Peak 030 Rousseau significance

However, when it comes to the Enlightenment movement, we cannot ignore other thinkers. So, it should be said that other thinkers are unfortunate, as they feel the emergence of figures like Rousseau. We can also say that the times make heroes. In such an environment, in such a family background, Rousseau truly felt the shadow of this society, and could also feel the impact of this social change on his thoughts.

After 1755, he subsequently entered a period of intense writing, that is to say, a period of high productivity in writing. So, in 1961 and 1962, he subsequently published three equally influential works, including "The New Eloise," "The Social Contract," and "Emile." Among them, "The Social Contract" was precisely Rousseau's complete conception of a basic framework for social construction, and provided a very sufficient theoretical basis for Montesquieu's initial idea of a contract theory.

It does not come from good or kind wishes, but rather from the inherent evil of human nature.

However, Rousseau and his thoughts and emotions are a contradictory entity. In fact, we can see that almost all thinkers, especially those great thinkers, often have intense contradictions and conflicts in their own life paths, their understanding of the external world, and the ideas they propose. There are few thinkers whose ideas, personal emotions, and everything including their life paths are completely consistent.

Basically, there is a strong conflict, which may provide us with a good example of the emergence of ideas, to illustrate that only in a relatively conflicting ideological background can we obtain a truly important or great idea.

In this sense, we need to be able to feel the unique nature of Rousseau's thought.

I once had conversations with people outside of the philosophical circle. When it comes to Rousseau, have you read any of his works?

Generally speaking, one would think of his book "Confessions", which represents one of the most typical reflections of Rousseau's personal life. He may not have read "The Origins of Inequality" or "The Social Contract", but most people know or have read "Confessions" because it is different from Augustine's Confessions, as many authors had written confessions before him, not just Rousseau.

However, in Augustine's Confessions, almost all confessions are confessions to God, because that confession was made because we did something wrong against God's will, so that confession is a confession to God.

However, only Rousseau's Confessions truly reveal the inner moral unease of human beings. This inner moral unease manifests the role of each of us in the external world, which is precisely an absolute moral rule that comes from our individual hearts.

Of course, in Rousseau's view, he only felt such rules and did not summarize them. It was only through Kant, whom we are familiar with, that this moral law was truly revealed and systematically expounded.

Rousseau, as a philosopher, the significant role of his ideas is "destructive" and "subversive" rather than "constructive".

Everyone must know that the reason for emphasizing its destructive and subversive nature is because his ideas were mainly a rebellion against the optimistic and positive tendencies that pervaded the entire society at that time, especially in the field of thought.

This is what we have always emphasized, that when it comes to Rousseau's ideas, his incongruity with other ideas precisely reflects the completely different orientation of his thinking. And the rebellion against the prevailing optimism at that time was based on his dissatisfaction with the contradiction between human social history and reality.

And this dissatisfaction was initially reflected in the idea of "On the Origin of Inequality". When we read Rousseau's works, when he revealed the contradiction between the natural state and the social state, he clearly depicted to us why this natural state is better than the current social state.

There is nothing wrong with us humans entering and exiting the natural state. The most beautiful childhood in human society is actually its natural state. Therefore, when referring to the origin of inequality, he repeatedly emphasized that barbarians or natural persons did not feel the need to form a society, nor did they feel the need to understand the products required to form a modern society.

So, in this sense, the state of a natural person is the most perfect and idealized state. In this sense, when we understand Rousseau's thought, it is actually completely different from the descriptions of the natural state of humanity accepted by British scholars such as Hobbes and Locke.

So, this time, we once again see the connection between French and British thinkers. If Montesquieu's ideas were deeply influenced by Locke's ideas, and Locke's ideas were based on a better understanding of the social state of human reality that goes far beyond the primitive wilderness, then. Montesquieu precisely accepted Locke's ideas and formed an optimistic attitude towards social construction.

But Rousseau, on the contrary, disliked British people very much. He had been to Britain, but he did not like Britain in particular, and he did not like the so-called gentle and artificial way of life of British gentlemen, nor did he like their talk, which also affected a series of ideas about human society put forward by thinkers who did not like Britain.

So, his dislike affects his evaluation of these thinkers and his own formation of ideas about the ways in which society is constructed. The relationship between Britain and the entire European continent is very complex and delicate. Because politically speaking, Britain was still influenced by the European continent until the 16th century, as its king was sent by France.

That is to say, the fate of Britain's country is determined by France. Therefore, if we talk about it now, Britain also has the nature of a French colony. However, this colony is not like the modern political colony we understand today, because it is the result of a long history.

Because of the alliance between the French and British royal families, it was necessary for France to send a king to England. So, the king of England sent by Louis XIII and Louis XIV is equivalent to what we now understand as the governor general sent by England to Australia and Canada, who manages this country.

However, in terms of ideology, the European continent was influenced by the identity of Britain, because the entire European continent had a very complete system of construction, which also formed a complete, feudal, imperial, and even its own religious ideology.

Because the entire religious reform did not originate from the European continent, but from England, only in relatively independent countries that were less subject to continental control, could it potentially give rise to more liberal ideas.

So, the idea of freedom originally originated in England. That's why it didn't originate from other countries in Europe. So, this liberal ideology in Britain directly influenced the European continent, so the historical, political, and ideological ties between Britain and France make this relationship between the two countries difficult to let go of.

Rousseau refused to go to England and was unwilling to think about society and humanity according to the mode of thought provided by British philosophers and thinkers. Therefore, his viewpoint was aimed at opposing British thinkers.

Before this, that is to say, before Rousseau wrote this book, he had also read a large number of works by British philosophers. Therefore, in the process of reading, he discovered that the social status quo and social ideals described by British thinkers were only constructed on an understanding of reality. However, he had to transcend this reality and understand what was originally reasonable in reality as an unreasonable fact.

So, this understanding of the rationality and irrationality of society led Rousseau to re propose and construct the contradiction between the natural and social states of humanity. So, we can understand Rousseau because he provided us with a social ideal that is different from the Voltaire style of Montesquieu that we are familiar with.

And in this process, revealing human nature through the natural state of human beings, to reveal human nature, is one of Rousseau's starting points.

So, in the book 'On the Origin of Human Inequality', we read that it consists of two parts, the first part of which spends a lot of space discussing the natural state of human beings. You may say that Rousseau's idea of a natural state is just a product of imagination.

Because in fact, such a natural state does not exist, because at that time, people were more constrained by the natural world itself, and it relied more on changes in the natural environment and how humans interacted with the environment to form a state.

Therefore, in such a state, it can be said that humans are precisely not free. In such a state, people are inherently not free because they do not have the conditions to obtain freedom. All your activities are subject to your environment and your ability to obtain property or necessities of life. Therefore, under this premise, you cannot rely on the power of others or society to provide assistance to natural persons.