Learning Record Form

Study on ROUSSEAU by Pom Wintakorn

05/01/2018
• Question: What is this person’s background?, Where they are from?, What time period they are from?, What were some
major historical events was the person involved with or aware of?, Were they from a rich or poor family?, What jobs did
they have?, What are their main theories/ ideas/ works?
• Summary: His full name was Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He was from Geneva. He is the philosopher of the 18th century. He
was a musician and a composer before then, later in his life, he became a philosopher. He was from a poor family and after
he was born, his mother died, and his only sibling fled away. He was raised mainly by his father.
• Analysis and Opinion: I think Industrial revolution is the cause of him becoming a philosopher because he witnessed lots
of new things and it altered his thought.
• References: Delaney, J.J. (n.d.). Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Retrieved January 07, 2018, from
http://www.iep.utm.edu/rousseau/
08/01/18
• Question: What do I already know about Plato?, What are some of Plato’s main ideas?, What are Plato’s political ideas?
• Summary: Plato is a Greek Philosopher. He believes people should be separate into 3 classes: Rulers, military, and
producer based on different elements that person made up of. This is the Noble lies he used to classify people. He also
believes in world of form, where people go after they died, the place where everything is perfect. He is a idealistic thinker,
and believed that everything is possible to becoming perfect. Allegory of the cave shows his idea.
• Analysis and Opinion: I think his Noble lies idea is a good way to control people because if every people believe they are
equal, they will try to get better than others and it would be chaotic. I think his cave idea is like North Korea, where the
prisoners is like people in the country and only see things what the rulers or the government wanted them to see while
shut off their connection with the rest of the world.
• References: In class
12/01/18
• Questions: What are some of Aristotle’s political ideas? What are the differences between Plato’s and Aristotle’s ideas?
• Summary:
• - He believes the middle class should be the ruler because the overly prosperous will exploit others even though they can support themselves, while the lower
class will have a little to no education and try to find the way to reduce the property of the rich. For the middle class, they have enough money to support their
education, so they know how to value working hard. If the rich rules, it would be like oligarchy, but if the poor rules, it would be majority democracy.
• - Political system is never perfect. However, if the extreme is pursued, it would lead to something unnatural, harmful to the society, and eventually would be turned
into something else that is not political system. He describes values as a mean or a balance, between to extreme characteristics for the particular category. EX:
Courage -> Between Recklessness and Cowardice. Plato believes that philosopher should be the ruler, while Aristotle believes that everyone can rule.
• - Plato believes that people should share everything like wives, to make everyone equal. But Aristotle believe that such idea will lead to no work done. He believes
in private property because it will promote competition and hard work and would lead to economic growth.
• - Aristotle believes that the real world and philosophy overlap. He believes that education is needed for the state to survive. With citizens ignorant on the principle
of the society, the government will collapse. He thinks that a political system should aim to fulfill people needs while promoting the growth of virtue (Good values).
He believes that the virtue is in the middle of two extremes.
- Aristotle’s political ideas is more realistic that Plato’s ideas.
• Analysis & Opinion: Aristotle has a much more sensible view than Plato had. Plato believes in his idealistic world and how to work
toward the perfect world while Aristotle views the world at how it really is. Aristotle is extremely more trustable than Plato. I think
his idea is quite good, the middle class is the one who knows about what is like being an upper class, and what is like being a lower
class. But, in reality, I think these 3 classes are really separated, and often time in this country, middle class is the one who got a
least opportunity to do anything.
• References: Socrates. (2015, October 02). Four important lessons from Aristotle's The Politics. Retrieved January 14, 2018,
from http://classicalwisdom.com/lessons-the-politics/
15/01/18
• Questions: What are the differences between Hobbes’ and Locke’s Ideas?
• Summary:
• Hobbes believed that the only correct form of government is absolute monarchy. He believed that human
being, by nature, a selfish creatures. If human was put in state of freedom, with no government, they will
always fight with each other. He believed that only Absolute monarchy can hold such cruelty.
• Locke believed that the correct form of government is constitutional monarchy where monarch was limited
on its power. He believed that human being, by nature, were generally good, wise, and a social animal. If
human was left in freedom, they would work to better their own position and the community in which they
lived.
• Analysis and Opinion: I think I believed in Locke more than Hobbes. Hobbes believed that people
cannot control themselves and need someone to control them, but who is the person who worthy
to become a king. How can we know if that person truly capable of controlling all those people.
Locke have a much better sense of how society works. If the monarch is not working, or there is
something wrong with the government, then people have the right to rebel against it and
overthrow the government or the king for the sake of all people.
• References:
• Locke versus Hobbes. (n.d.). Retrieved January 14, 2018, from https://jim.com/hobbes.htm
• In class
19/01/18
• Question: Who is Rousseau? What are his main ideas? What is the state of nature like in his view? What are
his thoughts on society? How does his ideas impact the society?
• Summary: Rousseau thinks that society is becoming worst, not progressive in the late 18th century. He likes
the “state of nature”. In his view, state of nature is when people more understand of their own self and
drawn toward essential factor of satisfied life such as love of family, respect for nature, and curiosity about
others -> Moral and guided by empathy for others. Since people created the society, people had been
plagued with evil and sin. With the development of society, it makes people more selfish. People were
centered around artificial things, pride and jealousy, They celebrated great deeds rather than money.
Rousseau believed that children were born good and the society corrupted them.
• His ideas had several impacts on the society.

