Philosophy

1. What is the main philosophy of Rousseau Explain.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a philosopher, writer  composer of 18th century Romanticism. His philosophical work influenced the French revolution  the development of educational, sociological  political thought. The social contract theory is one of the oldest philosophies it is the view that a persons moral  political obligations are all dependent upon a contract between them to formcreate a society.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau has two different social contract theories. The first one is from his essay Discourse on the origin  Foundation of inequality among men, which is also known as the second discourse. It is an account of how human beings evolved, both politically  morally over time, from a state of nature to modern society (Bertram, 44). It contains a much naturalized account of social contract, which Rousseau found problematic. In the Second discourse, Rousseau describes the historical process of how humans began in a state of nature  progressed into a civil society.
The state of nature was a quixotic  peaceful time, where people lived solitary  uncomplicated lives. As there was a very small population, competition was non-existent  natural resources were in abundance. These simple  morally pure people were morally sound  had pity in them,  therefore they were not inclined towards conflicts or harming others.

Time passed  humanity faced certain changes. Population increased, means of satisfying needs changed, people started living in small clusters e.g. communities, families etc. Division of labor, discoveries  inventions made life easier, giving people leisure time for themselves. This leisure time lead people to make compare themselves with others, resulting in public values, and this lead to envy, shame, pride  contempt. According to Rousseau, the invention of private property was the turning point for human beings this resulted in greed, competition, vanity  inequality.

With the introduction of private property, initial condition of inequality became pronounced. The development of social class began, as some people have property  other are striving for it. Then a government was formed, as it will protect the private property holders from those who think they can acquire it by force. Thus, a Government was formed to protect the rights of everyone, even though its actual purpose was something else. In other words, the contract which was supposed to protect the rights of everyone was actually in the interest of those who are rich  strong due to the development of private property. This was the naturalized social contract, which according to Rousseau is the reason why modern society suffers from competition  conflicts.

The Normative social contract by Rousseau in The Social Contract is meant to be a solution for the social  moral ills, produced by the development of society. The Social Contract starts with the most famous line by Rousseau Man was born free,  he is everywhere in chains (Bertram, 156).  According to Rousseau, humans were free from the start  were free in the State of Nature, but the progress of civilization has corrupted the simple human being. Since a return to the State of Nature is neither desirable nor feasible, so the actual purpose of politics is to restore freedom,  reconsidering how we live with each other. The basic problem that Social Contract seeks to address how we can live together  be free Rousseau has the same views like the philosophers before him, that all men are equal, therefore no one has the right to overpower them or govern them  the authority that is a result of agreement of covenants, is the only justified authority.

According to Rousseau, a sovereign may be formed when free  equal persons come together to create anew single body, which will work for the good of all considered together. The sovereign will work for the betterment of individual who constitute it, therefore each individual is committed for the good of everyone. For Rousseau, this was the most direct form of democracy. In order to maintain a democracy as Rousseau suggested, people should live in small clusters, they are not supposed to live at large distance from each other  even if they do, they are supposed to unite once a week regularly. Although these conditions are stringent, but this is the only way we can regain our lost freedom.
2. What is the main philosophy of Nietzsche Explain.

Friedrich Nietzsche developed his philosophy, which is also known as Nietzcheanism, in the late 19th century amid growing criticism of Hegels philosophic system. In his book Beyond Good  Evil, Nietzsche disagreed with what most of the philosophers  focused on the history of morality, rather then developing his own rational foundation of morality. According to Nietzsche, anything great that we are successful in, has been the result of following a strict course in a particular direction. Art, thinking  spirituality is all result of constant  harsh discipline. Nietzsche if off the view that we see far less, than we think we do e.g. when we read a book, we just take into account a few words  fit them into a perception of our own. He suggests that we are all artists, liars  inventors our knowledge is our own perception about things.

Possession is another area according to Nietzsche, that people differ in what they take to be possession of what they pursue e.g. One man feels that he can possess a woman, after having sex with her, another man thinks that he can possess a woman, only if she willingly gives up everything for him. Nietzsche also mentions examples of charity  education as means of possession e.g. While teaching, the teacher makes the student see the world according to their perspective thus teacher possess another soul.

