PHIL 108H~FALL 2012
Exegetical Blog Assignment
ROUSSEAU
Guidelines/Requirements:
1) Write a 50 - 100 word exegetical sentence (critical
analysis, explanation, interpretation) that captures the essence of the readings. Consider
the following: What are the main arguments (explicit and
implicit)? What is the point? Why has
the author tried to communicate something, in that way, and at that time, to
his/her audience?
2) Assumptions/Presuppositions: FIRST, what were YOUR assumptions and
presuppositions coming to this reading?
Then consider: Where does the author stand? What is assumed or taken for
granted in this piece of writing? Who is the assumed audience of this piece? As
a reader, work to pay attention to and discover the values, beliefs, biases,
and assumptions (sometimes overt, sometimes subtle) underlying what you read.
3)
Identifying any significant
insights that you took away from the
reading and/or class discussion (e.g. something you learned, a comment made in class that left
an impression, a paradigm shift, etc.).
Students
are encouraged to think about Rousseau in relation to the other readings
in the class (e.g. Hobbes and Locke). For example, how
would you compare their accounts
of the state of nature, the social contract, the sovereign,
etc.?
Students
are also encouraged to read other student's posts and offer comments.
(You do not have to read every post in the class, but try to read 2-3
and offer comments/feedback.
1. Rousseau also as Hobbes and Locke discusses the state of nature. Yet, for Rousseau, the state of nature is not a state of war nor is it a state of no advantage. In Rousseau’s state of nature, man acts on instinct and that instinct is not necessarily one of competition and conflict. Resources are not scarce and property does not exist, thus his mention of our natural state as one of a lack of competition and war of resources. We choose to enter into a civil society not because the state of nature has no advantage but rather the advantages of the civil state are greater and more substantial. Thus in his social contract we do not give up our freedoms out of fear and want of protection from each other but rather we come into agreement with each other to work toward a common will. The social contract is not burdensome in its restrictions because in Rousseau’s social contract all are equal.
ReplyDelete2. Coming to Rousseau, I expected a difference in theory as compared to Hobbes and Locke. I was rewarded with a rather utopian view of society and our relationship to each other in society. His discussion of the General Will, although preferable to both Hobbes and Locke’s views, was the most disappointing to me. As I understand, the General Will is the general force of society’s opinion, meaning all values and practices we define together as a people, something separate from our private will and motivations. Yet, as Rousseau continues, he becomes muddled. The General Will does not require a majority, so in its essence it is not necessarily general. Now the General Will is what makes up the sovereign power, a power that cannot be opposed (in practice according to Rousseau it could not be opposed because it is created by the people and ultimately is subject to change based on the General Will). Yet, this sovereign rules the people (is not the sovereign made up of the people?). Rousseau addresses this discrepancy in his description of private vs. general will. However, this is where he falls short for me.
(question 3 continued in next post)
3. Thus I am brought to the third question. After our discussions in class, Rousseau’s faults are clear. The private will is the will of the individual, ruled by things like his desire to keep his property or his resources or to keep himself and his loved ones safe. This will is placed aside by the individual when acting as the General Will. However, this to me and as it appeared to the rest of our class, cannot be. The problem is stated clearly in the name of this blog spot. We are all situated thinkers. We all possess a filter, a worldview, a perspective that cannot be placed aside by a simple declaration of that fact. Our “situatedness” is not something we can switch on and off and thus is Rousseau’s theory flawed, thus is his idealism exposed. We are not to be ruled by a general will because no such thing can exist. The will rather will end up being the will of a few powerful people with the common people having no way of influencing or changing that will. Yes, I appear rather cynical of the human race, but it just isn’t practical. No majority of humankind could ever put aside every personal will and approach laws with unbiased objectivity because ultimately, and as most people are aware, the laws they make would be affecting their private wills, their private property, their private lives. I will give an example. If three people are responsible for picking three dodge ball teams and each team is ranked the A team is the best team, the B team is the second best, and the C team is the third best team. Are we then to trust that those three people will not place themselves on the A team or even the B team despite them not deserving it by others perceptions? We are to hope that but in practice that may not necessarily happen. Or even further could we ever get something like fifty-one percent of this country to agree upon all things that govern this country. Yes, maybe once those laws are made we can have fifty-one percent of people agree upon those laws but in the task of actually making those laws from nothing we would soon run into disaster. Thus do I disagree with Rousseau’s idealism; I would prefer Hobbes’ warlike cynicism to Rousseau’s delusion any day.
ReplyDeleteYour answer to number 3 really says it all for me. I could not agree more that people are simply incapable of being completely objective in a situation like this, and that inevitably the "general will" turns into a collective private will for one group or another.
Delete1. Much like Hobbes and Locke, Rousseau also starts his discussion of his political philosophy from the state of nature. However, instead of the bleak outlook that Locke takes on the state of nature, and the downright savage view that Hobbes exposes, Rousseau chooses to take a much more idyllic view of the state of nature. Instead of the state of nature being a place of fierce competition for limited resources, Rousseau instead presents the state of nature as one in which resources are plentiful, peace is the default, and the concept of individual property is totally foreign. In this system, it is the general will that is supreme and society as a whole acts as a sovereign. In this way, Rousseau constructs a system that favors equality and democracy over competition and strife.