• Analysis and opinion: I really like Rousseau view. I also think that money, power, and status are things that prevent us from loving
each other genuinely. When money is able to buy almost everything, people became more selfish and offered help only when there are
things in exchange. This related back to what Hobbes said, “Human are cruel, selfish, reckless creature.” Even though I really like Locke and
try my best to believe in his idea that it was true, Hobbes was right all along. Back to Rousseau, I also think that human should have respect
for nature because it is the place where we originated from.

• References: In class, Video

22/01/18
• Questions: Who is Machiavelli? What is a good leader like in Machiavelli’s point of view? Why does he think it is impossible
to be a good person and a good ruler at the same time? What virtues does Machiavelli believe that leaders should have?
What are criminal virtues?
• Summary: Machiavelli, Political advisor and political theorist. Good leader is not someone who honest and kind. It is the
one who knows defend, enrich, and bring honor to the state. People wanted effectiveness from their rulers. Because the
overwhelming responsibilities, good leader should be balance; not too cruel, too soft. He thinks its better for ruler to be
fear than to be love. Virtues: Wisdom, strategy, strength, bravery, and ruthlessness. Leader needed to be cruel In the name
of the state, why maintain the good leadership. “Criminal Virtue”. Machiavelli is the first political thinker, who separated
politic from ethic since Aristotle time. He did not believe in utopia or ideal republics, he is a true political-realism
• Analysis and opinion: I noticed that in his period was in 14-15th century. According to what I learnt from somewhere
sometimes ago, and my friends. This period was after the Crusade war. The war for the holy land of Jerusalem, but after
Christianity lost, all of Europe went into madness, people lost faith in god. So, I think this influenced Machiavelli to think
that maybe a good leader cannot be a good ruler at the same time. Machiavelli is the completely opposite of Plato as Plato
believed in the world of form and ideal community.
• References: In class
Harrison, R. P. (2017, March 13). What can you learn from Machiavelli? Retrieved March 22, 2018, from
https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/what-can-you-learn-machiavelli
23/01/18
• Question: Who is John Stuart Mill? What is Utilitarianism? What is Deontology?
• Summary: Utilitarianism = The end justify the mean (No matter what is the process, if it achieve the end, then it must be done). Its
core idea is that whether actions are morally right or wrong depends on their effects.
• John is British philosopher.
• Mill said the most moral action is always the one that provided the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. Reader
criticized his idea – support selfishness.
• Deontology (Derives from Greek word deon – duty) = A moral theory that guide and assess our choices of what we should do
(Opposed to consequentialism, which judges actions by their results)
• Ethical theory that uses rules to distinguish right from wrong. Some people may find it unacceptable.
• Analysis and opinion: The problem with Utilitarianism is that you can only justify the choice when you achieve the outcome, and
then, there is no possible way to guarantee the outcome of the choice. In other words, it takes extreme risk to take every action. I
think Deontology sounds better than utilitarianism, but then the ethic itself is unnecessary strict. You know what is the right path
you need to take, but you do not care whether it will effects millions of people or kill yourself. It is not flexible and most of the
people will find your action, according to deontology, unacceptable. Deontology is better in terms of you know what to do and
what would happen if you do. But both of them are both not the good way to approach the result. To sum up, what Mill thinks is
too idealistic to happen just like Plato, best way to achieve the perfect outcome that impossible to guarantee.
• References: In class video.
Alexander, L., & Moore, M. (2007, November 21). Deontological Ethics. Retrieved January 22, 2018, from
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/#DeoThe
Deontology. (n.d.). Retrieved January 22, 2018, from http://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/deontology
Nathanson, S. (n.d.). Act and Rule Utilitarianism. Retrieved January 22, 2018, from http://www.iep.utm.edu/util-a-r/
26/01/18
• Questions: Who is Herbert Spencer? What were his ideas? What is Social Darwinism? How is it different than evolution?
What does Social Darwinism have in common with Darwin’s theories of evolution? Where did Survival of the Fittest come
from, and what does it mean?
• Summary: Herbert Spencer is a 19th century philosopher and social idealist. Social Darwinism is the application of one
interpretation of the law of evolution. Ex: To be successful and ruthless at business was no different than tiger killing for
food and those who failed to succeed in business were considered unfit. It was the way of the world. Evolution is the
process where organisms change overtime while Social Darwinism is how one interpret the evolution idea and applied it
to the situation. Things that are in common: The fittest will survive, the weak will perish. Differences are they mean
different things. Darwin talked about passing gene to the next gen while Spencer talked about everything up to one’s
interpretation. “Fit” and “Fittest”. Survival of the fittest come from Herbert Spencer. It means that the strong will succeed
and the weak shall perish.
• Analysis and Opinion: I think this could be the idea behind all the racism in this world. Maybe those people who thinks
they are superior than others think, according to this theory, they are fitter than those who are different from them. But
then, I don’t think this is true in any circumstances. All human are born with nothing with them: no rank, no money. How
can one be superior than others when they are born the same.
• References: Bannister, R. C. (2000). Social Darwinism. Retrieved January 26, 2018, from
http://autocww.colorado.edu/~toldy2/E64ContentFiles/SociologyAndReform/SocialDarwinism.html
29/01/18
• Questions: Who is Montesquieu? What are his political ideas? How should the government be organized according to
Montesquieu?
• Summary: He born in Medieval France (Late 1600s). He was a French political philosopher who gave new way of looking at
laws. Noticed that the society was organized into three main sections: The Monarchy, The Aristocrats (Upper class), and
the commons. He stated that there are two types of power that the monarchy had: Sovereign power (Power to make the
final decision) and Administrative power (Executive/ Legislative/ Judicial). -> He worried about this political structure
because all three powers remained with the monarchy.
• Even though the aristocrats were there to check and balance the monarchy’s exertion of such power, it was not enough.
He believed that The three powers should be separated, equal to each other, and able to check and balance each other.
-> The Separation of powers

