SUBMITTED BY: MARYAM BATOOL 2816

SUBMITTED TO: MA’AM SADIA AZIZ

ROLL NUMBER: 2816-BS-PSY-21

SUBMISSION DATE: 19-1-01-2023

TOPIC: JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU

SUBJECT: PHILOSOPHY

GOVT. COLLEGE UNIVERSITY, LAHORE.

 JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU

Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a Genevan philosopher, writer, and composer. His political
philosophy influenced the progress of the Age of Enlightenment throughout Europe, as well as
aspects of the French Revolution and the development of modern political, economic, and
educational thought. Wikipedia

Born June 28, 1712, Geneva, Switzerland

Died: July 2, 1778, Ermenonville, France

Philosophical era: Age of Enlightenment, Social contract, Romanticism, Modern philosophy

Influenced by: René Descartes, Jean le Rond d'Alembert.

Books: The Social Contract, Emile, Or Treatise on Education.

THE NECESSITY OF FREEDOM

More than any other issue in political philosophy, Rousseau discusses freedom in his writings
with the intention of illuminating how man is endowed with an admirable entire freedom in his
natural state. This complete independence exists for two reasons. First, because he is neither
dominated by other males nor restricted by a repressive state system, natural man is physically
free. Second, because he is not held captive by any of the fabricated requirements that define
contemporary society, he is mentally and spiritually free. The freedom from necessity, the
second kind of freedom, is a notably original and groundbreaking aspect of Rousseau's theory.
According to Rousseau, contemporary man's captivity to his own needs is to blame for a variety
of societal problems, including the exploitation and dominance of women.

The freedom of all of its inhabitants, according to Rousseau, must be the primary goal of decent
governance. In specifically, The Social Contract is Rousseau's attempt to envision the type of
government that most affirms the individual freedom of its entire people, subject to certain
limitations that are inherent in a complex, contemporary civil society. In subsequent years, Marx
and many other Communist and anarchist social thinkers reiterated Rousseau's observation that,
so long as property and regulations are in place, individuals in modern society would never be as
completely free as they are in nature. But Rousseau was a firm believer that there are some
governing principles that, if put into practice, may provide people a degree of freedom that at
least comes close to the freedom experienced by individuals.

DEFINING THE NATURAL AND THE STATE OF NATURE

For Rousseau to succeed in determining which societal institutions and structures contradict
man’s natural goodness and freedom, he must first define the “natural”. Rousseau strips away all
the ideas that centuries of development have imposed on the true nature of man and concludes
that many of the ideas we take for granted, such as property, law, and moral inequality, actually
have no basis in nature. For Rousseau, modern society generally compares unfavorably to the
“state of nature.”

As Rousseau discusses in the Discourse on Inequality and The Social Contract, the state of

nature is the hypothetical, prehistoric place and time where human beings live uncorrupted by
society. The most important characteristic of the state of nature is that people have complete
physical freedom and are at liberty to do essentially, as they wish. That said, the state of nature
also carries the drawback that human beings have not yet discovered rationality or morality. In
different works, Rousseau alternately emphasizes the benefits and shortfalls of the state of
nature, but largely he reveres it for the physical freedom it grants people, allowing them to be
unencumbered by the coercive influence of the state and society. In this regard, Rousseau’s
conception of the state of nature is entirely more positive than Hobbes’s conception of the same
idea, as Hobbes, who originated the term, viewed the state of nature as essentially a state of war
and savagery. This difference in definition indicates the two philosophers’ differing views of
human nature, which Rousseau viewed as essentially good and Hobbes as essentially base and
brutal. Finally, Rousseau acknowledged that although we can never return to the state of nature,
understanding it is essential for society’s members to more fully realize their natural goodness.
THE DANGER OF NEED
Rousseau incorporates an analysis of human needs as a factor in comparing modern society with
the state of nature. According to Rousseau, "needs" arise from passions that drive people to
desire things or activities. In nature, human needs are strictly limited to those necessary for
survival and reproduction, such as food, sleep, and sex. It has been. In contrast, with the
development of cooperation and division of labor in modern society, men's needs have doubled
to include many non-essentials such as friends, entertainment, and luxuries. Needs are becoming
more and more part of our daily lives and becoming necessities. Many of these needs are initially
pleasurable and even good for humans, but in modern society people eventually become slaves
to these extraneous needs and the whole society is held together and Unnecessary needs thus
underlie modern “moral inequalities.” Because the pursuit of needs inevitably forces one to work
to meet the needs of others, and one who, if he can, dominates those around him. Am. position.