ReplyDelete2. Having been extremely disappointed by Hobbes and after feeling that Locke also failed to propose a workable system, I came to Rousseau with the sincere hope that he could present a superior system. In some ways, I do believe that he succeeded in this task. However, like all of those before him (and frankly all of those after him), Rousseau fails in his attempt to establish an ideal system. I greatly enjoyed his views on the state of nature. Locke and Hobbes had left me disillusioned about how humanity would exist without the command of a sovereign. Rousseau, on the other hand, painted such a utopian picture of society that it is hard to imagine this system not working. However, Rousseau lost me at his discussion of property and property rights. To Rousseau, property is little more than a societal construction that does not, in actuality, exist. On this matter, I found myself far more aligned with John Locke. Maybe it is the inner capitalist in me, but the idea that I could not own my own possessions or land was not something that I could even wrap my mind around. The sharing of resources is a great and necessary idea, but at a fundamental level, we can not be forced to surrender resources to another. I was especially confused to hear this concept from Rousseau, a man of much greater resources than most.
3. After reading our third political treatise, the thought struck me: as humans, we have been around for somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 years (give or take.) We have been organized into groups for around 10,000 years. In all this time, we still have not been able to solve our most fundamental problem as a species: how do we govern ourselves? Even more telling was the realization that so many great thinkers have gotten so close, and had they borrowed even an idea or two from another, then they would have gotten substantially closer to a workable solution. Had Rousseau worked in a fundamental protection for property, as John Locke did, I think that I would have enjoyed his work far more. Unfortunately, these two did not live at the same time and never had a chance to meet. Had they had that chance, I think that we would have had a real shot to develop a political system that assumes the basic good in humanity while also protecting our right to own something within this world. As we learn and grow as a species, it is critical that we continue to look back on past ideas and take from them both the wisdom that is undoubtedly inherent in them, as well as learn to avoid the mistakes that were made within them.
Your idea of having the philosophers meet and talk to each other is intriguing. I wonder if Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau together in a room somewhere could formulate the perfect government? I also tend to agree that Rousseau's theories with a Lockeian sort of hard and fast individual protection may be the best outcome.
DeleteIt is hard to wrap your mind the idea of a system lacking the distinctions of property. But as you say later in your post, we haven't been able to solve the problem of how to govern ourselves. Why not give a system not based on individual possessions a chance? True, we have seen the failure of such theories before, namely with Soviet communism. But on the other hand, obsession with property isn't the answer either. Rousseau's system could be just the thing to solve that fundamental problem. Just a thought.
Delete1.There are many differences between Rousseau and the other philosophers we have studied, Hobbes and Locke. Apart from his name being much harder to spell, Rousseau takes a very different view of the initial state of man, the state of nature. He sees it as a much more benevolent state, where property doesn't exist and resources are plentiful, as everything belongs to everyone. Since in Rousseau's work the state of nature is not hell on earth like Hobbes and Locke describe it, a different motivation than pure self-preservation is necessary for people to come together and form a government. This is where Rousseau's idea of the general will comes in.
ReplyDelete2. I had not really heard much about Rousseau before this course. If I can be completely honest though, as soon as I read his name and it sounded French I assumed that he was the more collectivist or left-leaning philosopher. I guess that shows where my biases are. Anyways, there are some glaring inconsistencies that jump out of the reading for me. Chief among them is Rousseau's description of the sovereign and the subjects. Rousseau says that the people are both the sovereigns and the subjects acting in different capacities, and that the government is a sort of go-between for the two. This doesn't make any sense to me, and I think Rousseau could have been more clear about the interaction between the general will and the private will.
3. Ultimately I tend to reject Rousseau's theories as not having sufficient protection for the individual. As I think I mentioned in class, some of his descriptions of the rule of the general will seem like authoritarianism hiding behind the friendly face of democracy. Anytime someone suggests sublimating my personal will to the will of the whole, I get very nervous. The general will does not, and cannot, know my personal situation, my way of thinking, and what I need in my life better than I can. And yet it purports to make policy for the whole society which will supposedly benefit everyone. If it will truly benefit everyone, why does the general will have to force people to do it? Why wouldn't they do something that is to their benefit on their own? The answer, at least to me, is that the general will represents not what is in the general interest, but what is in the majority's interest. For example, stealing from the rich to give to the poor is probably something that a majority of people would approve of, given that there are many more poor people than rich people. However, the general will in this case is clearly not representing the will of everyone, but just the self-interest of the majority.
Duncan, I strongly agree with your answer to the 3rd prompt regarding friendly authoritarianism and government oppression. I don't believe there is such a thing as evenly representing everyone in society. Someone will always get the short end of the stick, and it is usually those who are at odds with majority preferences.
Delete1. While Rousseau’s philosophy has similar elements to that of Hobbes and Locke, such as the comparison of a state of nature to civil society, his interpretation of these elements is quite unique from both. Rousseau’s state of nature seems quite ideal. There is no war and chaos, resources are plentiful, and the notion that anyone could be unequal to another does not exist. Rousseau believes that these hypothetical people will leave their utopian way of life behind for a civil society in order to further the “general will”. In Rousseau’s civil society, he assumes that whatever the majority of a society wants should be what is best for the society and that anyone who dissents from this “general will” should change their views for the good of the state. In essence, the citizens of a state are all a part of one whole, each and every person coming together to create a “sovereign”.
