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
The guy on the left perfectly explained my thoughts/doubts concerning this topic! I'm impressed! Showing both views on the Social Contract of Rousseau really helps me understand it better. Also, the explanation and visuals in a whole is just amazing. I learned so much! Thank you!
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.
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.
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
Thank u for this, simply explained in layman's terms, easy to understand as ND I, like the critique at the end. I'm writing my essay on Theme 1 on Monday and this will definitely help.
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.
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.
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
General Will and the Social Contract Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract (1762) provides a framework for establishing a just political order, where individual freedom is reconciled with collective governance. Central to this vision is the general will, a concept that prioritizes the common good over personal interests. Rousseau believed that the general will, when institutionalized through a social contract, could restore equality and moral autonomy in a corrupt civil society. This essay critically examines the relationship between the general will and the social contract, exploring its philosophical underpinnings, practical implications, and critiques. --- The Social Contract: Context and Foundations Rousseau’s Social Contract responds to the inequalities and moral corruption caused by the transition from the state of nature to civil society. In the state of nature, Rousseau describes humans as noble savages-free, content, and self-sufficient. Unlike Hobbes’ depiction of chaos and violence, Rousseau’s state of nature was characterized by simplicity and harmony, driven by two instincts: 1. Self-preservation, ensuring survival without unnecessary harm to others. 2. Pity, a natural compassion that prevents harm to fellow beings. However, as humans developed perfectibility-the capacity for self-improvement-they began interacting more frequently. Over time, the accumulation of private property introduced greed, dependency, and inequality. Rousseau laments this loss of freedom, declaring: > “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” To address this, Rousseau proposed a social contract, a collective agreement where individuals subordinate their personal interests to the general will to create a moral and egalitarian society. --- The General Will: Concept and Features The general will is the foundation of Rousseau’s social contract. It represents the collective interest of all members of society, as opposed to the particular will, which reflects individual or group interests. Key Features of the General Will 1. Universality: Laws based on the general will apply equally to all citizens, ensuring fairness and equality. 2. Indivisibility: The general will transcends individual or factional interests, reflecting the unified welfare of the community. 3. Moral Freedom: By obeying the general will, individuals achieve moral liberty-the freedom to act in accordance with the collective good rather than selfish desires. 4. Participatory Governance: Rousseau advocates for direct democracy, where citizens actively participate in lawmaking. He critiques representative democracy, arguing that it distorts the general will by delegating authority to intermediaries. Rousseau equates the general will with natural harmony, emphasizing that adherence to it fosters peace, equality, and moral transformation. He believed that individuals resisting the general will must be "forced to be free," as submission to just laws ensures true freedom. --- The Role of the Social Contract Through the social contract, individuals collectively agree to form a political community governed by the general will. This process ensures: 1. Reconciliation of Freedom and Authority: By participating in the creation of laws, individuals retain their autonomy while ensuring collective harmony. The authority derived from the general will is legitimate because it represents the collective agreement of all. 2. Equality and Justice: Laws based on the general will eliminate arbitrary privileges and ensure fairness in access to resources and opportunities. 3. Moral Transformation:u. , , X xx̌ Obedience to laws rooted in the general will t. ?ransforms individuals into moral citizens, prioritizing empathy, cooperation, and collective welfare over greed and selfishness. "The General Will" of Rousseau, which is a translation of the French, "volonté générale" could also be referred to as "the popular will." In brief, it is a collective will or desire of the people. For Rousseau, it is general both in terms of who wills it as well as its object. Thus, on the one hand, the general will refers to what the collective people as a whole will. On the other hand, the general will refers to norms, laws, principles, values, institutions, etc. that a people group wills as an object. --- Criticisms of the General Will and Social Contract While Rousseau’s concept of the general will is inspiring, it has been critiqued for its theoretical and practical challenges: 1. Authoritarian Implications Rousseau’s claim that individuals can be “forced to be free” raises concerns about coercion. Critics argue that this idea could justify authoritarianism, as leaders might suppress dissent under the pretext of enforcing the general will. 2. Exclusion of Diversity The general will assumes moral homogeneity, risking the suppression of minority views. Feminist critiques, for example, highlight how patriarchal interpretations of morality could marginalize women and reinforce inequality. 