Rousseau's Advocacy of the General Will

 

The general will is considered to be the will that is held by an entire society in a bid to ensure that its common interests are protected. It is a central tenet in the political philosophy of Rousseau, and an essential concept when it comes to the idea of what a republican should be in the contemporary world. Rousseau seeks to ensure that there is a distinction between the general will and that of disparate groups, and argues that freedom and authority are not contradictory, and are instead complementary because they involve the protection of individuals within the state. Furthermore, he suggests that legitimate laws tend to be those that are developed based on the general will of the public; meaning that laws are created because the people will it rather than their rulers. Therefore, when it comes to obeying the law, it is essential that all citizens of the republic do so because they are essentially seeking to make sure that they advance a situation where they obey themselves as members of their respective political communities. Rousseau argues that the general will is an essential aspect of a republican political community because it ensures that individuals are better able to exercise their freedoms without the interference of government because the people are the essential basis of the said government.

The general will is not just an ideal, but is instead essentially the power that is held by citizen in their capacity the political community of the state. Rousseau’s take on the general will is one that considers it based on the political aspects rather than the universal ones that was previously the case. The general will is based on the need by individuals within the state to make sure that they are able to make decisions based on their sense of justice; essentially voting based on their conscience. It is under such circumstances that individuals are able to become conscious of their personal interests as part of the political community, which ensures that they are able to tap into their individual conscience and come up with ways through which they can serve the public good. The interests of individuals are therefore translated to those of the republic as a whole, which promotes a situation where as citizens serve the state, they are essentially serving themselves as well. Under such circumstances, Rousseau argues that the general will is right, although he is also critical of those individuals who put feelings at a lower level than reason. Therefore, the political will is one that seeks to express the will of the people while at the same time showing their feelings of affection or attachment to their own political communities.

In his conception of the general will, Rousseau seems to promote the idea that all individuals are capable of seeking the common good. Under such circumstances, they end up being morally bound to ensure that they achieve a unanimous decision that is good for their entire political community. Therefore, in the ideal republic, the members of the political community often seek to make sure that they develop laws that express the general will. Even in those situations where they might be wrong, it is implied that the development of laws still seeks to achieve justice, and under such circumstances, rather than following the interests of individuals or certain groups, it ends up following the general will of the people. When an individual goes against the laws that have been created by the general will, he or she is going against both the instituted government, and their higher interests as part of the political community. Thus, when an individual is forced to follow the law, it is a means of “forcing him to be free”. The general will is a means through which the freedom of individuals in society is guaranteed and maintained at all times for the good of all the individuals within it.

Despite the considerable debate that has been sparked by Rousseau’s advocacy of the general will, it is pertinent to note that his main concern is the preservation of autonomy and civil liberty that is enjoyed by individuals. Based on his definition of the general will, the government is created based on the general will and it does not have free reign over the people because they are eventually the ultimate authority within the republic. Thus, the government is only legitimate under circumstances where it is made subordinate to the will of the people, meaning that a government that does not follow the general will is not legitimate. The government has to be subordinated to the law because the latter is an expression of the general will of the people. A failure by government to abide by the law means that it has made itself a separate political body and is no longer a part of the political community that is based on the general will of the people.

Blaise Pascal, Immanuel Kant, and William James on God

 

Among the most important common beliefs that were held by Blaise Pascal, Immanuel Kant, and William James is that we cannot know or prove that God exists. However, these individuals also offered justifications for their decision to believe that God exists. In this paper, there will be a comparison and contrast of their various stances in order to determine the individual that offers the best and worst justification for the belief that God exists.