• Analysis & Opinion: I think Montesquieu have a similar ideas with Hobbes. As he believed that human natures are cruel
and selfish, he find the need of separating the administrative power into three parts because if it stacked together to a
single person, it will very likely lead to corruption and abusive use of power in my opinion. Montesquieu would disagree
with Locke, as Locke believed that people are naturally kind, self control, altruistic!. In my opinion, his idea would be an
ideal society for the
• References: In class
• Shackleton, R. (2017, October 25). Montesquieu. Retrieved January 28, 2018, from
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Montesquieu
12/02/18 – 13/02/18
• Questions: What are Rousseau’s idea? What is Rousseau ideas on the society?
• Summary: He thought that civilization had not improved people, but instead it corrupted them with sin. Modern people
valued artificial stuffs, centered themselves around jealousy, pride, and social status. He believed that every children were
born good and the society corrupted them. He valued human being in their original state, “State of nature”, where people
rather celebrated intense feeling than great deeds or social events. During the 18th century, society was all progressing
toward civilization. He thought that people identity started to depend on status and money, but not what they or their
desire. Government should only secure the people’s liberty with no interference with people’s lives.
• STATE OF NATURE: For Rousseau, state of nature is a morally neutral and peaceful condition in which individuals act according to their basic desires.

• Analysis and Opinion: I think his idea is against Hobbes and similar to Locke about the state of nature. Hobbes argues that
human state of nature is a cruel, selfish animal while Locke argue that human is a selfless creature and working toward
better life.
• References:
• S. (2015, August 14). POLITICAL THEORY – Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Retrieved February 12, 2018, from
https://youtu.be/81KfDXTTtXE
• Munro, A. (2016, May 17). State of nature. Retrieved February 12, 2018, from
https://www.britannica.com/topic/state-of-nature-political-theory
19/02/18 -> 20/02/18
• Question: What are Rousseau’s work and how do they represent his ideas?
• Summary: His famous works are Social Contract, Emile or On Education, and The Discourses
• The Discourses
• Discourse on the Science and Arts: “Counter-Enlightenment thinker”. Progress in fields of Art and Science did not contribute to the purification of morals. This work divide into
mainly two parts. In the first part, he used specific historical events to show how society in which the art and science flourished more often saw the decline of morality and virtue
such as, how ancient Egypt fell, similar to ancient Greece, it was once based on heroic virtue, but as art and science progressed, it became a society of luxury and leisure. In the
second part, Rousseau claims that art and science are born from our vices. He started to investigate art and science and the danger they brought. As we developed further,
society started to emphasize special talents rather than virtues.
• Discourse on the Origin of Inequality: Can be considered as Enlightenment thought. He tried to explain the human state of nature without any civilization or socialization, the
PURE state of nature.
• Discourse on Political Economy: Here, Rousseau introduced the concept, “General Will”. A political society is like a human body. It works by having different part that have
particular functions, as the body has a will to look after the well-being of a whole body. A political state also has a will which looks at a general well-being of the state. A political
conflict occurs when, the general will is at odds with one or more of the individual wills of its citizen.
• Social Contract: This work was immediately banned by Paris authorities. The work mentioned how government could exist in a way that it both protects
equality and character of its citizens. Unlike the Discourses, Social contract looks forward to the potential of making the itself a legitimate one rather than
ideally possible. The General Will was further developed in the Social contract, with a conflict. Rousseau argues that following general will promotes
individual diversity and freedom, but at the same time, it encouraged the well-being of the whole.
• On Education: This is the work that details Rousseau’s philosophy of education. The book shows the way that ensuring the pupil’s character will be develop
in a way that have a healthy sense of self-worth and morality.

