Rousseau vs. Marx Essay examples

These early humans were naturally solitary, lacking a common language with which to communicate. In this stage of human development, men and women had intercourse as result of instinct and happenstance, parting with a similar apathy towards each other. In fact, the bond between mother and child was also transient; as soon as the child becomes self-sufficient, they part ways forever. Thus, a man would never even know if he fathered children. Monogamy is impossible in this model- men and women would have multiple partners governed by convenience rather than any meaningful bond. Rousseau asserts that monogamy is a social construct, only developing when men and women start building homes and living together. The rise of monogamy, and thus the family unit, ensures that men are truly the fathers of their children, establishing a desire to pass on values and possessions in a family. Combined with the inception of private property, this development marks an important step to arriving to modern

To understand the kind of man Jean-Jaques Rousseau was we must first understand the time in which he existed. Rousseau was born in Geneva on June 12, 1712, which is why his book was seen as perverse and edgy to most of the public. He reveals everything from his sexual encounters as a young man to his promiscuity as an adult. This autobiography that Rousseau wrote is about a man at the end of his life accounting all the events that took place from childhood to adulthood. The book begins with his childhood and feelings of a father who never fully loved him in the beginning. He thinks this is due to the fact that his mother was killed during childbirth. "He seemed to see her again in me, but could

Both Marx and Rousseau disagree with the classical liberal tradition and offer alternatives. Unlike the classical liberal tradition which is built on the ideas of individual natural rights, Marx and Rousseau believe that there is no such thing as rights by nature. Rousseau believed that you cannot talk about rights until there is consent. He also said that no individual has a claim to anything. For people to have rights in Rousseau’s eyes everyone must sit down as equals in a community and make a unanimous decision on the rights people have. Rousseau calls this the social construct. Marx believed that humans do not have rights by nature and that if you look to the past it will show that there have always been people ruling over others.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a Swiss-born French Enlightenment thinker most famous for the 1762, “The Social Contract.” “The Social Contract” is Rousseau’s most valued work due to its ties within the French Revolution.

Man being in the state of nature causes tyranny and in the end does cause some inequality among men, whether or not it changes the moral code of society is the bigger question. Although Rousseau does not believe that inequality exists in the state of nature he wrote a whole essay answering the question of where does man originate from and is he equal in the state of nature?

Rousseau thought that man was born weak and ignorant, but virtuous. It is only when man became sociable that they became wicked. (Cress, 80) Since civil society makes men corrupt, Rousseau advocated “general will”, more precisely the combined wills of each person, to decide public affairs. General will would become the sovereign and thus it would be impossible for its interests to conflict with the priorities of the citizens, since this would be doing harm to itself. Virtue came from the freedom of men to make decisions for the good of the

In this essay, I will compare the contrasting views between Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jacques Rousseau based on the state of nature and civilization. Rousseau was seen as an optimist who viewed human nature as good (“Noble Savage”) and believed that civilization corrupted us; While, Hobbes thought the complete opposite believing that humans in their natural state were selfish creatures purely interested in themselves and that government is imperative in keeping us in check. Throughout this essay, I will further explain their differing ideas and I will show how I view and interpret them as well.

     Jean Jacques Rousseau stated that the view of science, art, and social institutions has corrupted humankind. He also stated that natural state is morally greater than civilized state. Later he stated that it is more important to express yourself than to hold back on becoming a unique individual (Hampshire, 149).

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

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

He refutes Hobbes’ idea that man is naturally seeking to attack and fight by saying that man in the state of nature is actually man in his most timid form. He states that savage man’s needs are so basic (food, shelter, water, a woman) and easily found that he can have “neither foresight or curiosity”. By this man he means that man lacks the expansive nature that Hobbes’ believed they possessed (natural eternal quest for power). He continues on man’s basic nature adding “With passions so minimally active and such a salutary restraint, being more wild than evil, and more attentive to protecting themselves from the harm they could receive than tempted to do harm to others, men were not subject to very dangerous conflicts.” This is rather opposite of the state of nature in which Hobbes calls man in a constant war with man. He argues, that without society, in fact, that man would be much more pure and that the ills of society have dirtied man. He believed that human nature is very comparable to that of an animal in that it is at its based even natured, but that the separating factor between the two is free will. He argues that since society calls for more cooperation between men, it also causes more competition, creating many of society ills. Rather than saying man fled from the state of nature like Hobbes, Rousseau rather said that man needed society for division of labor as well as the division

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.

Hobbes claims that man has desires for order and security inborn. In order to prevent poverty and suffering, people took a part in a contract. In other words, it is an agreement among people through which ordered society maintained. They willingly leave all their rights and independence to the authority because of the social contract which states obedience. In Leviathan, Hobbes states that “The mutual transferring of right is that which men call contract” (93). On the other hand, for Rousseau, after people began to live together, property is invented and the invention of property means that humanity fall from grace out of the state of nature and people surrendered their freedoms and rights to the society as a whole that Rousseau termed as general will. However, this problem is solved by the social contract. According to The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right, he endeavours to mention that “Find a form of association that will bring the whole common force to bear on defending and protecting each associate’s person and goods, doing this in such a way that each of them, while uniting himself with all, still obeys only himself and remains as free as before”(11). Consequently, Hobbes’ social contract depends on the submission, on the other hand Rousseau’s social contract based on the

Rousseau believes that modern society must be judged by the virtue of its citizens. As he is trying to reverse the progressivism of the Enlightenment, Rousseau suggests that our social frenzy diverts and corrupts us. According to him, modern people cannot be trusted or loved, and are not capable of knowing, as they seek to be virtuous without actually becoming virtuous. On the other hand, Rousseau’s natural man can be defined as the primal identity of subject and object. Natural man is solitary, is distinguished from animals by his free will, has no concepts of morality, and gradually transitions from the state of nature to state of society. In order to emerge from the state of nature, one could benefit from two forms of self-love: amour de soi or amour-propre. Amour de soi is a natural form of self-love in that it does not depend on the love of others. Rousseau claims that by nature, people have a natural feeling of love toward ourselves and one another. We naturally look after our own preservation and interests. By contrast, amour-propre is an unnatural self-love that is essentially relational. Without amour-propre, human beings would not be able to move beyond the pure state of nature

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.