A particularly relevant aspect of Rousseau's philosophy in the present day is his definition of
needs, especially the more artificial breed that dominates modern society. Given the enormous
wealth that exists in a country like the United States, and the extent to which consumerism fuels
its economy, Rousseau's findings show how American culture affects the population of an
increasingly enslaved population. It should be something to think about for those concerned
about what to feed. Artificial Needs.

THE POSSIBILITY OF AUTHENTICITY IN MODERN LIFE

Rousseau places a special emphasis on the issue of how authentic man's existence is in
contemporary society, which is related to his overarching goal of understanding how modern life
differs from life in the state of nature. According to Rousseau, authenticity fundamentally refers
to how closely contemporary man's existence mirrors the admirable qualities of his true nature.

Rousseau believes that individuals in contemporary society often lead unauthentic lives, which is
not unexpected.
Man is free to merely cater to his own inherent wants in the state of nature, with limited
opportunities to engage with others. He may just "be", but contemporary man frequently has to
"appear" as well as "be" in order to subtly achieve his absurd desires.

The complete artificial needs-based mechanism that controls.

THE UNNATURALNESS OF INEQUALITY

For Rousseau, the questions of why and how human beings are naturally equal and unequal, if
they are unequal at all, are fundamental to his larger philosophical enquiry. To form his critique
of modern society’s problems, he must show that many of the forms of inequality endemic to
society are in fact not natural and can therefore be remedied. His conclusions and larger line of
reasoning in this argument are laid out in the Discourse on Inequality, but the basic thrust of his
argument is that human inequality, as we know it does not exist in the state of nature. In fact, the
only kind of natural inequality, according to Rousseau, is the physical inequality that exists
among men in the state of nature who may be more or less able to provide for themselves
according to their physical attributes.

THE GENERAL WILL AND THE COMMON GOOD

Perhaps the most difficult and quasi-metaphysical concept in Rousseau's political philosophy is
the principle of the general will. As Rousseau explains, the general will is the will of a sovereign
or all peoples aiming for the best common good for the nation as a whole. may have a will, but in
a healthy state where people rightly put the collective interest, the amalgamation of all special
wills, the "will of all" above their own personal interests, the general will Equivalent to
Rousseau's abstract conception of the general will raises some difficult questions. The first is
how we can know that all wills are equal to the common good. The second question is assuming
that a general will exists and can be expressed in law, which institution can accurately measure
and codify the general will at any given point in time? Addressing these complex dilemmas is a
large part of Rousseau's political thought, and Rousseau seeks to answer them with things like
the social contract.
THE IDEA OF COLLECTIVE SOVEREIGNTY
Until Rousseau’s time, the sovereign in any given state was regarded as the central authority in
that society, responsible for enacting and enforcing all laws. Most often, the sovereign took the
form of an authoritative monarch who possessed absolute dominion over his or her subjects. In
Rousseau’s work, however, sovereignty takes on a different meaning, as sovereignty is said to
reside in all the people of the society as a collective. The people, as a sovereign entity, express
their sovereignty through their general will and must never have their sovereignty abrogated by
anyone or anything outside their collective self. In this regard, sovereignty is not identified with
the government but is instead opposed against it. The government’s function is thus only to
enforce and respect the sovereign will of the people and in no way seek to repress or dominate
the general will.