While both stipulate that children love property and power, Locke and Rousseau differ in assumptions of human nature, which leads to different notions on why and when this love of property becomes dangerous. Locke believes that man is born with property, but is ‘tabula rasa’; thus childhood education should be the molding of natural tendencies to encourage a healthy society. Rousseau believes a man to inherently be self-sufficient, and is innately good until selfish motives from industrial society begin to corrupt him. Rousseau, believing that materialism is the root of corruption, seeks to separate property from individuals, while Locke maintains that one must allow individuals to protect and encourage growth of property. This leads to different
…show more content…
Rousseau, by contrast, has a much more demanding and unrealistic conception of freedom from suppression, and seeks to ‘‘prevent all awareness of dependence on others wills’ (Rousseau, 311). Meaning the habitualization of self-interest in children should be eliminated, as they should be allowed to behave to their own will, not others. Locke champions the individuals with innate ‘autonomy or inwardness’ (Rousseau, 294)’ and who views every external human influence as a threat. This stance is heroically staunch, asserting that ‘‘dependence on things, since it has no morality, is in no way detrimental to freedom,’’, meaning only what a child can create themselves is acceptable, and that dependence on others is without natural order. While Rousseau seemingly accepts Locke’s method for removing the ‘‘wants of fancy’’ from ‘‘those of nature’ (Locke, 77) in children, he rejects Locke’s method for removing the desire children have to possess material objects, namely to teach children ‘a readiness to impart to others’ (Locke, 81). Rather, a child will be taught the ‘duty to keep commitments…by the weight of its utility’ (Rousseau, …show more content…
Locke states this love first becomes dangerous during childhood, when a child begins to demand others serve them before themselves, and then again when the child begins to ‘‘desire to have things be theirs’’ (Locke, 77). Locke sees these as these as the ‘‘two roots of almost all the injustice and corruption that so disturb human life’’ (Locke, 77) and therefore must be weeded out. Locke argues that the desire ‘‘to enlarge [one’s] possession beyond the use of his family’’ and the social agreement to allow a person ‘‘fairly to possess more land than he can make use of’’ are absolutely necessary to the formation of a State (Locke, 29). He mainly believes in Property Limits on accumulation, that one should leave as much and as good for another, and not be wasteful with land and food. He attacks only the desire to exercise dominion over things which actively harms others; that children shouldn’t want to possess things for ‘‘the right they thereby have to dispose of [things] as they please’’ (Locke, 77). It is notable how Locke ties the disposition to waste or spoil things with cruelty, as the wish to dispose of things as one pleases is incompatible with the wish to use things. Locke believes in order to prepare them for the ideal society, children must be taught to ‘‘part with what they have easily and freely to their friends’’(Locke, 81), and make sure that ‘‘all the
Rousseau, by contrast, has a much more demanding and unrealistic conception of freedom from suppression, and seeks to ‘‘prevent all awareness of dependence on others wills’ (Rousseau, 311). Meaning the habitualization of self-interest in children should be eliminated, as they should be allowed to behave to their own will, not others. Locke champions the individuals with innate ‘autonomy or inwardness’ (Rousseau, 294)’ and who views every external human influence as a threat. This stance is heroically staunch, asserting that ‘‘dependence on things, since it has no morality, is in no way detrimental to freedom,’’, meaning only what a child can create themselves is acceptable, and that dependence on others is without natural order. While Rousseau seemingly accepts Locke’s method for removing the ‘‘wants of fancy’’ from ‘‘those of nature’ (Locke, 77) in children, he rejects Locke’s method for removing the desire children have to possess material objects, namely to teach children ‘a readiness to impart to others’ (Locke, 81). Rather, a child will be taught the ‘duty to keep commitments…by the weight of its utility’ (Rousseau, …show more content…
Locke states this love first becomes dangerous during childhood, when a child begins to demand others serve them before themselves, and then again when the child begins to ‘‘desire to have things be theirs’’ (Locke, 77). Locke sees these as these as the ‘‘two roots of almost all the injustice and corruption that so disturb human life’’ (Locke, 77) and therefore must be weeded out. Locke argues that the desire ‘‘to enlarge [one’s] possession beyond the use of his family’’ and the social agreement to allow a person ‘‘fairly to possess more land than he can make use of’’ are absolutely necessary to the formation of a State (Locke, 29). He mainly believes in Property Limits on accumulation, that one should leave as much and as good for another, and not be wasteful with land and food. He attacks only the desire to exercise dominion over things which actively harms others; that children shouldn’t want to possess things for ‘‘the right they thereby have to dispose of [things] as they please’’ (Locke, 77). It is notable how Locke ties the disposition to waste or spoil things with cruelty, as the wish to dispose of things as one pleases is incompatible with the wish to use things. Locke believes in order to prepare them for the ideal society, children must be taught to ‘‘part with what they have easily and freely to their friends’’(Locke, 81), and make sure that ‘‘all the