ReplyDelete2. Coming into this reading, I honestly knew nothing about Rousseau’s philosophy and went into it with an open mind. I left the reading intrigued but unimpressed. While I found Rousseau’s philosophy to be the most interesting to read out of the philosophers we’ve studied thus far just because it was so different from what I was familiar with, his ideas miss the mark for me and are far too utopian. He doesn’t acknowledge the fact that the “general will” may not always be right and that it is those that support a minority view that will inspire necessary changes in a society. However, I am not a part of Rousseau’s intended audience of 18th century white males in power and I also acknowledge that from Rousseau’s lens, the great and necessary impact of social change is not as easily apparent as it is to me.
3.The moment that stuck with me the most from our discussion on Rousseau is when we talked about the plentifulness of resources that he describes in the state of nature. I believe it was TJ who said something along the lines of “Resources are a lot more scarce nowadays than during Rousseau’s time, or so I’ve been told” and this really struck a cord with me. I consider myself to be a bit of an environmentalist. I recycle, I try to always use a reusable water bottle, and I always feel a pang of guilt when I eat lunch on campus and can’t find a place to compost my leftover food. And if I’m being completely honest with myself, I do this because it makes me feel like a better person. Somewhere along the line it was ingrained in me that conserving resources was the morally right thing to do. Have I ever seen the impact of the more eco-friendly habits I have? And have I ever even felt this supposed “scarcity of resources” directly impact my own life? No. It’s simply become second nature to me to minimize my adverse affect on the environment. In a way, I guess I am subscribing to Rousseau’s philosophy with these habits. Even though it may make my life slightly inconvenient at times, I’m conscious about the environment for the good of the “general will”.
Sarah,
DeleteI think its important to recognize the general and theoretical nature of Rousseau's argument. Its hard not to try to contextualize theoretical arguments by applying them directly to reality. I find myself doing that all the time. But I don't think Rousseau's "general will" is a realistic proposal- its rather an idealistic vision that has some value if examined from a larger perspective.
Sarah, although I did not comment on it in my blog, the discussion about scarcity struck a cord with me as well. It was not until I came to Penn State that I even began recycling or considering how much water I was wasting when I let the faucet run while brushing my teeth. I think these discussions are important to have though because, although we are not experiencing the realities of not having enough food or water, there are people in the world who do face such a harsh truth and I think it is important that we are capable of at least being a little considerate of that.
Delete1) With Rousseau, he follows the similar topics that Locke and Hobbes did, by addressing the State of Nature, Social Contract theory, and the Civil Society. With his State of Nature, Rousseau states that resources are plentiful but competition can still arise, leading to war. He also jabs at Locke stating that property does not exist in the State of Nature. It is a social invention only. He also goes on to say that property is one of the root causes of inequality amongst people. In Rousseau’s Social Contract, he agrees with Hobbes and Locke that entering into a civil society is for protection. Conditions must be equal for everyone, and concurrently one does not have to give up his or her natural liberties. The argument that Rousseau also makes for entering a civil society is that people do have some advantages in the State of Nature, but that they give up some rights to gain more advantages in a civil society. Rousseau’s civil society must have equality. In the State of Nature, liberties are ruled by appetites and desires. While in a civil society, liberties are rules by morals. Therefore in his view, the soul is elevated. The power lies with the General Will. This term refers to the composed will of the individuals in the society. The General Will benefits all persons, and must be separate from the private will. Government is created to enforce this notion that the General Will must rule over the private wills of the individual. The government, or legislator, must create laws to enforce the General Will, while the sovereign enforces these laws. Most importantly, the government and its people must be equal under the General Will.
ReplyDelete2) I was not very familiar with Rousseau coming into this reading, therefore my presuppositions are scarce. Rousseau, though, stands firmly on the side of majority rules, without actually using that term. With his idea of the General Will he is saying that what is best for society is that which everyone can agree upon, but that does not have to be unanimous. Therefore, Rousseau is making the assumption that some people will undoubtedly take their private wills over the General Will. This can also be brought to an extreme by saying that some people are possibly unfit in determining the General Will either because they cannot escape their personal will or that they do not big anything constructive to the table. Therefore, one could assume that the audience of this piece is geared toward the more intelligent, enlightened thinker.
3) To me, Rousseau was very similar to that of Hobbes and Locke with a few changes to the State of Nature and the Social Contract. The one thing that did stand out to me is this idea of the General Will. This idea that a universal statute, made up of personal desires is very lofty and somewhat impossible. However, it is not an invalid idea. Throughout these works, by either Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, etc. each have their own opinions on how civil society should be established. And each of their ideas are near impossible. But they are something to stride for. I am very much in the party that says that philosophers do not have to subscribe word for word to their ideals, but that they should stride for them. Theories do not have to become reality but they can be sought after. If a philosopher were to create a theory that is easily attainable, then most likely that theory has flaws (or is too good to be true). Challenging one to attain something that is unreachable, I feel, is more desirable than reaching a flawed theory and then having nothing else to reach for.
1. Rousseau begins by discussing his views on the state of nature, much as Hobbes and Locke do in their famous essays. His views differ however, when it comes to what the state of nature is actually like. In Rousseau's work, the state of nature is one where no one owns property and people are motivated by natural impulses. His view in the natural state of man is very similar to Hobbes, without being as pessimistic. He expresses the idea that man has natural impulses and desires that some are incapable of suppressing. He then goes on to outline that people enter civil society to secure their natural rights, and that society provides a morality that nature does not. In his mind, people enter this society willingly in order to obtain this kind of morality in order to obtain their desires and "elevate the soul".
