the government to exist? This is the main point of contention between Baron de Montesquieu 's Spirit of Laws and Jean-Jacques Rousseau 's On the Social Contract. Interestingly, their interpretation of different forms of government converge on the sovereignty of a democracy, but that is where most of their common ground lies. While Rousseau shares similarities on the sovereign authority of a democracy with Montesquieu, he departs by arguing how regardless of government, sovereignty always rests in the hands of the people. He also disagrees on how the populace should participate in the democracy and on their representation in government, making his principles more relevant today.
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
Modern day power originates from the mind in that we give certain figures power based upon man-made forms of value or worth like money. The definition of power has fluctuated throughout time, and while the past may have emphasized the more violent aspects, today, we have shifted towards a more control based interpretation. Both Michael Foucault and John Berger delve into the idea of power and its functionality. Based on their texts, in our current socio-cultural setting, power is best exploited when the concept behind the power is deindividualized for many purposes, internalized by the people, and integrated throughout society to the point that its origins is mystified.
Even if a state were to have these basic premises in place, there must be institutions that allow for the prosperity of a democratic government. The democratic government, according to Rousseau consists of a legislative power and an executive power. While the legislative power belongs solely to the people (for they are the ones responsible for making the law), the executive power belongs solely to the Sovereignty. Along with this, Rousseau describes four types of law present in a democracy: political, civil, criminal and mores. These laws are in place to regulate relationships. Political laws regulate the relationship between the sovereign and the state, civil laws are for the relationship between the subjects, the relationship between man and law is regulated by criminal law and finally, and according to Rousseau, most importantly are mores laws which “preserves a people in the spirit of its institutions” and thus all other laws depend on this one.
99). Rousseau viewed property as a right “which is different from the right deducible from the law of nature” (Rousseau, p. 94). Consequently, “the establishment of one community made that of all the rest necessary…societies soon multiplied and spread over the face of the earth” (Rousseau, p. 99). Many political societies were developed in order for the rich to preserve their property and resources. Rousseau argues that these societies “owe their origin to the differing degrees of inequality which existed between individuals at the time of their institution,” (Rousseau, p. 108). Overall, the progress of inequality could be constructed into three phases. First, “the establishment of laws and of the right of property” (Rousseau, p. 109) developed stratification between the rich and poor. Then, “the institution of magistracy” and subsequently “the conversion of legitimate into arbitrary power” (Rousseau, p. 109) created a dichotomy between the week and powerful, which ultimately begot the power struggle between slave and master. According to Rousseau, “there are two kinds of inequality among the human species…natural or physical, because it is established by nature…and another, which may be called moral or political inequality, because it… is established…by the consent of men,” (Rousseau, p. 49).
The political philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx examined the role that the state played and its relationship to its citizen’s participation and access to the political economy during different struggles and tumultuous times. Rousseau was a believer of the concept of social contract with limits established by the good will and community participation of citizens while government receives its powers given to it. Karl Marx believed that power was to be taken by the people through the elimination of the upper class bourgeois’ personal property and capital. While both philosophers created a different approach to establishing the governing principles of their beliefs they do share a similar concept of eliminating ownership of
Machiavelli and Rousseau, both significant philosophers, had distinctive views on human nature and the relationship between the government and the governed. Their ideas were radical at the time and remain influential in government today. Their views on human nature and government had some common points and some ideas that differed.
At some point they cannot survive by themselves and everyone needs to come together for the common good In giving everything to the community the individual receives everything he or she has lost plus "more power to preserve what he has" (189). Lives must be lived in and for the group; the life as an individual must be merged into the life of the state, and the people must be involved in all aspects of government. There can be no clubs, separate churches, power groups, or political parties, because these would create separate rights for individuals, and give some individuals more power than others. By creating this, Rousseau annihilates power struggles between the rights of a group and individual rights. In this system, there is no one ruler of the community. A citizen who puts his or her community first is ruler, and ruled. The political government is one united system, it does what the community wants it to do.
Locke indicates that, by giving up some of one's rights, the state gains legislative power and is obliged to use this power to make laws that benefit the people, who hired it. Locke writes that, "This legislative is not only the supreme power of the common-wealth, but sacred and unalterable in the hands where the community have once placed it...over whom no body can have a power to make laws, but by their own consent, and by authority received from them." (XI 134) Rousseau argues that the state should not be able to acquire legislative power, but simply acts as an executive. He claims that the legislative power comes from the people, for the sovereign is simply the general will of everyone, in which the state should obey and enforce. Rousseau states that, "Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme control of the general will, and, as a body, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole" ( ), showing that the aggregate mind of the people, the general will, has the legislative power as "all" powers are given to it.
Each and every society requires some order of a governing association. Whether the majority of the citizens rule together or whether very few magistrates control the whole of the community, there is always some type of underlying power controlling the public. Without a government or a constitution, individuals would be more enthralled to pursue their own individual will rather than a general will that would be favorable for the society as an entity. Therefore, authority is crucial within every nation. Each society throughout history has gone through the process of forming a government and taking precautions in order to establish an ideal government for the State. Throughout The Social Contract, Rousseau discusses the different concepts that a government in progress must consider before establishment and the reasons behind each notion. Rousseau examines three
Knowing this, one might look at the function it serves. For Jean-Jacques Rousseau, religion, specifically a civil religion established by the Sovereign, is an instrument of politics that serves a motivating function. In a new society people are unable to understand the purpose of the law.
Despite this qualification, an elected aristocracy based in popular sovereignty is Rousseau’s ideal form of government. In an elected aristocracy the wisest govern the many which is ideal so long as they govern for the profit of the state and not for their own selfish goals. Assemblies are more easily held and issues are better discussed, both ingredients for a strong state ruled by the people. A government composed of popularly elected magistrates and a legislator are the key features of Rousseau’s state. Rousseau said “He who has command over men ought not to have command over laws, or else his laws would be the ministers of his passions and would serve to perpetuate injustices.” The legislator is necessary because although citizens want what is best for the collective, they do not usually think about what specifically would be best.