Description
Rousseau argues that freedom/liberty and authority can be reconciled through reason, by locating political freedom on that which political communities hold in common; the commonality of the shared way of life means that the exercise of authority over citizens always comes from part of themselves, and that this reconciles citizens to that authority comfortably. Critical readings argue instead that Romanticism is dangerous because it misrepresents what people are, and forces them to act in ways different from their individual preferences.
Which points of view has the better argument, and why? In 1500-2000 words, develop an argument either in favor or opposed to Rousseau, which addresses both Constant and Berlin’s criticisms. Focus on persuading the reader of your position by developing a clear argument, well-supported with arguments, evidence, or reasons. Use the texts as resources, but read them critically; remember that as smart as these folks were, you can and should engage with and disagree with them (and remember that just because one of them made an argument doesn’t mean that the argument is right — give independent reasons!).
MY THESIS : WRITE AGAINST ROUSSEAU!
Rousseau’s insistence on the general will has the potential to suppress dissenting voices and lead to a sense of conformity that ultimately contradicts the free and fair society that respects individual liberties.
Links to Rousseau, Constant, Berlin:
Rousseau: https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/rouss…
Constant: https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/constant-the-lib…
Berlin: https://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/freedom-and-its-betrayal…
