ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Rousseau's Social Contract Theory
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ส.ค. 2024
- Join George and John as they discuss and debate different Philosophical ideas, today they will be looking into the Political Philosophy of Jean-Jaques Rousseau, and focusing on his Social Contract Theory.
A Social Contract is an agreement made between the people and the sovereign as to how society will be ruled, however Rousseau argued that in order to balance people’s freedom with the power of the sovereign it in fact the peoples themselves who should become the sovereign. This social contract theory proposes a direct democratic rule to society. Watch as George and John explain the theory and look at the benefits and challenges of this approach.
The script to this video is part of the Philosophy Vibe “Political Philosophy” eBook, available on Amazon:
mybook.to/phil...
Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology Vol 3 'Ethics & Political Philosophy' available worldwide on Amazon:
mybook.to/phil...
Grab some Philosophy Vibe merchandise: philosophy-vib...
0:00 - Introduction
0:25 - Social Contract explained
1:27 - The State of Nature
3:02 - Inequality and Amor Propre
5:03 - People as the sovereign & the General Will
9:33 - Problems with direct democracy
12:05 - The Legislator
#socialcontract #rousseau #philosophy #rousseausocialcontract #politicalphilosophy
![[TH]FFWS SEA 2024 Fall - Knockout Stage Day 1](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nsDmUQdWVtg/mqdefault.jpg)
The script to this video is part of the Philosophy Vibe “Political Philosophy” eBook, available on Amazon:
mybook.to/philosophyvibe9
Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology Vol 3 'Ethics & Political Philosophy' available worldwide on Amazon:
mybook.to/philosophyvibevol3
These 15 min = hours of lecture by my professor.
Hats off
yes agreed
I like the two-character thing going on. One teaches the theory and argues in favor of it and the other plays devil’s advocate and argued against it.
This is going to help me write my exam tomorrow on Western political thought. The explanation is very interesting.
Keep going. I like your videos. Though the view counts currently is not very impressive, the form and flow of your video are great. These videos do a magnificent job to assist people who are eager to learn philosophy while lacking an easy way to start. So for the sake of people who are interested like me for example, please continue to produce more philosophy educational video.
Thank you. We are growing slowly but surely :)
Any you tube discussion over a third grade level will never garner much of a following no matter how well done the program
@@lv4077false, math videos
Wow. Learning philosophy on this channel is mind blowing. Not only is the information propagated in a clear, yet concise fashion, but we also get to see it from different perspectives.
Glad you're finding the content useful :D
I am currently writing an extra credit essay and just want to thank you for this video. You are the best and are truly saving my a** today.
Glad we could help, best of luck in the essay!
Hey. That's a new twist. Point, counter-point, and now counter-counter-point with the blockchain mention.
Pretty cool.
Thanks :)
I found this highly useful thank you very much! I especially liked the evaluation of each point being met with multiple counter arguments, this was a good balanced analysis. One thing that would make this source infinitely more valuable would be if you included a list of references you used and especially if you showed which source backs which point. Having the journal citation in the corner as you make an argument would massively increase the reliability of this video. Thanks so much :)
Thank you, glad you found it helpful, and thanks for the advice :)
I’d love to see you guys do a video on Murray Bookchin’s ideas of Decentralized Direct Democracy (Communalism).
This is great stuff. I enjoy videos that simply state philosophical ideas, but this form goes a step further with points and counter points. Truly valuable work you guys are doing here 👍
Side note: Although I agree with the impracticability of the idea, I'd love to have a beer with Rousseau.
Thank you very much, glad you like the content!
Economic investigator Frank G Melbourne Australia is following this very informative content cheers Frank 😊
AMAZING!!!! why can't my profs teach like this!! This made it so much easier to understand!! I know so much now!! THank you from the bottom of my heart, you are doing God's work!!! Truly.
It's a pleasure, glad you found the content useful.
Government by Consent is Government for Group Identity:
1. Government by consent is only possible by sympathetic relations between governments and their subjects.
2. The cause of oppression is a lack of a sympathetic relation between governments and their subjects.
3. Sympathy between governments and their subjects is only possible by shared intentions.
4. Popular intention is expressed by support for institutions of ideology, politics, religion, culture, language, race and economics.
5. Institutions have the primary function of maintaining, uplifting and saving a group identity.
6. Group identity is freely chosen by people with shared intentions.
7. Shared intentions arise out of desire, want, need and necessity.
8. Government by consent is government for a specific group identity.
The final argument about using the internet for direct democracy is actually really good
Terrible idea.
Great work …..❤❤❤ genuine appreciation and love from India.