One of the most significant arguments made by Pascal is based on the Expectation Rule, which essentially suggests that no matter the smallness of the probability that God exists, as long as it is in the positive, it will ensure that there is the advancement of the belief that God exists over the one that suggests the opposite. Having reason to believe that the proposition that God exists is true ensures that there is the promotion of means to bring about the rational belief of that existence. This is a situation which can ensure that there is precedence over any evidential strength to the contrary because it is based on the assumption that because an entity is believed to exist in a positive manner, it is the rational action to state that it is true. Pascal makes use of the rational argument to promote his belief in the existence of God and this is to such an extent that he considers the formation of the belief that God exists is the rational thing to do even in a situation where there is little likelihood of this circumstance being true. His argument considers that having a belief in a proposition is important because it allows the proposition to take precedence over any evidential strength even though it lacks any evidential support.

James, on the other hand, is of the opinion that belief should be based on an act of faith rather than seeking out evidence concerning the belief. He proposes that one of the most important strategies that can be employed in the process of making sure that there is the advancement of belief is to seek out the truth by any means possible, even at the risk of error. James is extremely critical of such ideas as Clifford’s Rule, which advance the need to ensure that there is the avoidance of all error in the process of finding truths. Instead, he advances the idea that it is essential to consider that errors are inevitable in the process of finding truths because the avoidance of errors can lead to a situation where there is a risk that there will be a loss of certain truths. He further suggests that there are certain instances where facts cannot be developed at all unless there is an element of faith in the process. James provides the example of the manner through which social organisms coexist as a means of showing that belief is a strong factor in the functioning of any social institution. This is especially considering that individuals often undertake their own duties in the society in the faith that others are doing the same. A consequence is that faith remains a prerequisite when it comes to functioning in any cooperative environment.

Kant sees faith as being a means through which it becomes possible for individuals to engage with their will, and this is unlike knowledge. Having faith is a process that involves the commitment of individuals to morality and this is to such an extent that it not only involves the affirmation of the commitment, but also a free act of faith that ensures that individuals have bound themselves to morality. Kant sees morality as inevitably leading to religion and that it is essential that the latter exists because it allows individuals to have access to morality. This stance can be interpreted as Kant’s belief that moral law depends wholly on the existence of God, and that religion serves the function of making sure that individuals stick to a strict moral code. Therefore, in this situation, religion seems to exist as a means of making sure that individuals are bound to morality, and this is in such a way that one cannot exist without the other; essentially affirming the existence of God.

In conclusion, the comparison of the beliefs of the philosophers above concerning the existence of God shows that Kant’s justification is the most convincing. This is because he promotes the idea that morality cannot exist without religion, and that they both rely on one another to function effectively. A belief in the existence of a Supreme Being is important because it encourages individuals to ensure that they undertake to observe morality because without such a belief, they will not have the motivation to coexist with others peacefully. Pascal’s wager, on the other hand, can be considered the least convincing because he does not offer any substantial evidence other than one based on belief, which ensures that it is the easiest argument for the existence of God that can be challenged.

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight

 

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is a poem that seeks to advance the theme of realistic human expectations. This is especially considering that it promotes an image of characters that are based on the medieval ideal of chivalry as well as knightly valor. It also shows the hypocrisy of the various characters in such a way that despite claiming to hold onto their ideals, they are actually quite human and they seek to preserve their lives at all costs, even being tempted to put aside their honor for the sake of undertaking human actions. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight begins in the ideal setting of King Arthur's court where everyone is young, good-looking, and the best at everything. However, because of his experiences, Sir Gawain learns that such perfection is an unrealistic expectation for any human being.

The theme of perfection is a prominent one in the poem, and this is to such an extent that it seeks to show the manner through which individuals are constantly tested when it comes to committing to their ideals. Sir Gawain is shown to be an individual that has a deep commitment to the characteristics that are prized in Arthur’s court. His commitment to chivalry is, however, considerably tested because despite his ideals, he is still human. This is especially the case where Gawain is tempted to let go of his chivalrous ideals, which are essentially considered perfection, and give in to his human instincts. The manner through which he relates to the Green Knight is a prominent example of the test to his perfection, because the Green Knight seems to have an agenda to ensure that Gawain realizes that he is only human. Furthermore, despite being an individual that is considered perfect and is chivalrous, Gawain is sorely tempted to give in to his human needs and commit adultery with the attractive wife of his host. Thus, from the very beginning of the poem, Gawain is shown to be an individual who has to constantly struggle to uphold his perfect image through denying that he is essentially human with the needs that are associated with it. Therefore, Gawain makes use of the code of chivalry as well as religion as a wall against those characteristics that essentially make him human; instead seeking to maintain the façade of perfection.