ReplyDelete2. I have read Rousseau before and have also read him in the context of Hobbes and Locke's views on civil society and the state of nature. I took for granted however, that their views had some distinct differences to them. In fact, he has a very different view of what nature is and how people enter civil society. I assumed that the social contract theory was based on the idea that nature was horrible enough for people to enter society in order to protect themselves and their interests. On a very basic level this is true, but this is an oversimplification. Rousseau focuses more on the idea that people enter society to achieve a state of higher morality than they already had. In a sense, this idea is hopeful, more so than Hobbes. I think there is a general tendency to group Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau together and generalize their positions in order to promote them as people who strove for democratic principles. This is not very accurate and fails to recognize what each philosopher's position actually was. I think I fell into this category, but upon reading each one was able to discern between the three. Rousseau focused more on the idea of the common good, and was willing to promote the idea of human selflessness that allowed for the civil society to be created. Rousseau was writing for a tumultuous time in France, one that saw a very ineffectual monarchy and increasing discontent among the people of France. It is understandable that Rousseau would choose to promote these kinds of ideals in this time, as he tried to evoke a fundamental change in French society.
3. Although I find his idealism as refreshing, his belief that people will strive for moral high ground rather than pursuing their own selfish desires is unrealistic. Although I dont believe in the pessimism that Hobbes advocates, I do think that it is completely impractical to say that people enter society to promote a general will in every aspect of life. That is simply not true, as people have faults. He assumes that people will not be selfish as they will see the good of the society as more important than their own desires. History shows that this is completely unrealistic. There are indeed unselfish people, but to say that all people that enter civil society are unselfish is not plausible. Rousseau also assumes that their is an unlimited amount of resources to go around in order to promote this idea of the general will. This may have been a product of his time, when there were still places being discovered in the world and the population was relatively low. It speaks to his situated knowledge, as a person of affluence in France during the 18th century. We know now that this idea of infinite resources is definitely not true, and while it doesn't discredit his argument, it does change the context with which his opinions should be viewed.
Chelsea, I agree with your third point that Rousseau is being a little too optimistic about humanistic behaviors. As I stated in my blog as well, it is almost impossible for two or more people to strive for the same things in life and yet still maintain other people's best interest when they are in competition with one another. Furthermore, I think your point about his situated knowledge is a valid one that I did not consider when writing my blog, so thank you for that.
Delete1.Rousseau’s main point is to determine whether or not a legitimate form of government can exist and rise from his stated state of nature. He establishes that the state of nature must be left in order for man to accomplish more, which is not through fear. From here, he can begin his argument on how the social contract is formed or what the social contract formally is. Because of how his social contract comes about, there is no sense of desperation in humanity’s need to form the contract and so he can state things like no slavery and the freedom of all the members in civil society. Rousseau specifically speaks of the general will when showing how society can be for the benefit of its people.
ReplyDelete2.Coming into Rousseau, I had no idea as far as what to expect because I had never even heard of him before. Reading through his work, he does seem to be fairly idealistic relative to the other philosophers that we have covered in this course. Personally, I feel the most important point that he makes is the careful balancing act that he performs with individual will versus the good of society. How well he does this act is up for debate, but it is an important step that he manages to acknowledge that such a problem does exist and much more importantly, he presents a solution. Speaking on his thought of general will, I will say that it seems to hold very little ground in actual reason. The issue is the concept itself, because if it is simply majority wins, then it becomes tyrannical democracy. Furthermore, a general public thought can be misled and oftentimes purposefully misled, which creates issues on its own. The intent behind defining the general will and giving it legislative power is fine, but depends far too much on most, if not all, of the participants in the social contract to understand all facets of society as well as be committed to the betterment of society as a whole in order to protect individual rights. From here, it just seems overly complicated and very impractical. However, even here there can be something to gain. The general will of the people is quite important in a democracy and by giving it legislative power, what it actually does is give the individual power to speak without being drowned out by others, or at least I believe that to be the idea. To begin with, there is a fairly similar system in place in current America through representative democracy. The people vote on representatives who have legislative power and in theory this would give the will of the people the power to influence what laws are passed. Whether or not this actually works is something else, but what happened in this system is that Rousseau’s sovereign actually got integrated into the government by proxy. In the end, his balancing act ended up in him presenting interesting, if impractical ideas.
3.The thing I want to talk about here is the people and how Rousseau states that the people should not fit the government, but rather that the government should be fitted to the culture already in place. He mentions deep seated prejudices and how difficult it would be to reform them, as well as how logistically governments must take care in how far they extend themselves, for the more people you encompass the more conflicting cultures you may pick up. I think this logistics thing in particular is important to note because this year is an election year. In order to maintain democracy, we have candidates who spend, to put it lightly, a lot of money in campaigning in addition to the ballot counting, debates, voter registration, etc. etc. It still amazes me to this day how America can maintain an election every four years because to me it just seems like such a logistical strain to hold elections over such a large territory with such a non-uniform population density spread. Of course, with the advent of the internet such logistical issues should be lightened, but you still have proper voting booths regardless of whether or not it’s electronic of paper. And so it is here that Rousseau does something very interesting and actually talks about the interaction between multiple governments, bounded by its population and how much land it actually requires. Of course, this again is impractical since people will not move unless there is some sort of grand incentive or force, which creates issues with such huge population centers that pop up every now and then. And so Rousseau brings up interesting, impractical ideas in an idealistic manner and I think it is this that we need to acknowledge. For progress always starts when someone sees the ideal and we slowly scale it back to make it work.