3. Practical Challenges Implementing direct democracy is difficult in modern, large-scale societies with diverse populations. Achieving consensus on the general will is time-consuming and often impractical. 4. Idealism Rousseau’s belief that individuals will prioritize collective welfare over personal interests is seen as overly optimistic. Critics argue that self-interest often overrides moral considerations, especially in competitive societies. --- Relevance and Legacy Despite its limitations, Rousseau’s concept of the general will remains a cornerstone of democratic thought. 1. Influence on Democratic Theory: Rousseau’s emphasis on participatory governance inspires models of direct democracy, particularly in local and small-scale communities. 2. Moral Foundations of Law: The general will underscores the importance of laws that prioritize collective welfare over factional interests. This principle resonates in contemporary debates on social justice, environmental ethics, and human rights. 3. Critique of Modernity: Rousseau’s critique of inequality and moral decay continues to influence discussions on wealth distribution, social welfare policies, and ethical governance. --- Conclusion Rousseau’s Social Contract and the concept of the general will offer a profound vision for a just and egalitarian society. By aligning individual autonomy with collective welfare, Rousseau seeks to create a moral community that transcends self-interest. While his ideas face practical and philosophical criticisms, they continue to inspire modern debates on governance, democracy, and social justice. Rousseau challenges societies to balance individual freedoms with the common good, providing a timeless framework for equitable and harmonious governance.
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.
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
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 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.
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
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.
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.
Good as his intentions were, Rousseau his social contract did cause the foundation to be laid out for the 14 communist states to be formed. Lenin being the first to take up the mantle of the Legistrator. 12:20
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
![เป็นไปได้ไหม - WanMai [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_6lZ6b3_7Vo/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.
The guy on the left perfectly explained my thoughts/doubts concerning this topic! I'm impressed! Showing both views on the Social Contract of Rousseau really helps me understand it better. Also, the explanation and visuals in a whole is just amazing. I learned so much! Thank you!
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
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
Your method of conveying the much twisted philosophy lessons through a way understandable, convenient and easy is worth appreciating and rewarding.
This is going to help me write my exam tomorrow on Western political thought. The explanation is very interesting.
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!
Great work …..❤❤❤ genuine appreciation and love from India.
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 :)
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!
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.
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.
I’d love to see you guys do a video on Murray Bookchin’s ideas of Decentralized Direct Democracy (Communalism).
Economic investigator Frank G Melbourne Australia is following this very informative content cheers Frank 😊
The final argument about using the internet for direct democracy is actually really good
Terrible idea.
Thank u for this, simply explained in layman's terms, easy to understand as ND I, like the critique at the end. I'm writing my essay on Theme 1 on Monday and this will definitely help.
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.
I am so thankful for this video! It helped me understand so much
Glad we could help :)
Awesome video, love the two sides. The diversity of thought and argument. Well done
Thank you :)
Best explanation ever. Thank you
You're welcome, thanks for watching.
This is amazing.. please continue
Thank you :)
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
Great lectures thanks you very much
General Will and the Social Contract
Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract (1762) provides a framework for establishing a just political order, where individual freedom is reconciled with collective governance. Central to this vision is the general will, a concept that prioritizes the common good over personal interests. Rousseau believed that the general will, when institutionalized through a social contract, could restore equality and moral autonomy in a corrupt civil society. This essay critically examines the relationship between the general will and the social contract, exploring its philosophical underpinnings, practical implications, and critiques.
