Rousseau's Social Contract
Social Contract is a chapter that illustrates the diverse interpretation of Rousseau's political ideas and uses his views to show that the Republican approach is the best government to adopt in a civilized society that is free to grow and free from coercion as well. He uses different views to present himself as entirely different amid increasing laws and ideologies on political leadership and the margin between the boundary and the wrong. The social contract seeks to eliminate and rectify the evils performed before and presented some aspects of the theory that need close examination in the light of intense criticism of their consequences. Upon close examination of the book and the ideologies put forth, these are the questions that I chose to answer.
Was Rousseau a totalitarian or a Democrat?
Rousseau is an individual who expresses very mixed reactions in his ideologies. First, Rousseau is an absolute based on the fact that he is said to have played a crucial role in the rise of Hitler regime in European History. Despite this fact, he expresses a more persuasive case. One of the writers describes him as one who suffers from Paranoia, which according to him entails a mixture of emotions arising from psychology. He imposed a fixed pattern of character and perspective range of feelings in the society that he lives all in a bid to eradicate denial and urges that are against the society. The primary aim of all these mixed reactions was to create a society that expressed the general will and dedicated to subduing the chances of servitude to tendencies driven by personal ego (Boucher & Kelly, 2003). He advocated for justice for all in the society to a greater extent. In the book he argues that just laws are far from being a constraint on liberty, but on the contrary, an essential element of democracy. He is therefore described to possess a strange combination of psychological ill-adjustments and other oppressive ideologies, and this makes him diverse in the form of doctrines he presents forth.
Despite him being an absolute, he has particular attributes that make him different from all the other totalitarians who ever lived. He emphasizes freedom and an importance of the autonomy to be indicative of his liberal credentials. In (Williams, 2014), a philosopher named C.W. Hendel takes Rousseau to be more engaged in exploring what constitutes the real life. Despite this, he sets himself and the writer claims which just mean setting men free from the mixture of both from within or without. The writers are also cognizant of the fact that Rousseau was an individual who did not support particular views of History grounded on certain inevitability to continued progression. He subscribed to the fact that man was real and admitted that society had corrupted him in a certain way but, on the other hand, it was the society that can emancipate him from this mix-up. Additionally, laments the decline of political right among those in power and even says that the corporation is producing fools who are corrupt and do not deserve to be alive This is because of the hatred for corruption and the vices that accompanied it as well. Rousseau was a great promoter of the civic virtue, by which he meant the strength of moral character to fight corruption and oppression.
Though Rousseau significantly subscribed to the ideologies of the totalitarian, he appears more of a democrat than the previous. He had more virtues than vices. He had vices and virtues as well which places an analyst who examines him in a dilemma torn in between determining whether he falls on the good side or the wrong side.
What is distinctive about Rousseau's conception of the state of nature?
Rousseau took an entirely different approach in as far at the rule of life is concerned. He did not solely depend on information and hypothesis that had been used before but instead took an entirely different approach. Rousseau presented a very distinctive nature as he appeared to take a perverse pleasure in dispossessing the conventional wisdom and instead presented ideas that were both shocking and novel. For instance in (Chapter 14, p240), he rejected Samuel von Pufendorf's view that men are naturally social. Additionally, he rejected Hobbes idea that man is self-seeking and compete by nature just as the rule of survival for the fittest applies. Rousseau also rejected that history has realized progress in the state of man and rather began his exploration into human beings through isolated individuals in a state of nature. He used posting of the fundamental postulates about people with an aim of conjecturing and reasoning conditionally. It, therefore, means leaders should not draw their inference from the existing state of the society but rather should try to eliminate status quo and derive their conclusions in their unique ways.
Why is Rousseau so afraid of dependence?
