Gentle Savages And Fierce Citizens Against Civilization Analysis

In his article, “Gentle Savages and Fierce Citizens against Civilization: Unraveling Rousseau’s Paradoxes,” author Matthew Mendham further explores Shklar’s work by creating the “Shklarian Model” which is simply split between what is best for a man and what is best for a citizen as being distinct ideals (172). Mendham further elaborates on this argument by explaining the position of Leo Strauss, who argued that Rousseau’s political solution “ought to be read as merely intended for modern consumption” since it is impossible for humans to ever truly return to the ideal solitude and naturalness of the original state of human nature (172). In fact, in his Confessions Rousseau posited that “he alone has maintained the soul of original, natural …show more content…
Wempel explains the argument of J. Plamenatz, who, in regards to the person being forced into freedom, asserted that “the recalcitrant, because he followed his merely selfish private will, was morally unfree when he committed his violation of the laws, and that punishment may be the instrument for making him renounce that “inferior” will, thus rendering him morally free” (21). The act of instilling superior wills and moral freedom is explained in the Émile, where the young pupil Émile besieges his tutor to “make me free against the passions that would do me violence” (Wempel 22). This in itself could still be argued as one giving up their freedom, but other prominent liberal thinkers have agreed with Rousseau that there can be no freedom without force as …show more content…
If even one “organ” of the body politic is to fail, the entire system is at risk for losing its freedom. This supports Wempel’s argument that it is impossible to speak of freedom without some form of paradox, in part because humanity is often so content to remain in their metaphorical chains. It is the enforceable general will that binds a community together so that a state of greater moral freedom can be reached