Delete1. Like the Hobbes and Locke readings we have just completed, Jean-Jacques Rousseau explores a similar notion of what he believes a state of nature is, as well as a civil society and who maintains (or governs) the laws and the people. According to Rousseau, the people are the sovereign, meaning everyone essentially relinquishes their own rights to one another in an effort to be protected by the general will. According to Rousseau, the state of nature is one in which people are living relatively equal to one another because there is no property, and resources are plentiful. Lastly, Rousseau argues that in a civil society, there is a legislator, who acts as a law-framer but is not allowed to approve of the laws; that is the job of the sovereign.
ReplyDelete2. After reading Hobbes and Locke, I realized that I probably should not have any preconceived notions going into these readings because I can never guess what these philosophers might say. However, after reading Rousseau, I thought that his idea of a civil society was probably a little more utopian than some of the other philosophers we have read, largely due to the fact that all people are expected to fairly govern one another. While I found it difficult in the Hobbes piece for people to put their trust in a sovereign, I find it especially difficult to put your trust in other people. If two or more people are striving for the same things in life, how can one fully trust the other to have their best interest at heart? This notion almost makes a neutral sovereign seem like a genius idea. Not to mention, one thing that I think we, as readers, seem to be overlooking is Rousseau’s description of a state of nature. To me, his idea of a state of nature seems so calm and peaceful that I would almost question why anyone would want to enter into a civil society! According to Rousseau, a state of nature is one in which there is no scarcity and no property because property is a social invention that causes inequalities amongst the people. To me, this seems like an almost ideal society. There would be no competition amongst people because they would not have any property to fight over nor would they fight or compete for resources since there is no scarcity. Can someone say, “winning!”?
3. One part of the Rousseau reading that struck me was the categorization of citizens as the sovereign on one hand and a citizen on the other. I thought this made his work a little hard to follow and where I began to believe that his idea of a civil society probably would not work. I am left questioning how people would know when they are regarded as citizens and when they are the sovereign. If you ask me, it should always be one or the other because such confusion could easily lead to chaos in Rousseau’s civil society.
I was also confused by his somewhat circular argument pertaining the position of the people in society. Can they be both an even-handed sovereign and individuals with personal interests which they will (for some unimaginable reason) suppress for the common good?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete1) Rousseau begins his story of human nature by “setting aside all the facts”. The facts of the natural state of humanity are not necessary to determine the natural essence of human nature, and adding facts based on man’s condition in society does not show man’s natural condition. The facts don’t matter because to understand the essence of human nature requires looking to how man is in a completely natural state. Since man is no longer in this state, to determine this state means ignoring how man is now and focusing on man’s traits in a state completely different than the one man is in now. This is what Rousseau tries to do in creating his imagined state of nature. For Rousseau, the story of the state of nature is not meant to be used as a critique of human nature but as a way to discover the essence of human nature.
ReplyDelete2) Out of Hobbes, Locke, and now Rousseau, Rousseau is definitely my favorite. I was familiar with Hobbes' and Rousseaus' basic ideas through a high school course I took, so I did already have a preference. And the readings for this class served to confirm those inklings. Rousseau may seem to contradict himself often, but that's only because the nature of say the general will is also, by nature full of these contradictions. More political will may arise from minorities, for example. He is certainly a lot more nuanced than Hobbes or Locke and succeeds in separating himself from his time to the extent of still being much more relevant than these two thinkers now a days. Rousseau’s argument is persuasive because it does not suppose the traits of man in society to be the traits of man in nature and that it assumes man is naturally free.
3) By creating a scenario where man is naturally good, he created a platform for the argument for the freedom of man in society. But he does not necessarily persuade the reader man is good. He needs only to create doubt in the minds of the readers so that the individual may question the need for society. In this purpose, Rousseau accomplishes his task. He created a natural world in which the natural man is good leaving the societal man to question his role in society. Is equality necessary? Is authority necessary? These are the questions the reader must answer.
Manuel, I really like the questions you ask. I think equality is one of the most important pieces of Rousseau's political theory, as our entering into civil society requires us to recognize that we are trading our natural freedom for civil freedom. Rousseau's writing offers a great deal on freedom and equality in that sense.
Delete1. To Rousseau, men’s natural state is not war and misery. Instead, Rousseau posits that, “man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains,” which suggests that current society is the problem. To rectify this, he proposes an association that unites all, but where no one has to give up the rights of individuals. In Rousseau’s ideal civil society, one gives up the advantages of nature in order to elevate the soul and gain civil liberty. The general will tends toward the common good, is not composed of private wills, and pushes society in the just direction.
