It is Rousseau’s belief that humanity should return to a simpler life in the pure state of nature, which Rousseau explicitly defines in his “Discourse on Inequality”. Both philosophers offer valid depictions of human misery and its origins, however, it is because Rousseau’s argument lies heavily on his own definition of the human “state of nature” that he loses legitimacy, and makes Voltaire’s argument more effective. Voltaire constructs his satire as a discussion of optimism. He believes that as a philosophy it is useless. Voltaire includes Pangloss, Candid... ... middle of paper ... ... get sick in modern society is because of their lavish and greedy lifestyles.
Voltaire was banned from Paris by Louis XV. Both of these writers understood well the impact their artwork could have on society. As such, comparing their views on the role of art in humanity is beneficial. Voltaire’s work Candide is a satirical commentary on many things, including how to live a fulfilling life. The work’s protagonists undergo many hardships and learn, eventually, to avoid boredom, vice, and poverty, in order to be satisfied.
Which is good in theory, but for this to work, everyone would have to be good hearted and according to Rousseau, after living in a society, you are no longer good, because society corrupted you. He contradicts himself a lot and he did not offer any valid points on why society takes away from someone’s goodness. Except, the fact that owning property was bad, and people should not own land, but he did not explain why it was bad. All in all, I chose Hobbes, because his points made the most sense and he has evidence. He talked about humans being a machine, and we have involuntary motions (breathing, our blood moving through our body, eating, and sweating), and voluntary (speaking, moving our body parts, and walking).
Ultimately, Hawthorne’s goal is to convince readers that the Puritan culture - their customs, their traditions, their way of life - is wrong in that it suppresses the joy, and freedom, that is necessary for a society to thrive. He attempts to convince them that the Puritan religion, as a whole, is overbearing, and clearly unjust. Hawthorne wants his audience to go through a logical progression of cause
Furthermore, both points of view attack Wakefield for his insensitivity toward the good Mrs. Wakefield. In a critique and analysis of the work (which has only recently been granted the attention it so deserves), Agnes Donohue addresses Hawthorne’s "castigation of Wakefield" for not knowing his own unimportance by asking questions of an existentialist nature. She proposes expansions on E.A.Robinson’... ... middle of paper ... ... in the characters of Mr. and Mrs. Wakefield. The evidence of this is the thesis that Wakefield’s status lies in his recognition by others. Once he is not recognized, he is belittled and not only sees the ridiculousness of his actions, but also his inefficiency in general; furthermore, through the ordeal he has only seen his wife’s proficiency in her ability to carry on with out him (Kelsey 20).
He makes certain predictions about the human nature which are not true. Human reasoning is not good enough. Human reasoning comes after man is civilized. Philosophical inefficiency takes morality into account. General will have to embody sound principles.
The drastic difference between what is considered a flatterer and what is not, in both plays, is the repercussion of their influence. Although flattery is a negative influence, both playwrights emphasize its capability as a sin or a vice. “Friendship demands absolute sincerity and... ... middle of paper ... ...ies, leaving a series of foolish kings left clueless in the middle. Thus, flattery and rebellion become the same vice due to the fact that they both take advantage of the weaknesses of a single person, the King. Works Cited Atsma, Aaron J. Phaethon.
Although Kant would argue that the lead-strings of a Prince is demeaning to a Prince and the people. Overall we have seen that Machiavelli’s view on human nature is one of distrust and disappointment. In Machiavelli’s mind the nature of humans is a justifiable reason to manipulate and suppress people. However, Machiavelli also fears being hated as he knows that hate will result in Prince’s demise. Kant also dislikes human nature, however, Kant unlike Machiavelli has hope that man can evolve from immaturity and become enlightened.
David even removed the bases on the columns for greater simplicity (TV12). This reflects frugality in an age where luxury is being frowned upon (p.174, Blk 3). Rousseau also believes that it is wrong when people are driven by their own desires. From examining The Oath of the Horatii, it is clear that an art piece can be shaped by the ideas and values of the society and Rousseau’s views had a significant influence in the painting. Rousseau expressed his views in his publications and David had used art as a vehicle for expressing his views in visual form.
The tension inherent in this opposition is offered, arguably, as a reason for the behavioural patterns depicted; "what people forget is the sheer pleasure of it," as Renton confesses. We might describe the group of friends, united by failure, as classic anti-heroes; as characters with whom we sympathise despite the horrors they commit. It is a reading underpinned by nihilism, and one can't help but recall the Zarathustrian "Table of Values" expounded by Nietzsche.... ... middle of paper ... ...e present and, as such, shapes the future. How free is the individual, if we concede to behavioural determinism? And, if choices on the high-street can be predicted according to, for example, class, gender, education, and origin, can they really qualify as free choices?