I'd like to react on the response to the question that when people don't vote on some issue to which the answer was unsatisfactory instead I feel that Rousseau has addressed this question in the Book II Chapter 1 last paragraph. Please check. "This is not to say that a chief's orders cannot pass for acts of the general will, so long as the sovereign authority, while free to reject them, refrains from doing so. In such a case the universal silence implies that the people has consented." Please see if it can be put like this.
even with the internet, complete direct democracy is impractical because all decisions would take much time; some kind of representative democracy would seem to be better, but then one has the problem of keeping representatives accountable to ALL of the people
Great lectures thanks you very much
Thank you so much for this informative video. It really helped me understand the theory.
You're welcome, glad we can help.
Thank you again! Your videos are great at explaining and I base my notes on them for university :)
So glad we can help :) good luck in the uni course.
@@PhilosophyVibe thank you!
very beautifully covered the whole topic...that was very useful indeed...thanks for sharing such a beautiful video
You're welcome, thanks for watching :)
who else is watching this for school
The guy arguing with you is definitely a thomas hobbes fan
Awaken from the slumber in The matrix and embrace true freedom of true Anarchy
Awesome video, love the two sides. The diversity of thought and argument. Well done
Thank you :)
I and everyone else on this planet is born sovereign.
I am so thankful for this video! It helped me understand so much
Glad we could help :)
Pretty interesting stuff, thank you
You're welcome, thanks for watching.
Thank you so much for this vidio..i'am really need this vidio expecially heip me for studying about teory J J Rouseeau.....💖💖👍👍
New subscriber from northeast India 😊
Welcome.
wow , what a video . loved it , the best , helps me understand pol science so easily . thank u so so much !!!!!
You're welcome, glad it helps :)
Man that is an amazing video, thank you so much!
A pleasure, glad you enjoyed.
It's really good vidio for studyng Phillosopy education for me its very interesting for knowing more better....so thank you so much...👍👍👍
You're welcome, thanks for watching.
Thank you very much, I'm studying for my test 🙏
You're welcome, best of luck in the test.
I love how the guy on the left plays the devil
Best explanation ever. Thank you
You're welcome, thanks for watching.
This is amazing.. please continue
Thank you :)
very good explanation on rousseau, and the arguments are great..
Thank you!
For Hobbes, the contract is between the individuals in the state of nature. They agree to surrender their "right to all things" to a sovereign in order to achieve peace. For Locke, the contract is between the people and the sovereign.
I love the video. Thanks for the explanation 😍
You're welcome, glad you enjoyed :)
Totally disagree with Rousseau, but I loved the video. And the channel. Great way to make people interested in phylosophy. Keep it up
Glad you enjoyed :)
Disagree what?
Why do you support dictatorship?
One who would give there freedom for safety deserve neither.
Damn this Rousseau guy was spittin
Thanks so much
You're welcome.
13:44 I believe Rousseau addressed this and specified that the object of each law must be general. (Meaning a law cannot apply to an individual or a minority.) This protects the individual from the power of the community.
But giving up the freedom and general will are some impracticable factors in this regard
This is a good point, but think of laws like 'minors cannot vote'. We made this rule because as a society we've determined that minors aren't educated/mature enough to vote, but what is stopping the majority from making this rule about a minority political group? Dismissing one's ideas because they are ignorant is (in my opinion) the right thing to do to keep society moving forward, but this could lead to problems don't you think? Like if the majority of a country was conservative and just made laws saying liberals can't vote because "they don't know what they're talking about/they don't know what's good for society". Not trying to argue or anything just curious
Amazing like always!
I think the last argument is good but I would still keep the ethical argument from the other guy.
If people vote in direct democracy about something it's not true it will not make it true. The same thing about what is ethical or not. IF perhaps, the majority of people vote we should have slavery again... it doesn't mean slavery would be ethical. Specially because when the majority vote to start violence against some specific group. This would still be direct democracy but sounds absurd to me.
On this point, I agree with Locke that we should respect natural rights. However, I don't believe this should be given to the state the judge, but to people. Of course, Hobbies would disagree :P
If I can suggest a very small book but a very deep one: The law. From Frederic Bastiat. It is a very good book about laws and very small, but very powerful.
Thank you Pedro, and thanks for the recommendation!
And the Man versus the State of Herbert Spencer.
Great video, awesome explanation!
Thank you!
Hi didn't Rousseau already observed that this form of government is more accurately an ‘elective aristocracy’ because in practice the people are not in power at all. Instead we’re allowed to decide who holds power over us.
The modern equivalent being DiEM25, of which Chomsky is a member...
It can not be summarized better. Thanks a lot
You're welcome :)
I am only scratching the surface of Rousseau's teachings but so far I like what he's saying.
Don't agree with what's said at 3:26 though, we humans have always, since we've evolved, looked at our peers to see whose beads were shinier.
Our creator gave us rights that surpasses life liberty and justice
Thank you very educational
You're welcome :)
Awesome work!
