The Natural Human Condition from Rousseau and Plato Perspectives
Rousseau has always been an important personality in the philosophical history due to the contribution, which he have made in the political philosophy and in the moral psychology .and his influence, which he made on the later thinkers. His views on philosophy were sometimes negative seeing them of the self-interest. His philosophy focused on preserving human freedom in the world where people are dependent on one another for satisfying their needs (Stein, 2011).
Plato was known as the philosopher in classical Greece. He was also the founder of the academy in the Athens, which was the first institution of the higher learning in the western world. He is contributed with the development of philosophy in the modern world. He has developed the areas like the philosophy of metaphysics, aesthetics and ethics, and epistemology. Plato has discussed the love, friendship as the two main dialogues in the lysis and symposium. He considered lover of wisdom and discussion. Then he considered himself as the inventor and disturber of the erotic norms. His views on the love are mediation ad provided him the power over his philosophical conversation has to obsess as well as educate.
Both the Rousseau and Plato have experienced different things in the world so both have many different views about the natural human condition. In some of their views, there are many similarities and in some of their views, they have experienced many differences (Williamson, 2012).
According to Plato, friends are very important and play a very important role, the human condition must need social interaction. According to Plato, everyone is living in their specific lifestyle and they all have different skills as well as abilities. According to Plato, everyone is contributing different kinds of assets to the society. So it would be wise and better to have the corporation with them because their corporation is necessary to lead a successful life in the society. These all are considered the natural condition and they help the society to live happily. These things also help and motivate the society to corporate with each other.
However, the views of Rousseau are different from the Plato, he believes that not the friends but this is the community, festivals, religious rites, and the sports are the reasons to helping and attaching the citizens. He is more into the modernity views. Vibrissae believe that the people are self-sufficient. Moreover, to explain more clearly, Roseau further explains by explaining his self-sufficient and points out that nature had allowed us that we must feel our own existence. It is allowing us to indicate our own instincts. Roseau compares man with animals and their similarities. He observes the animals and the defense that comes into the role (Williams, 2010).
Rousseau also constitutes the self-defense about the human nature. This defense allows us to have a hope. He provided the reason for the society in which the members respect one another for equal rights and also demands the actions of the freedom and love. According to Rousseau, living the same kind of life repeatedly helps in adapting the environment. According to them, the battle does not have any existence among the people and in their natural state and it is important to respect the property of others.
According to Rousseau, the general will is considered as a limited solution to the problems, which requires collective action. The views of Rousseau were more about collectivism and creating the community .if there will be more citizens then the society will be more at peace and you will have everything you need. With the help of citizens who have, common interest and they are ready to act upon what right and wrong would be able to avoid the unwanted outcomes. He focuses that when in the situations which are out of control of us like in the state of war or danger, the things which they need is compassion, communism. The things at which people can rely on, they need basic survival needs .if they were to acquire more possessions; they would have plenty of it. The things, which they need the most, are the reliance and there is no such need of social interaction. Although, yes, the sympathy is needed .general compassion is also required. in the nature state, he observed that the egoism was absent and compassion was present and found to be the greater virtues of the mankind. According to him, ca tempting one another could hurt the feelings of one another. In the presence of proper society, there will be no time for blame, judgment, and comparison with other .distinction makes people unequal. The thing much mattered to Rousseau was most was the good intentions and not the achievements and outer appearance (Cooper, 2010).
The festivals play a huge role as they bring the people together. Different religions and cultures have different functions. People are collected in the society on the bias of religion, culture, community and these things have a huge impact in creating the peaceful society which everyone wants in order to live happily in the society.
The people who are working together are in the support of the Plato” views that yes it is necessary that each of them having different skills must bring something to the table. The city is the place of the main priority and to work together and doing the necessary things is also necessary. If the people and the citizens stay away then they can focus on them and will not be focused on working together.
However, when we see the Rousseau views that the human beings being the self-sufficient then our views changes with them too in such a way that people cannot plot against each other if they are self-sufficient already. The Rousseau presents the nature human form that what is needed. Therefore, both the Plato and Rousseau views are very important for living in a peaceful society.
When it comes to comparing both of their views, then it could be said that both of them wanted a peaceful city. In spite of the fact that this thought is the reason, which first started in the war. From reading all above, it has been apparent that both of them believe that the authority is what matters because it helps in keeping the city under the control. There is one type of authority which can be said to as the government and that brings the rules as well as regulation into the city. After a huge debate, the people have alertly understood the importance of the authority and the fact, which it brings into to the society. It brings peace and justice in the city (Ziegler, 2016).
Comparing both of them, it is clear that both the views of Plato and roses are very much similar in the way that Plato promotes friendship if there is a friendship, love interaction. Then there will be the creation of the peaceful society; the society, in which the Rousseau live peacefully. The community is created when there will be enough compassion, understanding, love, a friendship between them.
You may also study:
- Cooper, L. D. (2010). Eros in Plato, Rousseau, and Nietzsche: The Politics of Infinity. Penn State Press.
- Stein, J. B. (2011). Commentary on the Constitution from Plato to Rousseau. Lexington Books.
- Williams, D. L. (2010). Rousseau’s Platonic Enlightenment. Penn State Press.
- Williamson, J. (2012, June 6). Plato and Rousseau: freedom, utopia and the status quo. Retrieved September 30, 2016, from https://liberalreflections.wordpress.com/2012/06/06/plato-and-rousseau-freedom-utopia-and-the-status-quo/
- Ziegler, W. (2016). Great Thinkers in 60 Minutes – Volume 1: Plato, Rousseau, Smith, Kant, Hegel. BoD – Books on Demand.