Further from my last entry I have conducted some further research into Rousseau.

Theory of Natural Man

''The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody''

— Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality, 1754

This is an interesting quote, about people being naive. Rousseau looked to a hypothetical State of Nature as a normative guide. Rousseau deplores Hobbes for asserting that since man in the "state of nature . . . has no idea of goodness he must be naturally wicked; that he is vicious because he does not know virtue".

Rousseau never suggests that humans in the state of nature act morally, in fact, terms such as "justice" or "wickedness" cant be applied to pre-political society as Rousseau understands it. Morality proper, eg, self restraint, can only develop through careful education in a civil state. Humans "in a state of Nature" may act with all of the ferocity of an animal. They are good only in a negative sense, in so far as they are self-sufficient and therefore not subject to the vices of political society.

Rousseau argues that sovereignity (or the power to make the laws) should be in the hands of the people, he also makes a distinction between the sovereign and the government. The government is composed of magistrates, who enforce the general laws and make sure that they are obided. The "sovereign" is the rule of law, ideally decided on by direct democracy in an assembly (or government). Under a monarchy, however, the real sovereign is still the law. Rousseau was opposed to the idea that the people should exercise sovereignty via a representative assembly.

I think this is interesting, and i think on the whole i have to agree with rousseau. I think that some things should be in the hands of the people. Although in this day and age there would be no way to influence people enough. This is for many reasons. One of which will be that there are so many cultures and religions present in our society, that there is no way that everyone will obide to the laws of one government.

A lot of this goes over my head but from reading about these different philosophers i am beginning to grasp an understanding of what they are about and what they believed in, and now know a lot more about politics and the way in which it has evolved.

Jo Foxon