Introduction
Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Edmund Burke were the most influential philosophers of politics during the 18th century. Despite the fact that both men lived during the same era, both men’s views on philosophy were totally different from each other. In fact, both philosophers were on opposite sides, sharing absolutely opposite political views from each other. Burke favored the traditions of France, which is why he opposed the French Revolution. On the other hand, Rousseau was strongly in favor of revolution and was even declared a hero during the revolution because he was in favor of liberty.
The reason behind their contradictory views can be seen in their positions during the French Revolution, which reveal their struggle against each other. Burke believed that countries stayed together due to traditions, but Rousseau believed that people should be liberated and that they didn’t need any power to govern them. These two opposite views made them famous among those who shared the same views, and that’s the reason both of them were famous and influential during the same time period. Furthermore, the discussion will critically analyze both theories and the contradiction between the philosophies from the perspective of that time.
Discussion
The aspects presented by Rousseau in his philosophy contradicted Burke’s ideas; Rousseau believed that it’s in people’s nature to be free. The second aspect, which is also completely opposite Burke’s philosophy, is equality and liberty. Even when we go back to the Stone Age, we see that there weren’t any traditions or beliefs that people held. Life back then consisted of hunting and food gathering, which was the basis for measuring equality, eventually making them feel equal with a centralized system of no other societal stature. During those times, people were not accountable to anyone and didn’t have to answer to higher authorities for their actions. The family was the only exception because they belonged to each other. This liberty of not answering gave them the sense of being free humans, and this was the criterion for measuring that they all were equal, which made them free and individualistic in nature. Plato was also in favor of equality among both men and women; he also emphasized that the same work would categorize people as equal (Plato, 32). When there is no outside force that can harm the people, that’s the reason they don’t have to form groups to protect each other. According to Rousseau, after the development of private property rights and reasons, the people are facing difficulties and inequality because these rights are being exploited by the dominating class. He wasn’t suggesting going back to old times, but the evil that was brought about by all these developments was because the rise in population required the building of a hierarchy to manage them. When the hierarchy came into place, inequality took birth among people. He suggested taking a practical approach: as people believe that reason is a positive thing, they should go back to equality and freedom through reason. All these views by Rousseau were against the French queen, Marie Antoinette, because her acts put the people of France in misery and poverty, and her indifference towards people took away their liberty. There wasn’t any equality left during those times (Rousseau, 53).
On the other side, Burke’s modern conservative ideology was based on traditional values, and he suggested that stability could be secured by societal norms and staying in groups as a community. As nature was the core of Rousseau’s philosophy, Burke also developed his political philosophy based on nature. He explained nature by dividing it into two parts: the first one refers to the stability which can be obtained from the family because of love and attachment. The second part refers to the habits and customs that people follow to secure their position in society. His philosophy revolved around the traditions that people get from the generations that have passed, and he suggested holding on to those traditions and passing them on to future generations. According to him, those traditions and norms are the only source of stability, which was against the idea of modernism. The other aspect of his philosophy was also badly criticized because it had no practicality. He suggested that abstract philosophy cannot be grounded in reality, and rather, he suggested people come up with solutions to current problems and try to fit into the solutions because those solutions fit into time. Burke criticized the French Revolution because he saw the revolution as something that would take society back to scratch. He suggested that people follow their leaders because the leaders decide what is good for the people and for the present time. Burke’s view on the new political system showed that he was against the change (Burke, 46). The new system will be by men, but the traditional system, which was given by the generation that was passed, was strong because of the survival of that system. Aristotle presented views that contradict Burke’s. His philosophy was that a man should be sufficient unto himself, and if he is not, he will be ruled by society (Aristotle, 22).
Rousseau’s strong views on radical philosophy were entirely different from Burke’s views because Burke’s views were purely based on traditions and values. Rousseau did not believe in the views of Burke and criticized them based on how old they were and how outdated they were, which can’t be applied anymore because they were against the liberty of people and democracy. The equality that Rousseau wanted to give people was what Burke thought would be unrealistic and would grow the revolution. Burke favored the queen, and he defended her by emphasizing that her decisions were right and people should follow them (Herber, 12). Rousseau’s remarks suggested that men were born free, but society had set chains from which they should be freed by implementing a new political ideology system. Burke’s views were old and carried only the old system of politics in which there was no equality and freedom. Rousseau believed religion was the worst institution because religion never helped the people. In fact, he suggested that the state only took benefit from religion. These views suggested that he was against the religious system because he expressed his anger that God’s words are used by the legislature to claim that the actions of the government are justified.
The interesting thing about Burke is that he wasn’t against the American Revolution but only against the French Revolution, which showed that his philosophy was only defending the Queen rather than any good he wanted for the people. His own remarks contradicted his political philosophy. Regarding the French Revolution, he was against the nation growing from scratch. Still, when it came to the American Revolution, he emphasized that America should get freedom from colonists and start from scratch. Burke supported the French Revolution even though people became poor, and all this was because of the French queen Marie Antoinette’s lavish lifestyle (Chrisman-Campbell, 18).
Conclusions
In the end, the conclusive remarks on both political philosophies from the most influential philosophers are that both contributed significant knowledge and theories in the philosophy of politics, which were supported and criticized as well. Both philosophers somehow lacked some points and were flawed in their own ways: one lacked the recognition that sometimes people need guidance, and the other lacked consideration for people’s freedom. The points presented by them were valid for running the country, but Rousseau’s views about liberty, freedom, and equality are stronger as compared to Burke’s philosophy on the French Revolution. He wasn’t against the American Revolution but only against the French Revolution, which showed that his philosophy was defending the Queen rather than any good he wanted for the people. His own remarks contradicted his political philosophy. Rousseau’s views were not just the philosophy he presented, but those views were supported by history. Rousseau believed that religion is the worst institution because religion never helped the people. In fact, he suggested that the state only took benefit from religion. According to Rousseau, after developing private property rights and reasons, the people face difficulties and inequality because these rights are being exploited by the dominating class. He wasn’t suggesting going back to old times, but the evil brought about by all these developments was because the rise in population required the building of a hierarchy to manage them. History can give several pieces of evidence of nations with strong democracies that have always progressed. Still, Burke’s view contradicted the rights of people to be free because people of any country should decide what is best for them. Stability can be achieved through hard work, whether from the old system or new, so the scratch which Rousseau suggested favored the people of France against the rule of the Queen.
Works Cited
Aristotle, , and Carnes Lord. Aristotle’s Politics. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 2013. Print.
Burke, Edmund, and L G. Mitchell. Reflections on the Revolution in France. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Print.
Chrisman-Campbell, Kimberly. Fashion Victims: Dress at the Court of Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette. Yale University Press, 2015.
Herber, Courtney. “Harris, Queenship and Revolution: Henrietta Maria and Marie Antoinette (Palgrave Macmillan, 2016).” Royal Studies Journal 3.1 (2016).
Plato, , and Allan D. Bloom. The Republic of Plato: Transl. with Notes and an Interpretative Essay by Allan Bloom. New York: Basic Books, 1991. Print.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, Donald A. Cress, David Wootton, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Basic Political Writings. , 2011. Print.
Academic Master Education Team is a group of academic editors and subject specialists responsible for producing structured, research-backed essays across multiple disciplines. Each article is developed following Academic Master’s Editorial Policy and supported by credible academic references. The team ensures clarity, citation accuracy, and adherence to ethical academic writing standards
Content reviewed under Academic Master Editorial Policy.