Thank you :D
Wow good explanation 😊
Thank you 🙂
I LOVE YOU GUYS , KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK !
Thank you!!!
Politicians....DO you mean or include the government officers...???
Please make wedios about cecero thomas aquinas and machiowelli as well
Found out through ancestry that Rousseau is my ancestor. I definitely think along similar lines without a doubt I believe that modern advancements are leading to social and moral degradation
Another really useful offering. Your channel is rather like Bertrand Russell's History of Philosophy, you can find a good introduction to a great number of things, and probably more balanced than Russell. As to Rousseau's collectivist idea, I don't have to think very deeply. Just look at 20th century history.
Thank you, glad you like the content :D
Thank you so much for your videos ❤️ from #India.
You're welcome, glad you're enjoying them.
Watched all of it twice 15:18
Hey I love Rousseau idea about people he might be sort of right but that's just a possibility we could possibly go into Chao's then decide to just all live to live
One of the greatest fiction works of all time.
Thank you!
You're welcome :)
Are you two people or just one? I'm really confused 😅
Please prepare a lecture on democracy too ۔
We have covered this briefly in our Political Philosophy part 1 video: th-cam.com/video/XmqRwjkfp-8/w-d-xo.html
Great work from you❤❤❤❤
Thank you :)
If Rousseau is not right like the arguments against, my question is what is the alternative because he only argues against without giving an alternative so to me a hollow argument against
So my take away is that Rousseau didn't understand that people are inherently unequal, he also didn't understand that nepotism is not correctable (unless of course you are incredibly religious). Likewise he didn't 'really' understand at least to what degree that all governing bodies no matter how constructed are driven by their plutocratic designers because the base nature of man is self interested.
Great video’s!
Thank you!
Good work bro
Thank you.
I like the guy on the left.
Amazing 🤩
Thank you :)
Well we are bound by the laws of physics. So not totally free
Seems to me the thought process is heavily influenced by the original corruption of our existence here and that's the understanding of our live/die lives practised as a game of win/lose.
Except you don't really die, you just don't have an opinion that matters and you abilities must benefit the winner.
Then it was believed that the winners were somehow better than the losers, and only winners would know what was best for the losers because if the losers knew what was best for themselves, they wouldn't be losers.
Convoluted I know.
Then throw in the concept of "profit" and the world went to hell.
This is a world of abundance and profit is a method of concentrating the abundance into the hands and control of the few, the elite, the entitled and the great winners.
Can that be denied now?
Profit as a concept needs the constant expenditure of our time and energy in order to exist like all lies do. Right Santa?
If we were not "working" for profit, it would not exist. It is a corruption and a abomination.
Whereas the truth stands on it's own and needs no support.
I suggest a paradigm shift from win/lose to Win/Win knowing it can only be denied for it would expose us all as "losers" being played by disrespectful games of win/lose for the benefit of the few. The game of win/lose is so easily set up and proven valid. Believe or die eh? Win/lose, live/die.
I'd suggest a paradigm shift from "for profit" to "Not For Profit", but it too would only expose us for what we truly are and that's just unacceptable at the moment.
Only our acceptance of the unacceptable can redeem us now.
Forgive this idiot for trying to explain the unknown in terms of the known so I'll say it this way.
The energy of this dimension of "All That Is", is a singularity and is unconditional.
Some would call it the unconditional love of God.
But I digress.
It allows for a trillion trillion stars to pound atoms to dust in order to create new atoms and then spew them out into the All That Is. Into this dimension of All That Is.
This unconditional energy does not make mistakes or is wrong because everything in the Unconditional is allowed.
Anything here that does not reflect the unconditional can only return to the Stardust to be recreated into higher forms of All That Is.
We are Stardust and this unconditional energy of All That Is expresses itself through us with our will.
To sum up, we have allowed our own unconditional energy to become so conditioned that we are now non-viable because we refuse to reflect this unconditional energy in our reality. We refuse the unconditional because of fear.
Fear of making a mistake, of being wrong, so fearful of failure and being filthy losers we have become limited, held back, and unable to achieve our highest potential.
Mistakes are but lessons when allowed, and now we no longer allow for mistakes.
The highest potential of the poor perverted people of the win/lose is everyone loses. AKA Hell on Earth.
It stands to reason that the potential of good and decent people of the win/win is heaven on earth. But it too late for that nonsense now.
Welcome to hell.
Have a great one.
I’ve never taken any actual course work in philosophy but I’ve read quite a bit about these various propositions.The common denominator that destroys most of these philosophical prescriptions seems to be humans.Unfortunately since they’re all attempting to propose a solution that by necessity is for human governance there will never be perfection just a constant battle to approximate a fair and just approach to human existence and social cohesion.
Purple coat seems to be addressing Trumpolini's s'porters.