Sir Gawain’s struggles towards maintaining his perfection is one that is constantly tested during his stay with his hosts. His struggle is especially exemplified in the nights that he spends with his hosts, where the host’s wife attempts to seduce him on two consecutive nights. However, Gawain struggles to maintain his perfect image by making the decision to kiss his host instead. Gawain makes the decision to kiss his host because to do so would be considered innocent while to have an affair with his host’s wife would be looked upon as a betrayal that would have tarnished his perfect image (Greenblatt & Christ, 2012). Therefore, the actions undertaken by Gawain can be considered his attempt to ensure that he maintains his perfection that is exemplified through his holding onto the code of chivalry. The struggles through which Gawain undergoes to overcome the temptation of being with his host’s wife show that despite his seeming perfection, he is still a human being, with human needs and wants. He is in a constant struggle to ensure that he holds on to his chivalrous nature; a situation that essentially displays his humanity because if he really were perfect, he would not have been tempted in the first place. By seeking to maintain a perfect image, Gawain is essentially denying his humanity and this makes him into an individual that seems aloof. This experience can be considered an essential aspect of making sure that Gawain begins to come to terms with his humanity and the manner through which it is the natural state rather than an alien one.

One of the most significant lessons learned from the experiences of Sir Gawain is that it is essential for individuals to embrace their humanity, with all its imperfections. While Gawain can be commended for seeking to do right by all those individuals that rely on him, he is still human, with all the fears that come with it. Gawain is portrayed as an honest man who undertakes the action of facing the Green Knight with the knowledge that it might end up taking his life. Concerning the situation that he faces, it is stated that “True men pay what they owe,” (Greenblatt & Christ, 2012, p. line 444). Despite being honest with his host concerning the two kisses from his host’s wife, Gawain hides information concerning the green girdle that the latter gave him in order to preserve his life when he faces the Green Knight. Hiding information concerning the green girdle from the Green Knight is a sign of his humanity and this is to such an extent that he essentially seeks to preserve his life despite always seeking to maintain his chivalrous code. His experiences essentially show him to be human, with the sense of self-preservation that makes him want to protect himself against the possibility of death. It is because of this realization that the Green Knight, despite being in the right to do with his as he wants, makes the decision to let Sir Gawain live. It is an acknowledgement that Gawain has come to terms with his humanity and that perfection is an unrealistic aim when it comes to being human.

In conclusion, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is a poem that seeks to show that perfection is not a human characteristic. The tests and experiences that Gawain undergoes are reminiscent of what all humans undergo on a daily basis as they struggle to ensure that they advance towards perfection and seek to achieve their full potential through maintaining values that they believe are essential for order to prevail within their own societies. However, the achievement of perfection is only a façade because human beings are by nature imperfect and cannot attain perfection.

Marx and Durkheim on Happiness

 

Social indicators as well as structural processes are some of the structural indicators that are used for in the process of finding out if individuals are happy. These are used to ensure that there is an understanding of the way that people in society end up attaining happiness. Structural indicators have been considered to be highly subjective and this is in such a way that the theories that have been developed concerning them have sought to prove that the concept of happiness is a human invention than an actual real feeling. In the article, the example of Marx and Durkheim is made use of in such a way that they show the manner through which happiness is used to establish the control of one group over another in society (Cieslik, 2015). In the theories developed by these two scholars, happiness has been developed because of the need to enforce consumerism in society, while at the same time helping in keeping negative social realities at bay. The argument made by Marx concerning the presence of religion is an important indicator of how superficial the concept of happiness really is.

