Today in our SY class "Leadership and Diversity through literature" we discussed the works of three well renowned philosophers - Confucius, Machiavelli and Jean Jacques Rousseau. The class is all about reading popular stories and ideas that influenced many and drawing leadership lessons from the same. Its about examining the question "How as character would you act differently now that you have read this story" in the words of the popular faculty Dr. Alec Horniman who runs the class.
Philosophical works and ideas have always influenced me but today I was intrigued with Rousseau and his relevance to the socio-political thought prevalent in the world today. I find it unfortunate that though I had some knowledge of his work, I never read them before. In the passages we read, Rousseau makes a distinction between Natural liberty and Civil liberty. Man wants to be free, wants to act on his own and this "unlimited right to everything" is his natural liberty. However he benefits by his interactions with the society and wilfully gives up a part of his natural liberty for civil liberty. Natural liberty according to him is bounded only by strength on an individual while Civil liberty is limited by the general will i.e. majority vote or opinion in an democracy. He comes to this conclusion through systematic analysis of nature of Human behavior as well as interactions in society.
There is lot of debate on whether the current trends socio-political approach will indeed limit the freedom and liberty of individuals. I believe that Rousseau's philosophy can aid us in examining if a political and social structure best meets the needs of the diverse wishes of the citizens. I often hear that following a structure of a more socialist or rather left leaning state will encroach on liberty of individuals. However, if one considers the view that taking care of the basic needs for many would probably provide them opportunity to pursue much more than they are able to now. Question is that will the meritous and ambitious lose out? Maybe they do gain from a more peaceful co-existence. Is a more equitable and peaceful society less desirable?
In class, our discussion focused more on why these ideas have survived the test of time and why they were so popular. I concluded that they addressed a fundamental problem of the society at the time in a way no one other did, they got some acceptance and shaped thoughts going forward. I think that we are at a point where a fundamental problem regarding social organisation has been raised again. We have faced this time an again in the past, and I believe this will be a constant recurrence in the future. What is the answer this time around and who is going to provide it?