Alas, the noble sovereign concept is not seen in reality.
What is said about 'amour propre' is not right. George means 'amour de soi-meme', self-love, a negative thing. Amour propre is the love for the community, the state, a positive thing.
💚🌱
John is based af
Bestest❤️
Thank you :)
How many of the philosophical problems with the social contract are already real world problems, simply split into 2 in the U.S. .
According to Locke the only function of the government is to protect Life, liberty and property* not justice I think.
Who else having exam on 10 May 2024😂
OMG here 😆😆😆 I have just started now 😅
Here too😮😂
Here 11:10am🤣
Direct democracy thru Internet is possible thecnically but what will the outcome be? People are still ignorant, biased and selfish.
Make video on faminism please.
I see
Key word "CONTRACT", show me that Bonified contract with my autograph on it.
This is Crazy- I would l like to Debate these Dead Dudes! May I borrow your video, to do it? :-)
History that is not explained, in story format. Something
that is employed in a fixtional storyline embarking in a tale
that might be inline
with the screenplay
that being employd
It may be, possiblly
be story line that if
a biography that it
will be refraining in
the supply of axual i.d.'ing & supplying
of possiblity
of identifying of
those actually involved in
said tale. Even, in a fictional since,
the tini essay could
be all from the factual mark, which would designate, fiction
mind you and them
who could be
those too well implicated souls having to get
a fictional finger, if
it were, in real time
pointed in direction
of the fictional folks
whixh were never in the interlaced cadre o guilty undisclosed actors and actesses
who, were never too
explained, identified
or even spoken of in
blaming format. No, doing so would be a
complete disobeyin'
of the supplyed tale of instruction given.
This fuctional story
would span a globe
to never infer those
that are directly in a
connection with the
second set of actor,
in a european way;
will not even hint as
to not infer any who
said, blatently, "don't
tell on me..." the sad
scene: bovine fridge
that encapsuled this
macabre, possiblity.
On a fictional sense
mind us. Thank you.³
Rousseau's social contract theory never considered the caveat of human mind to be greedy and selfish.
Rousseau is just being too optimistic about the society.
The more I learn about this social contract, the more resemblance if find with Karl Marx.
Rosseau is being a critic about Thomas Hobbes' Social Contract. Karl Marx is being a critic of Capitalism. And both suggests a fairytale Utopia that is impractical and unsustainable.
Well... Marx loved Rousseau's work, in fact he worked with precepts of Rousseau in his own ideas. Marx thought that the French Revolution as an idea was really what he had in mind, only that it was supposedly tarnished with "bourgeois ideas". In my own perspective, Robespierre's rule and its idea of "representing the people" to justify every action is the same colectivist bases for all colectivist ideologies.
Why create a system which emphasizes the worst aspects of humanity (greed and selfishness) which hurt the majority population when we can have a system which emphasizes the better aspects of humanity (empathy and cooperation)? Why have minority rule which deprives most freedom and gives the minority free reign to serve themselves which harms everyone else when we can have majority rule which enriches freedom for all aside those that would deprive others freedom from others and hurt them to serve themselves (the minority)? Seriously, why should we care about them when they just want to hurt us to benefit themselves? We should serve ourselves not them.
Life in the USSR was better than modern Russia, empirically. Life in the Eastern Bloc was better than their modern corporate counterparts, empirically. Socialism empirically provides a higher quality of life. Why care about the "freedom" for a few people to own everything with absolute power to serve and enrich themselves at the detriment to the majority? That's capitalism. Impractical and unsustainable? That's capitalism.
Why create a system which emphasizes the worst aspects of humanity (greed and selfishness) which hurt the majority population when we can have a system which emphasizes the better aspects of humanity (empathy and cooperation)? Why have minority rule which deprives most freedom and gives the minority free reign to serve themselves which harms everyone else when we can have majority rule which enriches freedom for all aside those that would deprive others freedom from others and hurt them to serve themselves (the minority)? Seriously, why should we care about them when they just want to hurt us to benefit themselves? We should serve ourselves not them. We should be free as equals in cooperation not slaves to a self serving minority that hates us. The only alternative to democracy is slavery and suffering.
Right 🤣🤣💔💔🔥🔥I see 😭😭💔🤣🤣🔥
Rousseau but based.
Rousseau’s theory seems completely contradictory to me. The people are the sovereign and get together to decide what’s best for the “general will” - but there will ALWAYS be some who disagree, in which case they’re forced to submit what they would regard as their freedom/sovereignty to the majority - were back to square one 🤷♂️ Seems like Rousseau didn’t know anything about human nature. I agree the whole social contract system is just tyrannical.
NU students 💀?
"The people must be forced to be free"... has always been every Communist dictators wet dream and I always run away screaming, whenever I hear it.