ReplyDelete2. Coming into the reading, I knew that Rousseau’s theories had been used to justify a variety of ideas, including communism. This is in contrast to a theorist like Locke, who is considered one of the leading influences on the democracy of the United States. In short, I am predisposed to like and want to believe Locke over Rousseau because I am an American citizen and communist Russia was America’s greatest foe for decades. However, I find myself more intrigued by Rousseau’s arguments. The fact that its approach was so radically different from Hobbes and Locke was definitely refreshing. I definitely liked the idea that the sovereign can’t lay more charges on one subject than another. To me, this shows the true equality of the citizens in Rousseau’s vision rather than the superficial equality in Locke, whose overemphasis on property implies a bias towards the propertied elite. Also, I agree with the idea that the sovereign is not superior to the members of society, but rather the first among equals, or the head of the body. This stands in direct contrast to Hobbe’s absolute Leviathan towering over its subjects.
On the other hand, Rousseau’s theories are definitely not perfect. His assumed audience is still only men, and does not take women into account. His ideas on the general will are interesting, but by limiting the participation by half of the population, he limits the degree of universality in the general will.
3. The main bone of contention in class was Rousseau’s proposal that those who disagree with the general will be forced or force themselves to sublimate their individual wills to it. And I do agree that this definitely seems extreme. Difference of opinion and worldviews are so engrained in today’s society that it seems impossible to live without these divisions. Yet I think that Rousseau’s idea is solid in concept. The general will is meant to be for the common good of all. It is not simply majority opinion, and it doesn’t apply to individual issues. Instead, it is always right, and tends toward public utility. In essence, it is an overarching guideline that individuals can look to in order to provide for the common good.
Fitz, I agree with your response to the third prompt for the most part. I have to wonder though if Rousseau's intention with the general will was that people's individual wills align with the general will. Is the pre-condition of entering into Rousseau's civil society is that the people agree on the general will?
Delete1. Jean-Jacques Rousseau—like Locke and Hobbes—includes in his social contract theory a discussion of the state of nature. For Rousseau, property and scarcity of resources are not characteristics of the state of nature. In this state, humans are motivated by natural impulses, resources are plentiful, and man’s wants are easily satisfied. Rousseau suggests that in order to maintain this natural freedom, everyone must give up some rights to others and form an association. This association will defend and protect the rights and lives of every associate. In this surrendering of rights, everyone is in the same condition of equality; no one has an interest in making things burdensome for someone else. Rousseau emphasizes the preeminence of the General Will of this association of men. The general will aims to serve the common good of all. It is not an aggregate of private wills, but it is the sovereign voice of what’s best for the whole community.
ReplyDelete2. I had previously heard of Rousseau as a prominent philosopher of the period of “Enlightenment” which inspired the French Revolution. However, I had not previously read any of his works, and, therefore, I narrow-mindedly assumed I would be reading a work dealing with liberty and equality or something with a revolutionary twist to it. In a way, Rousseau could be interpreted as such—his proposed social contract is unlike any system of government present in 18th century Europe. As with Locke and Hobbes, women are marginalized as citizens in Rousseau’s work. At the time he is writing, his audience would have consisted of privileged, educated, white, males like himself. It is interesting that Rousseau trained to become a catholic priest and that he mentions using religion to persuade the general will. At the time he was writing this, the Catholic Church as an institution may have been seen as something to keep people in line. Everyone feared divine authority. It also seems that his comfortable lifestyle as a musician and a music teacher is reflected in his somewhat over-idealistic ideas for a functional system of government. It would be difficult in practice to assure that the “general will” does not become a sum of “private wills.”
3. Rousseau’s system of government consists of a bureaucracy which enforces laws and preserves liberty; the sovereign assembly of men; and the legislator. There are many loopholes in this system. For instance, there are no checks and balances on power; there is no way of distinguishing between a benevolent and a malevolent legislator; and the general will can be persuaded one way or another. To me, Rousseau was heavily idealistic when he came up with this social contract theory. What if the general will is unable to see what is good for the whole community? The legislator is supposed to be someone with superior intelligence; how can this person be selected? How will the sovereign be able to determine who is worthy of coming up with the laws? How can that be a one-person job? It is disconcerting to imagine how this theory would play out in practice. Rousseau does say that his theory is only fit for small countries. However, in my opinion, even on a small scale such a system would run into many difficulties. To me this social contract theory is the most optimistic, but the least reasonable.
I think your questions are brilliant. The questions you are asking point out the unclear and murky application of his ideas. Rousseau is not explicit on the execution of this. Conflict is inevitable if more is not explained on the practice of his theories.
Delete1) The essence of Rousseau’s argument was that the state of nature is a peaceful place where people are motivated only by natural impulses, resources are plentiful, and personal property does not exist. In the turn to civil society, everyone in the community should have the same conditions of equality and exchange their natural liberty for civil liberty to create a morally sound environment where the general will is sovereign.
ReplyDelete2) Coming into this reading, I sincerely hoped that Rousseau could establish a compromise between Locke and Hobbes’s philosophies that I would be comfortable with. I think that, on an ideal level, Rousseau may have accomplished this, but that his theory was too utopian in nature and would therefore be doomed in practice. Rousseau, although frequently compared to Locke and Hobbes, was different from these two philosophers in many fundamental ways. He disagreed with Hobbes’s notion that the state of nature is a place where “life is nasty, brutish and short.” He believed that humans are solitary and motivated by natural impulses such as their desire for resources, which – contrary to another of Hobbes’s assertions- are not scarce, so peoples’ needs as well as their desires are easily satisfied so competition for these resources shouldn’t lead to a state of war. He disagreed with both Hobbes and Locke on who is the sovereign. While Locke said the majority should rule and Hobbes said an absolute sovereign should rule, Rousseau argued that society as a whole should be the sovereign so the general will shall have at heart the interest of the common good. He also agreed with Locke’s foundational principle of property by contesting that property is a social invention of civil society that breeds inequity that otherwise wouldn’t exist in a state of nature.
