Jean-Jacques Rousseau - Introduction to the Social Contract | Political Philosophy

Jean-Jacques Rousseau is the original Genevan bad boy of political philosophy. This is an introduction to his political writings including Discourse on Inequality, and the Social Contract.
Please Subscribe: tinyurl.com/y66geaf6
Twitter: / james_muldoon_
Facebook: / politicalphilosophy

[@anaidsoledad5107]

Thank you for these videos. Helps a lot with my political theory classes.

[@elboyo8343]

These videos are great reinforcement for political theory courses

[@johntindell9591]

Your videos are very intelligible and engaging. Thank you so much.

[@aroobah.5740]

0:00 - 1:06 Introduction 1:12 Rousseau's life 7:19 Discourse on Inequality

[@naqibsarwary1448]

Thank you!

[@ckinyua28]

Thanks...saves time a looot

[@SergioBecerraII]

Excellent video.

[@sshray1115]

Exquisitely Superb !!!

[@danchiappe]

Excellent. Thank you very much.

[@zhushishuo]

I love your content, could do an evolution history of political philosophy?

[@seanmoran6510]

Vanity,Virtue and social constructs to extremes. Inspiration for Robespierre !

[@trijuliyanto6951]

Hi, can u explain more about how is savage is better than city-person?

[@kha_yle]

permission to take this as one of my reference, may i?

[@tygetygetyge]

Love it

[@SanvelloSerapiega]

Shoot no comments

[@Vlog33578]

Sir is popular sovereignty a fascist ideology r not please explain

[@TheCommonS3Nse]

To understand what Rousseau meant by sovereignty, you have to understand what he meant by "general will", as sovereignty is the representation of the general will (this is an oversimplification, but it will help you get a better understanding). The best way I can describe it is using an analogy. You have a business deal between two people. Person A makes widgets and Person B provides the materials to make said widgets. When they come to a business agreement, it is not simply an agreement between two individual parties looking out for their best interest. Instead, Rousseau would say there are 3 parties to that contract. Person A, Person B, and the "We", the "general will", which includes both Person A and Person B. It is the part of the arrangement that desires to do this business deal again in the future. If Person A fleeces Person B on the deal, he will make lots of money but they will not be able to do the deal again as Person B will no longer want to be involved. Same thing the other way around. But if both parties consider what is best for them, then put on their "we" hat and consider what is best for both of them, they will both make money, maybe not as much as they could have, but then they can do the deal again and again, which is better in the long run. Hannah Arendt felt that the primary cause of both fascism and communism was a society that failed to account for the general will. In other words, everyone was considering what was best for themselves and they did not consider what was best for the community. To take that back to our analogy, lets add in a third person, Person C, who sells the widgets. If Person C fleeces both Person A and Person B because they have too much control over the marketplace, Person A and Person B will revolt, do what is best for themselves and oppress Person C. That is what happened in communism. If Person A fleeces Person C, and Person B goes along with it because they like Person A better, Person C will revolt and oppress the other two as vengeance. That is fascism. Both ideologies are a result of the involved parties failing to consider the general will. In this case, the sovereign no longer represents the general will of the population and the society collapses. Whether you get communism or fascism depends on who is getting fleeced and how much power they have in the marketplace. So to answer your question, popular sovereignty is not a fascist ideology. If the sovereign is popular, it is acting as a good representation of the general will. A corrupted sovereign is the source of both fascist and communist ideologies. I hope this does a decent job of expressing the concept. Ultimately, the most important thing we can do is ensure that every member of a society gets a vote and understands that they are voting on behalf of themselves as well as the community. If we do that, society just keeps trucking along in a more or less progressive direction and life continues to get better for everyone.

[@ObeySilence]

Wasn´t Macrons wife his former teacher at highschool? xD

[@memero_]

Videaso que desgrasia que esté en ingles

[@nunanuna8756]

smelly music student :'D lol

[@LazlosPlane]

Excellent video, but really, a T-shirt??? A lecturer at notable university, speaking on a very scholarly topic and you couldn't wear at least a shirt and tie? or coat? you look like you're about to fix your car. what the hell happened to us?

[@Jenny-ef8pt]

are you here to learn or be a moral judge on youtube fashion

[@LazlosPlane]

@@Jenny-ef8pt just tired of looking at adults dressed like children. have some respect for yourself and your audience.at least.

[@CuteEplet]

@@LazlosPlane yes, as we all know only children wear t-shirts. Its fucking youtube video man relax

[@LazlosPlane]

@@CuteEplet typical millennial stupidity. Grow up.

[@deathstroke8639]

@@LazlosPlane typical boomer standards. Welcome to the present old man. This man is here to provide knowledge through youtube for everyone. He is not trying to give a speech to congress.