---
The Social Contract: Context and Foundations
Rousseau’s Social Contract responds to the inequalities and moral corruption caused by the transition from the state of nature to civil society. In the state of nature, Rousseau describes humans as noble savages-free, content, and self-sufficient. Unlike Hobbes’ depiction of chaos and violence, Rousseau’s state of nature was characterized by simplicity and harmony, driven by two instincts:
1. Self-preservation, ensuring survival without unnecessary harm to others.
2. Pity, a natural compassion that prevents harm to fellow beings.
However, as humans developed perfectibility-the capacity for self-improvement-they began interacting more frequently. Over time, the accumulation of private property introduced greed, dependency, and inequality. Rousseau laments this loss of freedom, declaring:
> “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.”
To address this, Rousseau proposed a social contract, a collective agreement where individuals subordinate their personal interests to the general will to create a moral and egalitarian society.
---
The General Will: Concept and Features
The general will is the foundation of Rousseau’s social contract. It represents the collective interest of all members of society, as opposed to the particular will, which reflects individual or group interests.
Key Features of the General Will
1. Universality:
Laws based on the general will apply equally to all citizens, ensuring fairness and equality.
2. Indivisibility:
The general will transcends individual or factional interests, reflecting the unified welfare of the community.
3. Moral Freedom:
By obeying the general will, individuals achieve moral liberty-the freedom to act in accordance with the collective good rather than selfish desires.
4. Participatory Governance:
Rousseau advocates for direct democracy, where citizens actively participate in lawmaking. He critiques representative democracy, arguing that it distorts the general will by delegating authority to intermediaries.
Rousseau equates the general will with natural harmony, emphasizing that adherence to it fosters peace, equality, and moral transformation. He believed that individuals resisting the general will must be "forced to be free," as submission to just laws ensures true freedom.
---
The Role of the Social Contract
Through the social contract, individuals collectively agree to form a political community governed by the general will. This process ensures:
1. Reconciliation of Freedom and Authority:
By participating in the creation of laws, individuals retain their autonomy while ensuring collective harmony. The authority derived from the general will is legitimate because it represents the collective agreement of all.
2. Equality and Justice:
Laws based on the general will eliminate arbitrary privileges and ensure fairness in access to resources and opportunities.
3. Moral Transformation:u. , ,
X xx̌ Obedience to laws rooted in the general will t. ?ransforms individuals into moral citizens, prioritizing empathy, cooperation, and collective welfare over greed and selfishness.
"The General Will" of Rousseau, which is a translation of the French, "volonté générale" could also be referred to as "the popular will." In brief, it is a collective will or desire of the people. For Rousseau, it is general both in terms of who wills it as well as its object. Thus, on the one hand, the general will refers to what the collective people as a whole will. On the other hand, the general will refers to norms, laws, principles, values, institutions, etc. that a people group wills as an object.
---
Criticisms of the General Will and Social Contract
While Rousseau’s concept of the general will is inspiring, it has been critiqued for its theoretical and practical challenges:
1. Authoritarian Implications
Rousseau’s claim that individuals can be “forced to be free” raises concerns about coercion. Critics argue that this idea could justify authoritarianism, as leaders might suppress dissent under the pretext of enforcing the general will.
2. Exclusion of Diversity
The general will assumes moral homogeneity, risking the suppression of minority views. Feminist critiques, for example, highlight how patriarchal interpretations of morality could marginalize women and reinforce inequality.
3. Practical Challenges
Implementing direct democracy is difficult in modern, large-scale societies with diverse populations. Achieving consensus on the general will is time-consuming and often impractical.
4. Idealism
Rousseau’s belief that individuals will prioritize collective welfare over personal interests is seen as overly optimistic. Critics argue that self-interest often overrides moral considerations, especially in competitive societies.
---
Relevance and Legacy
Despite its limitations, Rousseau’s concept of the general will remains a cornerstone of democratic thought.
1. Influence on Democratic Theory:
Rousseau’s emphasis on participatory governance inspires models of direct democracy, particularly in local and small-scale communities.
2. Moral Foundations of Law:
The general will underscores the importance of laws that prioritize collective welfare over factional interests. This principle resonates in contemporary debates on social justice, environmental ethics, and human rights.