I think this piece takes for granted that acting in accordance with one’s better moral self for the good of the general will is not something humans are likely to prioritize over their own private wills. I think he vastly underestimates the human tendency toward selfishness. Somewhere along the line, someone will feel wronged and find others in similar circumstances who also feel wronged and will rise against the power.
3) I was shocked by the assertion that if an individual has something that could be of use to the community, it should be made available to the community. I felt it strongly reflected Eastern and even borderline communist values (hence my Marx’s Communist Manifesto in disguise comment in class,) where there is too much power in government hands and too much emphasis on the “community.” He even does this by presenting it as a sort of friendly authoritarianism where the government creates the illusion that it has the peoples’ best interests at heart. The irony in this is that all people have different interests and desires so satisfying them all the same amount would be impossible.
While I understand that he acknowledges that his system would work best in a small society with a homogenous population because larger nations with more diversified interests would be dissatisfied with his identified structure, I think that speaks again to how socialist it really is. So maybe this could work in a small homogenous town, but in the political and economic endeavors of diversified populations- there are always winners and losers.
I agree with you that in today's world applying these ideas to homogenous places will result in success. The current values in society need to change if we are going to co-exist peacefully. Human beings must realize that we are all on the same team. If we value humans to a higher standard, Rousseau's ideas could work.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1.Rousseau explicitly tells us in Book One exactly what questions he is attempting to answer with this writing. Rousseau says that when we believe we are the masters of others, we are in fact more enslaved than they are. “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains” sets the stage for the rest of Rousseau’s discourse. He addresses the state of nature and entering into a civil society as well as a different take on how such a society should be governed than we have seen from Hobbes and Locke. In Rousseau’s state of nature, there is peace and what Rousseau calls “natural freedom.” People are governed by their instinct and impulses until they give this natural freedom up to enter into a civil society where they gain civil freedoms. However, this civil freedom is limited by the concept of “the general will” which is what governs the people who make up the sovereign.
ReplyDelete2.The buzzword I remembered from reading Rousseau before was “general will” which certainly became the center of most of our class discussion about Rousseau. I was surprised by how caught up we got in class about whether or not Rousseau’s general will was practical let alone possible. Rousseau’s theory attempted to address all of the concerns we had about Locke and Hobbes’ theories while still offering a new idea about how people should be governed. Despite the criticism we unleashed on Rousseau in class, I think he did a pretty solid job responding to Hobbes’ and Locke’s theories of the state of nature, civil society, human nature, and governance. To me it seems like he’s advocating for a mixture of different systems. What I see Rousseau writing about is a system, where all citizens have a say in what the general will should be and the legislator’s responsibility is maintaining that will. I thought he did a pretty good job of addressing the concerns that we expressed in class when we discussed Hobbes and Locke about types of sovereigns and the role of government in a civil society.
3.“Government attains its right to exist and to govern by ‘the consent of the governed.’” This idea expressed in Rousseau’s writing makes me stop and think about the conversations we have had about a government fearing its people versus people fearing their government. Rousseau seems to propose that fear does not exist in the relationship between citizens and government, because the citizens are the government. This is in direct contrast to the Machiavellian monarchy that Hobbes’ proposes and different than the three branched government that Locke proposes. I liked the new perspective that Rousseau offered and the idea about citizens giving rights to the government and not the other way around.
ReplyDelete1. Rousseau rejects Hobbe’s and Locke’s theories and proposes an entirely different state of nature and reason as to why people enter into civil society. For Rousseau, man is naturally good in the state of nature. The reason why people enter into civil society is because they develop a sense of property, and therefore need a system in which to protect those without property from those with property. In this social contract, individuals give their rights to the rest of society, and their individual wills join to become the sovereign general will that acts in the best interest of the society.
2. I did not have many presuppositions coming into this reading because essentially the only thing I knew about Rousseau was his opening line “Man is free yet everywhere he is in chains”. Apart from this, I only knew that Rousseau was writing to mostly the same audience as Locke and Hobbes, which is higher educated, white, Europeans.
After reading Locke and Hobbes though I was very interested in Rousseau’s position because I feel like it runs very counter to their arguments. I feel like that out of the three philosophers they could have been able to come to an agreement on what the state of nature is for the human race. Since all of them reached different conclusions on the matter, it definitely makes me think twice about what comes naturally to us as humans.
Rousseau at one point in his life was trained to be a catholic priest, and I believe that this had a major influence on his views regarding the formation of society and the natural state of man. Rousseau’s natural state is one where there is scarcity and no property; man is naturally good. In another reading that I did for research, it appeared that Rousseau’s natural state is essentially the Garden of Eden. The only reason why people would need to enter into a civil society is because they discover property. This is paralleled to eating the apple from the tree of knowledge because essentially man would be banished from the state of nature and must enter into a civil society. In this way, I feel that it is pretty clear that Rousseau is heavily influenced by religion.