Nietzsche is of the view that our moral values are based largely on fear  in a community, safe from external threats an aggressive member of the same community can be seen as a threat. Nietzsche suggests that our morality condemns all that is lively, giving priority to the safety of a tamed, mediocre mass. The morality of the herd is the self proclaimed true morality  all others moralities are immoral (Nietzsche, 65). Nietzsche further suggests that democracy will make us weak 7 give us all equal in mediocrity, with no where to go.

Nietzsche in his book Beyond Good  Evil mentions order of rank that exists between people and between moralities is that some people have strong and refined spirits than others. Those at lower ranks hate  condemn those who are at higher ranks. Nietzsche is of the opinion that philosophers dont consider the fact that there is no universal law applicable for morality, he further mentions that it is immoral to say What is right for one is not fair for the other (Nietzsche,74).

He suggests that humans are unique, as they are both creator  creature. We suffer in our creative efforts to make ourselves great. Showing pity for suffering is basically pity for the creature within that is being remade into something greater. Nietzsche feels pity only for the creator within, as it is played by modern society.

Nietzsche further suggests that all higher culture is derived from the spiritualization of cruelty.  We are usually of the opinion that we have destroyed our animal instinct for cruelty when in fact we have just turned them against ourselves. Search for knowledge is the highest form of cruelty, according to Nietzsche. He suggests that we would have been a lot happier not knowing, these unraveled mysteries.

We may consider ourselves as higher beings, but we forget that we are descendants from apes and are not much different from them. Among the virtues of Nietzsches ideal philosopher of the future,  they will take it ahead, whether people call it honesty of cruelty. Nietzsche has always been interested in a thing that disinterests other scholars. Nietzsches view about women are not very pretty, as according to him women are only good at showing their charms to make men take care of them. Nietzsches claim that women should be locked up in kitchens is not right. Nietzsches philosophies have a different take on almost everything  most of the philosophers disagree with his philosophies.

3. Whose philosophy is more valid Why Explain.
In my opinion Rousseaus philosophy is more valid, as Rousseau has a very mild, peace  calm approach. Rousseau talks about brings the world together  explains how a certain group of people are over powering others  depriving them of their rights.  How inequality creates evil in the society  how equality can bring people together  they can all live with peace  harmony.

According to me, Rousseau had a positive way towards things he saw purity in everything  was disturbed by the inequality  how the gap between the rich  the poor was widening. His theories suggest that man was much better  less selfish in the State of Nature. His believes does not support development, as he thinks competition is bad for society, while Nietzsche has a completely different  some what correct perspective about competition. He thinks that competition is healthy and people at lower ranks are just too jealous of the people at higher ranks.

Nietzsches approach is different, he has a very negative attitude towards things  it feels as if all he want to do is prove other philosophers work wrong. He is sometimes very sexist, as his philosophy about women is an extremist one. Nietzsches approach about inequality is sort of right, as a society cannot grow if people stop striving to get better  there will be no development. But he further negates the idea of humans researching towards living a better luxurious life.

Nietzsche is of the opinion that seeking knowledge, answers for every mystery is the root cause of all evils. He thinks that cruelty within a person comes out when heshe ventures to seek knowledge. According to me, amongst all these negative  pointless theories of Nietzsche there is one theory about morality, that is there can be no one theory or way to guide a person morally, as something might be good for someone  might be three times worse for someone else.

Nietzsche  Rousseau has one thing in common, they are both of the opinion that modern society has many flaws  that people are being played in this modern society. While Rousseau thinks that class difference is playing a vital role  creating differences between people, Nietzsche thinks that it is the person himself responsible for not getting what he deserves  is played by others.

Rousseaus philosophy is complete in comparison with Nietzsches. Rousseau does not negate the idea of human development  working for a better future. In my opinion there is just one flaw to Rousseaus philosophy, that is people should live near to each other, in small clusters  if they dont they should meet regularly on weekly basis. This idea sounds a little impractical, as it is very hard for people to live like that.

Thus, we can conclude that Rousseau has a better philosophy in comparison with Nietzsches  due to certain impracticalities in Rousseaus philosophy it cannot be called a perfect solution for the increasing inequality  class creation in our society. Although both of the theories were not complete solutions for mankind but with some optimistic approach, Rousseau makes a point.