Jean Jacques Rousseau And Friedrich Nietzsche

Rousseau believed that to uplift ourselves out of the state of nature, man must partake in the course of being the sovereign that provided the protection. The contrast between Rousseau’s concepts and those of the liberals of his time, originated with different understandings and interpretations of the state of nature. Classical liberal thinkers like Thomas Hobbes defined the state of nature as an unsafe place, where the threat of harm to one’s property was always an existent. He

Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau were the giants during the 19th century American Transcendentalism movement. Their influential work brought upon shared beliefs on concerning spiritual perspectives, government interference, and the ideology of cultural values in American society. Nature has a multitude of meaning if looked at it from all angles, but deeper within nature is the reflection of what you exert while in it. However they agree on the human condition, the two authors speak with different tones that reflect how nature affects the entirety of man’s spirit. While both Emerson and Thoreau practice the spirit of the human condition, Emerson focused his energy on how “[nature’s] philosophical import [is]…unchanged by man” (215.) where Thoreau implied that we are “subjects of an experiment” (1051).

Rousseau maintained that compassion is required for mutual preservation; concern for each other is our ultimate security. But a materialistic society has desensitised us, stifling our compassionate nature.7

Rousseau’s assumptions and beliefs of his era are society and the growth of social interdependence. He was from 1700, (1712-78) it was very different compared to our beliefs.

Leadership is the most important quality for the head of any nation, or any other political leader. To be a good leader, you must have many attributes that qualify you for such a huge responsibility. There are good crisis leaders who would fail in a period of "calm." What is clear, is that leadership is a complicated concept. We have consistently found that good leaders have passion and values, confidence yet humility, knowledge and realism; Having these attributes and the ability to use them and develop them in others is the foundation for reaching goals and being successful in a leadership position. Henry David Thoreau and Niccolo Machiavelli are two men who have influenced some of the most influential people in the world, as the two were writing to different audiences, it 's easy to see why their ideologies might clash or unite; Henry Thoreau and Niccolo Machiavelli both use an abundant amount of rhetorical strategies in both of their stories, including ethos, pathos, and logos; both of the stories also have their fair share of differences.

Rousseau believes that even when one votes in the minority they can obey the law and still be free. But, “how can the opposing minority be both free and subject to laws to which they have not consented?” (Rousseau, pg. 153) Rousseau’s response is that citizens must consent to all the laws because “ to inhabit the territory is to submit to the sovereign.”(Rousseau, p.153) In accordance with the social contract, when a citizen votes they should completely surrender their personal interest and vote for what they believe to be the general will. The general will of each individual is considered to be their real will when it comes to social policy. The majority vote will depict the general will, and the

Similar to Locke, Rousseau, in his Discourse on Inequality, argues that we must first examine the natural state of man before understanding laws and society. He claims that, by nature, we are compassionate creatures. Rousseau believes that society is undeniably corrupt; he suggests that, to understand the true nature of man, we must rid ourselves of this corruption. Rousseau claims that people living in society are not free. He suggests the civilized world is unauthentic and that we are preoccupied by unattainable desires—that is, to possess everything and be the best. Rousseau introduces the idea of “amour propre” as a way by which man is untrue to himself and to others. He wants to control and dominate his fellow citizens and, by consequence, is enslaved by these desires. Virtues and vices are established with the development of society; the pride which is introduced through

Government is built on the premises of the established ideas of former politicians and then the new outlooks of recent politicians. All ideas on government are based on the structure and laws of former civilizations. Thus, many politicians can have similar viewpoints on government due to basing their ideas on the same former structures. But, in contrast new government structures include a variety of variations. Therefore, Jean Domat, Montesquieu and Jean Jacques Rousseau have major differences in their outlooks on government, but they do share similar aspects.

Topic #1 Jean-Jacques Rousseau makes the provocative claim that the transfer of sovereignty involves in the election of representatives signifies a loss of freedom: "The instant a people chooses representatives, it is no longer free." (On the Social Contract, p.103) Do you agree with Rousseau?

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

In contrast, Rousseau had a generally positive view on human nature though a rather negative view on modern society. He proposed that humans had once been solitary beings and had learned to be political. He believed that human nature was not fixed and was subject to changed. Likewise, he believed that man was good when in a state of nature, but was corrupted by society as shown in his quotation, "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” Also differentiating himself from other humanists, Rousseau taught that the sciences and the arts were not beneficial to man. Rousseau believed the general will must always be right and to obey the general will is to be free.

Though Karl Marx and Alexis de Tocqueville differ, they both contributed greatly to revolutionary concepts of their era. To better understand the analyses between politics, social, and economic changes Marx and Tocqueville discuss, we must first understand the shift of their time and the need for sociological analysis. The 19th century was a time of change and adaptation for everyone and few scholars were capable and willing to understand the impacts these changes would have on society and its entities. Both industrial and democratic revolutions affected their times and created shifts in society. The industrialization affected many aspects of society. It created a structural change in the economy shifting from agrarian income to industrial and commercial income. Technology impacted labour force and production shifting to large-scale manufacturing creating new types of investments. These changes affected class structure, migration, and workers which in turn affected economy and a shift in politics.

     Man has no reason or conscience when in contact with others. Possessions begin to be claimed, but the inequality of skill lead to inequality of fortunes. The idea of claiming possessions excites men’s passions, which provoke conflict and leads to war. Rousseau believes men are not perfect in their original state, but have the ability to live in a more perfect society with guidance of

Rousseau also argued that the growth of societies, due to the race for discovery, caused an increase in self-love (amour propre), which was part of what he saw as being the “empire of opinion”, and vanity. The idea of self-love is defined, amongst other things, by the appearance of being virtuous and by the use of manners, in society. This idea of self-love is fueled by reason and is reinforced by the idea of reflection. For Rousseau, reason is also “what turns man in upon himself3” and what “separates him from all that troubles him and afflicts him4”. The Genevan thinker also argues, within the Discourse on Inequality, that the notion of reason and philosophy strengthen the selfish side of mankind, in society:

On the other hand, Rousseau is of the idea that human beings are good in nature but they are latter to be vitiated by the political societies which are not part of the man’s natural state. Men need to live in collaboration and help each other to face life challenges. However, with the establishment of political and social institutions, men begin to experience inequalities as a result of greed. Rousseau claims that, in man’s natural state, they only strive for the basic needs and once those needs are satisfied they are contented in that state (Hobbes & Malcolm, 2012). Additionally, Rousseau points out that after the inception of social and political institutions, humans began to be self-centered