Arendt Vs Rousseau
Rony Nazarian
Professor Hurtado
English 1A
13 March 2011
Comparison
In Rousseau’s writing The Origin of Civil Society he focuses on the basics and uses many controversial points concerning the benefits of a civil state over a state of nature. But in Arendt’s writing Total Domination she believes that it’s wrong and that anyone who advocates it is mentally distressed. They both sound very similar but are different in their own ways. The two present essentially diverse solutions to the ongoing problem of human plurality in politics. Rousseau’s and Arendt’s have similar ideas on the people and their relationship to power and being governed but they express them threw different viewpoints. Rousseau and Arendt use slavery as examples to prove …show more content…
For example Arendt uses Hitler as an example of how they were using totalitarianism. Such as when she writes, “Hitler circulated millions of copies of his book in which he stated that to be successful; a lie must be enormous which did not prevent people from believing him.”(Arendt, 125) She used Hitler because his ruling was the main point of her writing about people and their relationship to power and being governed. In which Hitler was using nihilism and epistemology to run Germany and get rid of all the Jews. Regardless of Arendt’s writing in Rousseau’s writing he decided to use a family to show his example of ruling. An example of this is when he writes, “Children remain bound to their father for only just so long as they feel the need of him for their self-preservation.”(Rousseau, 59) What Rousseau is trying to show is that after the father has cared for his children his children use him only until they feel the need of him for their self-preservation. Arendt used a little more harsh type of example to show that the ruling that Hitler used was incorrect and showed that he was using his power for the incorrect
Professor Hurtado
English 1A
13 March 2011
Comparison
In Rousseau’s writing The Origin of Civil Society he focuses on the basics and uses many controversial points concerning the benefits of a civil state over a state of nature. But in Arendt’s writing Total Domination she believes that it’s wrong and that anyone who advocates it is mentally distressed. They both sound very similar but are different in their own ways. The two present essentially diverse solutions to the ongoing problem of human plurality in politics. Rousseau’s and Arendt’s have similar ideas on the people and their relationship to power and being governed but they express them threw different viewpoints. Rousseau and Arendt use slavery as examples to prove …show more content…
For example Arendt uses Hitler as an example of how they were using totalitarianism. Such as when she writes, “Hitler circulated millions of copies of his book in which he stated that to be successful; a lie must be enormous which did not prevent people from believing him.”(Arendt, 125) She used Hitler because his ruling was the main point of her writing about people and their relationship to power and being governed. In which Hitler was using nihilism and epistemology to run Germany and get rid of all the Jews. Regardless of Arendt’s writing in Rousseau’s writing he decided to use a family to show his example of ruling. An example of this is when he writes, “Children remain bound to their father for only just so long as they feel the need of him for their self-preservation.”(Rousseau, 59) What Rousseau is trying to show is that after the father has cared for his children his children use him only until they feel the need of him for their self-preservation. Arendt used a little more harsh type of example to show that the ruling that Hitler used was incorrect and showed that he was using his power for the incorrect