Rousseau also believes that people enter into society differently than they would in either Hobbe’s or Locke’s beliefs. Rousseau proposes that each person turns over their rights to the rest of society, and their individual wills combine to form the guiding general will. In this way everyone is one fragment of a larger collective in which the general will guides what is best for society, and is enforced through laws created by a legislator. While this may seem like a good idea, I believe that there is a big assumption that the collection of individual wills will result in the best direction for the society as a whole. In order for this to be true, individuals would need to have the interest of the society in mind as opposed to their own, and I feel like that is very difficult to do.
*Continued*
Delete3. I liked a lot of what Rousseau had to say, but I also think that there are some flaws in his logic regarding his sovereign and general will. The idea that I liked the most was that property is not a natural idea but is created when man gained more knowledge. This clicked for me, and I thought that it was really interesting and explained why someone would enter into a social contract. Where Rousseau started to lose me was when he stated that man gave over his rights to a sovereign that was made of a collection of man’s rights. I can see how one person can be a facet of a much larger collective, but I don’t see how this society would protect from simply acting in favor of the majority. In order for this sovereign body and the legislator to make laws that would benefit the entire society, the collection of individual wills would have to be made with the interests of the entire society in mind. While I agree this is a great idea and a good goal to strive for, I do not believe it is all that realistic. I am thinking of the reluctance of politicians to sacrifice their personal beliefs in order to act in a bipartisan manner for the benefit of all society. In this way, I feel that Rousseau’s position on a sovereign is more of a goal to aim for than an actual practical system. I’m not convinced that Rousseau even meant for it to be a practical system because as someone in class pointed out, the people turning over their rights to a sovereign that is comprised of the same people is contradictory in itself. Again, I believe it just reaffirms that Rousseau’s ideas should be looked at more as goals, than an actual system to be used.
Rousseau begins his piece on social contract theory with a very clever and poignant statement: “Man is born free but everywhere he is in chains.” According to Rousseau, in the natural state there is no concept of property and resources are plentiful. As a result of these two conditions, all men are equal. This natural state is also a peaceful one, unlike what Locke and particularly Hobbes theorized. Hobbes and Locke cited the threat of violence as motivation for entering into a society. Because no such threat exists in Rousseau’s world, he argues that societies are entered into via the General Will, which is the aggregate will of all persons in a society. The General Will is a benevolent force which is concerned with the welfare of the community as a whole.
ReplyDeleteThis was my first time reading Rousseau. My background knowledge consisted namely of the social contract theories of Locke and Hobbes. I was pleasantly surprised when I read about Rousseau’s state of nature, it was not nearly as grim as that of Locke and Hobbes. It was uplifting to hear someone talk about mankind in natural state that did not involve violence or the threat of violence. However, I do think that Rousseau’s state of nature may be just as unlikely as Hobbes’. For Rousseau, resource scarcity is a non-issue. Resources are, according to Rousseau, so abundant as to provide a society with all their needs. I think this is a flaw with Rousseau’s theory due to the sheer implausibility at the extreme.
I suppose I most enjoyed our discussion of the General Will. It is my opinion that although a General Will is to some extent unavoidable, it is not necessarily desirable, and can quickly be usurped or co-opted by private interests, corruption, and greed. I think the best form of General Will is that which does actually very little, and knows and acknowledges that one will, or one way, cannot possibly benefit all members of a society equitably. I suppose what I am getting at is that I would prefer a General Will which concerned itself only with issues general to the population (defense, for example), as opposed to a General Will which concerns itself with issues of private interest as is often the case.
1) Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the last of our social contract philosophers, differentiates himself from Hobbes and Locke by holding a view of state of nature that isn’t savage or isolated. Rousseau paints the state of nature to be one of peace and plenty where man is not reliant on others and has no drive to acquire more possessions. Despite the advantages of being in the state of nature, he continues, there are even more advantages to be found by ascribing to a social contract and entering into civil society.
ReplyDelete2) Before going into the Rousseau readings I actually had very limited knowledge about Rousseau as a person or his philosophies. I knew that he wrote on the social contract—the mantra of my pervious philosophy professor must have been “Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau”—but never studied his work. I thought his theories, like Hobbes’s and Locke’s, would be based on a state of nature so dismal that man had to exit, but this wasn’t true. To Rousseau, the state of nature has advantages, and man only enters civil society to obtain a moral structure absent in the state of nature and to elevate his soul.
It’s interesting to note the context of the Rousseau’s time in relation to this point. Rousseau lived through a turbulent time and saw the increasing dissent among the French people. It’s not out of like to suggest that his philosophies could have been greatly influenced by what he observed as immoral times.
Rousseau’s concept of the General Will may also relate in some ways to his historical and geographical context. The General Will, he says, expresses what is best for the society as a whole and does not have to be a unanimous decision. This could be seen as an attempt to reconcile the idea of a society promoting its own best interest to a simultaneously unsuccessful monarchy.
3) I think it’s really interesting to first look at Rousseau in relation to the other two social contract philosophers. If Hobbes said that an absolute sovereign should hold power and Locke said that the majority should rule, then Rousseau merges the two accounts to state that society, as a whole, should promote the General Will and therefore become the sovereign. How the whole becomes the sovereign, however, is troubling to me. Even in the course of class discussions I wasn’t able to come to a personal resolve on how individuals can maintain their private wills while also supporting the general will. As others have pointed out, I feel that it is very difficult to dissolve self-interest in the face of difficult decisions, and to expect all members of a civil society to give up their rights to self-advancement is unrealistic.