Dual Personality of the Enlightenment

The Renaissance and the following Enlightenment represent two of the greatest times in history that have produced some of the world's greatest thinkers and ideals. While most of the Enlightenment focused on the individual, and man's progress, each of the thinkers of the time had their own ideas, some of them seemingly opposites, especially in terms of government.

 John Locke a world renowned philosopher and thinker of the Enlightenment, his opposite?Jean-Jacques Rousseau, another world renowned philosopher and thinker of the Enlightenment.






These two men start ought with similar assumptions about man, and human nature, but their personalities twist these ideas into two completely different concepts of how men should act, especially in relation to one another.



The Similar Enlightenment Base

In forming their opinions about human nature both of these men started out with the same base, observations about humans in a state of nature. Under these circumstances both men claim that all men are equal and have the same basic liberties and rights and generally exist by themselves. But there the similarities begin to end.

The Great Divide
Locke:
John Locke holds that in this state man was generally fine and enjoyed the same basic freedoms as one another. However, he postulates that men will naturally come together and congregate because they want to. This congregation results in some conflict as each man peruses his life, and therefore society and government are formed from this need.


Rousseau:
Jean Rousseau holds that in that state of nature man is at his happiest, he has simple needs and wants and it is easy to fill those needs or wants. At this time man is generally alone, and that we works best that way, he doesn't harm those around him because he doesn't need to, but neither does he frequently need to interact with them.

 Therefore, according to Rousseau, as soon as man began having established contact with other humans and developed relationships as well as technology he began to go down hill. Again, contact developed the need for government, however instead of veiwing government as a beneficial organization, Rousseau contends that it corrupts humanity, and that if we were all to go back to the state of nature man would be happier.

These two very different opinions developed out of the glory of the Enlightenment. I think that the importance of examining each is to look at how each viewed human nature. What  do we think of human nature? Should all governments dissolve? In my opinion we are too far along in development, especially technological, to suddenly release all that we have come so far and gained from our interactions with one another.