Man isn't born free is he? As soon as a baby enters this world it has to follow the rules! Firstly to it's own bodily functions (must eat, must drink etc) it's parents, then the teacher's then the boss' and the government's. Freedom is an illusion.
2007-07-03 23:38:58
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, a nice line, but unfortunately total rubbish.
Man is not born free. Like any other animal, he is born into a set of circumstances, to which he must adapt or die. Luckily for man (or woman - let's not be sexist, though I refuse to marmalise the language by "inclusive" nouns and adjectives) he is born with a brain which allows him, to a certain extent, to adapt his social and physical environment to himself rather than the normal way round. Other species do not have this option.
Self-realisation thus seems to be a possibility inherent in only the human condition. It might have been truer for Rousseau to say that man is born in the usual chains, but everywhere he is struggling to wriggle free.
Of course, Rousseau meant it in a political, not a biological or evolutionary sense. It is my contention that he got it the wrong way round here too, and that his own work is a great example of the wriggling process at work.
There are, of course, reactionary forces as well. Freedom and self-realisation imply individualism: every mean little ideology stressing the collective as opposed to individual freedom tries to push humanity back into every man "knowing his place" as a cog in the greater community.
The battle is joined, but is not won yet.
2007-07-03 10:14:29
·
answer #2
·
answered by Michael B 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Don't wish you'd written it, it's a contradiction. If we are born free, why would we be everywhere in chains? Perhaps it might be more enlightening in context, I really don't know. Yet, just on this line--if we wind up in chains, where does the responsibility lie? Since much of the world seems to be going to hell in a hand basket, why don't we pull up our socks & DO something about it? Yes, there are many people in "chains," they are vulnerable & perhaps can't do anything. Sadly, the human condition is such that those without chains--really don't give a d___. Survival of the fittest? Hah. Survival of those with $$ & power & the brains of smashed potatoes. I hope you'll re-think this!
2007-07-03 10:32:29
·
answer #3
·
answered by Psychic Cat 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Disagree. I find this to be a contradictory statement. JJ Rousseau said man is free, but everywhere he is in chains - then what is his definition of freedom? It would seem that the chains our apart or an extension of our freedom.
In other words... If you say we are free - but we still have to die, eat, drink, sleep etc...therefore we are in chains. Then what is your definition of freedom? Perhaps being an omnipotent, omniscient, all power-full being would be his definition of freedom? But, that is an entirely implausible state for all people. The chains are apart of our life. Its whats makes people....People! So I find it contradictory to say were free, but we are in chains. That's like saying freedom does not exist.
2007-07-03 10:01:24
·
answer #4
·
answered by Future 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Yes. Man is born without objectivity, no knowledge of good or evil. But he devlops that knowledge as he matures. And becomes chained and restrained by what he comes to believe.
In this country there was a time when black people were physically chained because there was a belief that they were not truly men. There were people who defended that policy with their lives. Those people who threw off their own chains and constraints, philosophically, politically, psychologically and financially speaking (Lincoln, Douglas, Carver, Tubmann, Dubois, and many others) are the ones who brought forward the thinking of the country the point we have come.
That may have been an extreme example of our chains. But then every man who believes that he can only achieve so much in his life, is in chains. Every man who blames someone else for his troubles is in chains. Every man who fights against what he doesn't want is in chains. Every man who is afraid to love the person standing next to him, or afraid to choose for fear of being worng, or afraid of being afraid, or afraid to share the secrets of who he is, what makes him tick, is in chains. Every man who fails to see and accept that his lot in life is the results of what he believes himself to be, is in chains.
2007-07-03 10:19:27
·
answer #5
·
answered by livemoreamply 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
The second part certainly is.
As for how free we are born, that's a bit difficult to say. Certainly we're not completely free-- there are serious constraints on our freedom, even from birth....
2007-07-03 10:00:39
·
answer #6
·
answered by Michael_Dorfman 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
Rousseau must have been depressed or in an unhappy relationship. If you are a happy individual then no...it is not true.
2007-07-03 10:08:56
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Children are still the least free of all citizens in every nation on this planet. Children often have fewer rights than criminals. We may define freedom in very different ways.
2007-07-03 13:45:08
·
answer #8
·
answered by guru 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
I believe Rousseau was reaching far beyond his time, but unfortunately in human history so far it has proven true.
2007-07-03 09:58:53
·
answer #9
·
answered by Fr. Al 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Yes. ~
It is said that slavery was abolished. But what do you call working 8 hours a day, every day just to be able to survive? Just because you can pick your master (who can still beat you up psychologically).
And many people feeling they couldn't quit even if they hate their job. What is that?
Of course freedom needs to be defined...
2007-07-03 10:00:14
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