Symbolic interactionism is a perspective that seeks to develop an understanding of the way that the relationships of individuals in society are developed and sustained. This is the case when it comes to the concept of happiness, which if viewed from a symbolic interactionist perspective, involves the enforcement of power relations. A diversity of the definitions of happiness in the contemporary world has come to be associated with a consumerist culture and has come to be accepted as one of the most important social values. Therefore, the goals of a considerable number of members of society are based on the belief that happiness is tied to the attainment of material wellbeing. Happiness is seen as the ultimate goal and individuals pursue it for their entire lives in the hope of finally attaining it. It is also a means through which the relationships between various individuals in society are established and maintained.

A majority of the interviewees cited their parents as being among the most influential individuals when it came to determining their understanding of happiness. This is because parents put a lot of pressure on them to adopt what they believed to be the most ideal form of happiness (Cieslik, 2015). However, the interviewees also stated that a diversity of other factors that informed their beliefs concerning happiness, including their own personal notions concerning what it means and how they can attain it. A consequence is that social factors have an influence on how individuals come to determine what it means to be happy.

One of the arguments made by Cieslik is that happiness is both felt and done. Doing happiness is a process that involves individuals seeking to ensure that they are able to undertake actions that will bring them the most happiness. It is often associated with wellbeing because it involves individuals seeking to ensure that they are able to have friends or employment that gives them the most satisfaction. The result is that the sense of wellbeing has come to be associated with happiness, and this can be considered a motivation behind individuals seeking to ensure that they do actions that will provide them with the greatest pleasure.

The Concept of Happiness

 

There are a number of structural indicators that are used to identify if individuals are happy. These essentially include social indicators and structural processes which are used as a means of understanding the manner through which individuals are able to attain happiness. They are highly subjective to such an extent that they lead to a situation where some theories have developed that promotes the idea that happiness is superficial. Marx and Durkheim, for example, developed theories that suggest that happiness is superficial and that it is based on the consumerist culture that creates a false illusion or the promise of happiness (Cieslik, 2015). A consequence is that happiness is seen as a concept that seeks to hide the reality of the lives of individuals, such as the concept of suffering and how it comes about.

From a symbolic interactionist perspective, happiness is essentially a means through which to ensure that the power relations in society are enforced. This is especially the case considering that a considerable number of definitions of happiness have come to be associated with consumerism, and this has become an essential part of accepted social behavior. The achievement of happiness is one of the biggest goals of members of society because it has come to be associated with wellbeing. From a symbolic interactionist perspective, happiness is closely tied to wellbeing and it is the reason behind the establishment of relations between individuals across society (Cieslik, 2015). The pursuit of happiness is what has essentially become the means through which the current social order has been established.

For a considerable number of interviewees, their ideal form of happiness was one where they were allowed to pursue their own happiness. However, they were more likely than not to encounter pressure from their parents, who often sought to ensure that their children adopted their own notions of the ideal forms of happiness (Cieslik, 2015). A consequence was that the interviewees’ notions of happiness were formed from a diversity of influences, not only from their home environments, but also from other factors that were considered important in their lives. These were especially the case when it came to the way that they identified themselves and their own notions of what happiness actually meant for them.

Cieslik argues that individuals both feel and do happiness, and this is a concept that promotes the idea that human beings aim at attaining happiness. Feeling happiness involves getting pleasure out of an action that an individual has undertaken or has had undertaken for them. Doing happiness, on the other hand, involves actively seeking out activities that are aimed at bringing about the feeling of happiness. Human beings often go about their lives undertaking activities that they believe will bring them the most happiness such as having friends, jobs, and living in environments that will ensure that they are made happy. A consequence of this situation is that individuals form relationships that are narrowly focused on how other people can be able to satisfy the sense of wellbeing that is often associated with happiness.