Despite him having many unclear messages on addiction, Rousseau was unified by his thought of the relationship. From his idea, he seems to fear relationship because he said that it leads to exploitation, enslavement, and servitude. It is also an archive autonomy that for him meant moral decay and personal discontent as well as loss of right values in as far as the society is concerned. He described himself as free so far as he was not encountering interference on a classical liberal side and republicanism or any of the two parties; he described himself as free when it comes to no dependence. He was able to draw the connection between dependence and freedom whereby he argued that both of them require the absence of subjection to another person and one's lower nature. He feared inequalities that may arise due to dominance and dependence though he admitted that even if variations needed to be allowed to exist it would be significant to separate them from birth as their origin. Rousseau perceived the relationship as a primary source of immorality and wrong doings in the society. To achieve this, he attempted to combat evil by establishing corporations based on the principle of the general will. Rousseau supported that with an aim of eradicating immorality, we must build a society that is grounded on equality as well as the full responsibility of all the citizens to participate in the process of the formulation and the implementation of the laws. According to all the arguments that Rousseau raised, he feared dependence as it is, is a primary source of inequalities and interference as well. He also saw the relationship as a way of pulling the progress realized so far in a reverse way on the contrary.
In what respects may Rousseau be considered a Republican thinker?
Rousseau renewed contemporary interest in the republican tradition in political thought. According to Maurizio Viroli, who was a leading advocate of modern republicanism, he completely contended that Rousseau fully understood the immense importance of modern unity of the people both culturally and spiritually. This integration is possible through the conscious promotion of the highly regarded civic virtues. To achieve the unity, Rousseau equated Patrie with the Republic and subscribed to the general view of political virtue of synonymous. This was based on the affection for the fatherland which was an ancient legacy that modern politics intended to destroy.
Additionally, Rousseau believed that liberty and law were correlative and consistent as long as those who fell within their jurisdiction were also the ones who prescribe the law. Another part that shows Rousseau was a Republican thinker is the one that says that he contended that free people obey, but does not serve; it has leaders but no masters. It was contrary to the totalitarian perception which requires the subjects of the law suffer from servitude with their leaders keeping track of them. Rousseau was a passionate promoter of civic virtue. According to the above facts, it appears to be very clear that despite him being one among the totalitarian, he was a great promoter of moral values and character and surely condemns and vehemently fights corruption in a civilized manner.
What is the relation between Rousseau's personal life and the redemptive features of the state?
Rousseau was aware of the writings and the law of his country but instead chose to do what is right and discard the wrong. Despite having learned and used the vocabulary of Natural Law School, he nevertheless transformed the doctrines. Led a life that respected justice not only because it was written in the books of law, but because God had given him the ability to know what is right and what is wrong. He appeared to fear God more than he acknowledged the laws that were written in the books.
He went against one of the most frequent claims that had been put forth by natural law theorists and instead contended that the law was a wrong perception and fallacy to assume that a general society could be united and grounded in one Universal Law. Despite him being expected to implement the law as written, he did not subscribe to fallacies and instead questioned and ignored legislation that did not have reasonable grounds for existence other than their writing. He showed respect to the characteristics of man that are usually acquired from the society. He, therefore, went against the expectations of natural law jurists who assume what they want to prove. To the analyst who examines his ideologies, he appears to be a man who values justice irrespective of whether it is captured in the law or not. Additionally, he seems to be a person who has very reasonable grounds for what he does and does not do something simply because others are doing it.
Does Rousseau's character give us any insights into his philosophy?
Yes. His character presents unique features of a philosopher. According to him, many of the philosophers just study and implement what they study without questioning it. He is different as he subscribes to the ideologies that are there in philosophy, but does not act because he has to. He goes ahead and questions some of the things that were written in theory. Furthermore, he respects God and, therefore, does not agree to do things that go against the will of God. Apart from this, he is a very gifted person. He can detect flaws and rectify them immediately without delay, and though he has studied in his philosophy, he has convincing reasons as to why he should not retreat in his work. A particular case of the ability to detect flaws is when he realizes how the natural law was formulated, and he can act by the will of all the people.
In conclusion, Rousseau is a simplified example of individuals who do not only learn, but also question the learning process and in the event of this ends up improving the process. If a majority of philosophers can develop the same courage and as leaders give the society what it deserves rather than what you are instructed to give, more benefits than harm can be realized. In this process, the world would be transformed into a better place for human beings.
References
Boucher, D., & Kelly, P. J. (2003). Political thinkers: From Socrates to the present . New York: Oxford University Press.
Williams, D. L. (2014). Rousseau's social contract: An introduction . Cambridge: Cambridge Universiy Press
