{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Rousseau - he idealizes society as being made by its...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
I agree that the two works focus on different subjects and so contradictions shouldn’t be focused upon too much. The first work focuses on the “Origin of Inequality” and the second focuses on more on society in general. So within these contexts there are going to be overlaps like Mari pointed out in his discussion on the civil state and within those overlaps it is reasonable to compare the two writings.<br> I think Rousseau is consistent in his idealistic views, but sometimes chooses one idealization while ignoring the other. In the “Origin of Inequality” he idealizes the natural state where people can do whatever they want without thoughts or worries and views society as an artificial and poorly made human construct. In the “Social Contract”
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: he idealizes society as being made by its members to serve their best interests and views the state of nature as what people were trying to get away from once they became aware of their conditions in it. He seems to adopt a Platonic viewpoint on how if people purely follow their desires without thinking they will become enslaved to them. <br> So the way I see to reconcile these seeming opposite view points is to suggest that Rousseau was saying that people in the state of nature when they run around naked not thinking about anything are in the state of most liberty. However when reason enters the equation, then people can not ignore it and continue being savages, in which case the society becomes the state of most liberty....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online