Philosophy

The Main Philosophy of Rousseau
      Rousseau was a dramatic influence for the great changes on the face of the earth. The social contracts and our obligations to the social contracts along with the impact of human nature on politics and government are very logically encrypted on the philosophy of this great visionary. His views were developed logically on the theory that force does not create right and we are obliged to obey only legitimate powers (Rousseau 16). It is because force is a physical power and to yield to force is always an act caused by pressure, fear or necessity. Duty does not exist in such situation, but it can only be considered as a prudent act. Moreover, if force creates right, every force that is greater than the previous would lead to its right. When one can disobey without being subjected to any punishment, the disobedience becomes right. So the strongest will always be right. At the same time, such right would cease to exist when the force is lost. In such case, one is not obeying but one is ought to do. As a result, right stays completely aloof from force as right does not ad anything to force. Thus, we come to the conclusion that force does not create right.

      On the whole, no man has a natural authority over his fellow man therefore, socially acceptable behaviours form the basis of all legitimate authority among man (Rousseau 17). A mans act of submitting himself to slavery gratuitously is very illogical and unreasonable. For To renounce liberty is to renounce being a man, to surrender the rights of humanity and even its duties. For him who renounces everything no indemnity is possible. Such a renunciation is incompatible with mans nature to remove all liberty from his will is to remove all morality from his acts (Rousseau 17). It is never a socially acceptable behaviour to have all authority on one side and utter, unconditional obedience on the other side. No one has the right to conquer, unless the strongest have the right to impose authority. The conqueror has no right to kill the conquered, hence, the conqueror can not make the conquered buy his life in exchange of his liberty as the victor holds no right on both the life and the liberty of the defeated. Thus, making a war prisoner a slave is never a favour to the prisoner but in a way killing the prisoner to the victors advantage.

    Then, when man moves to the civil state, a great change is produced in man as far as the social conventions are concerned. The mans actions would have the morality caused partly by the sense of justice in his deeds. At this stage, he deprives some of the advantages he received from the nature in order to let the sense of duty towards the civil society become the priority. In this context, according to Rousseau (27) What man loses by the social contract is his natural liberty and an unlimited right to everything he tries to get and succeeds in getting what he gains is civil liberty and the proprietorship of all he possesses. Thus, man achieves a status of being an intelligent being instead of an instinctive being, and a morel liberty which makes him discern things for himself.

     The biggest concern for a state is the concern of its own preservation as it is a moral person who exists in union with its members. Thus, each member is a part of that morel being. Hence, the moral body has absolute power to dispose all parts to the advantage of the whole. This absolute power of the state under the social contract (general will) can be termed as sovereignty. The common interests make the contract a general will, and sovereign power does not and can not exceed the limits of general conventions. Once this concept comprehended, there can not be a real or complete renunciation on the part of the individuals. They have instead made an advantageous exchange. Instead of natural independence they have got liberty, instead of the power to harm others security for themselves, and instead of their strength, which others might overcome, a right which social union makes invincible (Rousseau 36).

The Main Philosophy of Nietzsche
     Looking at the philosophers with a critical eye, Nietzsche (9) states that the greater part of conscious thinking must be counted among the instinctive functions, and it is so even in the case of philosophical thinking. Behind all logic and its obvious sovereignty of movement, there are valuations or physiological demands for the maintenance of a definite mode of life. In respect to valuation, ever since the time of Socrates, instinct is laughed at as incapable of giving satisfactory answers concerning the motives of ones action. Later on, Socrates himself realized that the instincts needs to be set right and pursued the reason to support the instinct with good arguments. The concept in fact brought about irrationality in the moral judgment. Where as, Plato proved to himself that the reason and instinct lead spontaneously to good, that is God.  Hence all theologians and philosophers followed the same path to exhort that in matters of morality instinct triumphs. A human being is accustomed to fabricate things as a reader nowadays may not read all the single words (not to speak of syllables) of a page, he rather takes about five out of every twenty words at random, and guesses the probably appropriate sense to them (Nietzsche 124). This habit of fabricating facts shows that one is more of an artist than one might imagine. There a person turns all the curves and angles to actualization. Such amusing and perceived happiness prevents the person from finding happiness differently coloured and defined.

      Being an artist, when one likes to posses a nation one finds all the possible arts suitable for his purpose. When another likes to possess he goes out to make himself known. He finds himself among the helpful and charitable people for a self realization and soon takes control of the needy as property. The parents on their children or anyone for that matter see in another individual an unobjectionable opportunity for a new possession. As a result of such crave to own, the people become the targets of certain particular notions in the world, for example the Jews remain a people born for slavery. All the systems of morals are suggestions to behaviours and express happiness. At the same time, morality here is an enjoyment of the emotions in a voluntary attenuation and spiritualization by the symbolism of art, perhaps as music, or as love of God, and of mankind for Gods sake.

     As long as human beings existed, the herd mentality in human beings existed. There has always been a greater number who obey and a smaller number who command. Therefore, the need to obey unconditionally might be inborn in every one. That is the herd instinct of obedience which at times transmit to its best and the commanders would suffer inwardly from bad conscience, a condition that can be called the moral hypocrisy of the commanding class. That is when the nobles would declare that we are equals. Even at that instance, morality as attitudes is opposed to everyones tastes. But It is the music in our conscience, the dance in our spirit, to which Puritan litanies, moral sermons, and goody- goodness wont chime (Nietzsche 177).

The Valid Philosophy for the Contemporary World
      Nietzsches philosophy is stuffed with criticism towards his contemporaries and predecessors, together with loads of advices for the future generations of thinkers and scholars. He states that the primary force that motivates everything that exists is the will to power. In a way of questioning, he tries to clarify those values of truth, morality and thought on which philosophy is based. He might have had the best of intentions in bringing up such philosophical views. At the same time, the abundance of information and a kind of maniac style in articulation make this work a chaotic experience for the learners today. In spite of touching on many aspects of life in explaining the plurality of moral views, renunciation and herd mentality of humankind, his important perspectives hardly fit for the purpose of present thinkers mainly because of the too many theories contained in it.

    On the other hand, the social contract theory develops on the basis that ones political or moral duties are dependent upon a contract between the individual and the state as a moral person who exist as part of the individuals existence. It can in a way be considered as one of the oldest and seemingly simplest philosophical theories. However, social contract theory appears to be more viable in applying to modern moral and political theory. Initially, Rousseau declines the natural power to possess in a most comprehensive and logical manner. He further earnestly argues that the obligation must be dependent on the self interest of all the members of the society. The social contract theory of Rousseau shows that every one in a state is the part of the same body working for the benefit of the state. Thus, the theory in itself projects an obligatory conception individual participation in political and moral acts. The normative social contract theory by Rousseau makes sure that social and moral ill will not be spread out in the society at the time of development. The theory teaches the community to live together in harmony and tranquillity towards an overall development.

    In the contemporary world, this theory can still work as a basic form of democracy. The social contract theory provokes people to identify with one another and every one must form a moral and political view with convictions. It teaches all members that every one is equal by nature therefore, no one should be deceived by the corrupted social history which exhorts the practices f force and inequality. These principles are being argued in logical and specific order.  The validity of this philosophical view is evident from the confident conclusion of Rousseau saying Now that I have laid down the true principles of political right, and tried to give the State a basis of its own to rest on, I ought next to strengthen it by its external relations, which would include the law of nations, commerce, the right of war and conquest, public right, leagues, negotiations, treaties, etc.