• Other works included:

• Julie or the New Heloise: Even though not a philosophical work, it still clearly shown the clear idea of his thought
• Reveries of the Solitary Walker: A reflection of his life after the public rejection, left him feeling betrayed.
• Rousseau: Judge of Jean Jacques: It is about himself judging his own career, such as how he felt victimized by the society.

• Analysis and Opinion: Unlike Aristotle that said, civil society is human nature state, Rosseau claimed that human pure state of nature is
human without corruption from civilization.
• References: Delaney, J. J. (n.d.). Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Retrieved February 19, 2018, from https://www.iep.utm.edu/rousseau
20/02/18-22/02/18
• Questions: What is a Social Contract theory? What does Rousseau definition on Social Contract?
• Summary: Social contract theory is the view that person’s moral or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or
agreement among them to form the society in which they live.
• Rousseau has two distinct social contract theories. The first one talks about the moral and political evolution of human beings over time, from a State of
Nature to modern society, how nature was a peaceful time as people lived solely, uncomplicated lives. There was never a competition because population
size was small, there was abundance of nature and a person rarely saw one another. The Second one is about the idealized theory of social contract, which
meant to provide the mean to decrease the problems that modern society created for us. The Social contract started with famous oft-quoted from
Rousseau, “Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chain”. Humans are essentially free in the state of nature, but the progress of civilization substitute
altruism with economic, social inequalities, and what we judged ourselves from others. The Social contract tried to answer, how can we be free and lived
together? Rousseau claimed that we can do so by submitting our individual will to the general will, created with other free and equal person. In contrast to
ancient philosophers, all men are made by nature to be equals, therefore no one has a right to govern others. And therefore, the only justified authority is
the one that come from agreement between people. Also, having introduced private property, the conditions of inequality became more clear. People who
do not own property were forced to work for the people in the higher class. This causes the government to establish, through a contract which guaranteed
equality and protection for all, but in reality, it was created to constantly kept the very inequality in place.

• Analysis & Opinion: Hobbes would be against this. Hobbes thinks human are cruel and selfish by nature and only absolute
government could control them. Also, I think that Spencer would have different idea. Spencer values evolution and he said
evolution make mankind better, but on the other hand, Rousseau thinks that civilization corrupts people.
• References: Friend, C. (n.d.). Social Contract Theory. Retrieved March 4, 2018, from https://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/
20/03/18-21/03/18
• Questions: How does his idea different from others political thinker? Why does he has his thought against
civilization? What are his main ideas?
• Summary: Individuals have once been good and happy, but when they joined the society they become plague with
sin, jealousy, vice. Back then, in the period as he imagined as “State of Nature”, he pictured people who never enter
a shop or read a newspaper. Those people would easily understand their own mind and essential features of a
satisfied life, love of a family, interest in a beauty of the universe, and respect for nature. “State of Nature” was
moral and guided by pity and empathy for others. He believed that people must have freedom.
• Civilization leads people in a bad form of self-love, something artificial and centered around pride. People solely
created their identities by reference to their neighbor.
• Analysis & Opinion: I think he is an extreme version of John Locke, he pushed toward the idea alike Libertarianism. I
am against his thought in terms of human in the “State of Nature” would easily understand their own mind
because firstly, it is just his theory. He wasn’t born yet when human were in the “State of Nature”. Secondly, I think
that human were born neither good nor bad. But as they grown up in a particular environment, the atmosphere
shaped them into what they become. It all related to their family, either they are going to be morally good or bad.
• References: S. (2015, August 14). POLITICAL THEORY – Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Retrieved February 12, 2018, from
https://youtu.be/81KfDXTTtXE