3. Critique of Modernity:
Rousseau’s critique of inequality and moral decay continues to influence discussions on wealth distribution, social welfare policies, and ethical governance.
---
Conclusion
Rousseau’s Social Contract and the concept of the general will offer a profound vision for a just and egalitarian society. By aligning individual autonomy with collective welfare, Rousseau seeks to create a moral community that transcends self-interest. While his ideas face practical and philosophical criticisms, they continue to inspire modern debates on governance, democracy, and social justice. Rousseau challenges societies to balance individual freedoms with the common good, providing a timeless framework for equitable and harmonious governance.
Thank you so much for this informative video. It really helped me understand the theory.
You're welcome, glad we can help.
Awaken from the slumber in The matrix and embrace true freedom of true Anarchy
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!
Man that is an amazing video, thank you so much!
A pleasure, glad you enjoyed.
very beautifully covered the whole topic...that was very useful indeed...thanks for sharing such a beautiful video
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.
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 :)
I and everyone else on this planet is born sovereign.
Pretty interesting stuff, thank you
You're welcome, thanks for watching.
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?
Thank you so much for this vidio..i'am really need this vidio expecially heip me for studying about teory J J Rouseeau.....💖💖👍👍
I LOVE YOU GUYS , KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK !
Thank you!!!
very good explanation on rousseau, and the arguments are great..
Thank you!
Great video, awesome explanation!
Thank you!
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.
I love the video. Thanks for the explanation 😍
You're welcome, glad you enjoyed :)
Awesome work!
Thank you :D
New subscriber from northeast India 😊
Welcome.
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.
Thank you very educational
You're welcome :)
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
The guy arguing with you is definitely a thomas hobbes fan
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.
Our creator gave us rights that surpasses life liberty and justice
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.
It can not be summarized better. Thanks a lot
You're welcome :)
Thank you so much for your videos ❤️ from #India.
You're welcome, glad you're enjoying them.
Wow good explanation 😊
Thank you 🙂
Thanks so much
You're welcome.
One who would give there freedom for safety deserve neither.
Thank you!
You're welcome :)
Please make wedios about cecero thomas aquinas and machiowelli as well
Great work from you❤❤❤❤
Thank you :)
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
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.
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
Amazing 🤩
Thank you :)
Damn this Rousseau guy was spittin
Watched all of it twice 15:18
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 video’s!
Thank you!
I love how the guy on the left plays the devil
Nice vid go on ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ 12:35 12:35 12:35
Halt die schnauze
Wie geht’s dir?
@@julius9674 gut und dir
Ps: Grüß mal konrad von mir
❤❤❤
@@julius9674
John is based af
One of the greatest fiction works of all time.
The modern equivalent being DiEM25, of which Chomsky is a member...
Good work bro
Thank you.
Bestest❤️
Thank you :)
Good as his intentions were, Rousseau his social contract did cause the foundation to be laid out for the 14 communist states to be formed. Lenin being the first to take up the mantle of the Legistrator. 12:20
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
Politicians....DO you mean or include the government officers...???
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 like the guy on the left.
Alas, the noble sovereign concept is not seen in reality.
Are you two people or just one? I'm really confused 😅
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.
Well we are bound by the laws of physics. So not totally free
who else is watching this for school
According to Locke the only function of the government is to protect Life, liberty and property* not justice I think.
💚🌱
Purple coat seems to be addressing Trumpolini's s'porters.
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
How many of the philosophical problems with the social contract are already real world problems, simply split into 2 in the U.S. .
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.
Direct democracy thru Internet is possible thecnically but what will the outcome be? People are still ignorant, biased and selfish.
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.
I see
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.
Key word "CONTRACT", show me that Bonified contract with my autograph on it.
Rousseau but based.
Right 🤣🤣💔💔🔥🔥I see 😭😭💔🤣🤣🔥
Who else having exam on 10 May 2024😂
OMG here 😆😆😆 I have just started now 😅
Here too😮😂
Here 11:10am🤣
Make video on faminism please.