So, Rousseau was also arrested and wanted several times because his ideas were very radical. This idea of social inequality indeed has a profound dialectics, and the reality of society, or the reality of society he interpreted, is like that. However, the ideal social reality he envisioned is a different one, where true equality is reflected on the basis of a social contract. That's what equality is, it used to be called inequality, because the emergence of private ownership led to inequality, and the development of inequality went through three historical stages, which ultimately led to inequality and the overthrow of political power one day.

He proposed the idea of social contract theory, which aims to solve the problem of equality in an ideal social state.

So, the problem that Rousseau wants to solve is, "Is it possible to have some kind of legal and precise rule of government in the social order, based on the actual situation of humanity and the possible situation of law

That is to say, he is trying to construct a set of methods that are both theoretically reasonable and feasible in reality. So, this is the concept that Rousseau has always considered, the concepts of freedom and equality are the core concepts of Rousseau's philosophy. Freedom comes from nature, from reason itself, and equality also comes from reason, but it is a social requirement and a guarantee of human freedom ability. So, equality is also its core concept.

He proposed the theory of social contract, which states that "the contract is the foundation of all legitimate authority in the world." The social contract is a necessary condition and prerequisite for legitimate rights and a normal political system.

The foundation of all our rights comes from the result of contracts between each other, so we need to sign contracts, just like we talk about the emergence of inequality. The emergence of inequality is a contract between the rich and the poor, while Rousseau's contract here is not a contract between the rich and the poor, but a contract signed between people. The composition of this contract is the foundation of society.

What is society?

Society refers to a contract reached between individuals, and based on this contract, everyone acts together, which is called society. Society is established through contracts.

This is an important idea of Rousseau, why did he establish society through contracts?

This brings us back to the two fundamental principles of human nature in the beginning: self preservation and compassion. They are precisely the two fundamental principles that enable humans to reach mutual contracts.

The fundamental problem that the social contract aims to solve is to find a form of union that can maintain and safeguard the property and life of every individual with the collective strength of all, while at the same time making the individuals in this union only obey themselves and still feel freedom as before

That is to say, he is not obeying someone else, obeying other powers, obeying external things. In fact, he is also obeying the requirements of personal freedom. The demand for personal freedom, in this sense, refers to the activity of freedom, which means that 'any pursuit of freedom is precisely to give up some of one's own lack of freedom in order to obtain a kind of freedom'.

So, freedom is actually at the cost of not being free.

These ideas are very profound. What we are talking about is freedom with absolute concepts and understanding. Rousseau said that freedom comes at the cost of some kind of unfreedom, which is called limitation.

Because you have to give up some special freedom that you originally had, when you give up some special freedom, you actually gain greater and more freedom. Only a society established on such a premise is truly in line with the will of all the people.

Because a reasonable social contract here requires every collaborator and all their own rights to be fully transferred to the entire collective. The concept of "transfer" here is very important, which means that you need to transfer some of your rights to a public right, which can replace us in exercising personal rights.

This kind of transfer itself is not only based on the consideration of freedom, but also on the premise of surrendering certain freedoms, that is to say, it is based on a certain "lack of freedom". At the same time, when ensuring the maximum play of one's own freedom, it must fully consider the collective interests that are different from those of each individual.

This interest is the general will. And what does the general will represent?

The representative of public opinion is the law, so only the law that expresses public opinion is the law that we should abide by and implement.

Rousseau's idea actually hides a danger, the idea of social contract, which he idealizes in a natural state, unaffected by other external forces. The so-called state of nature, which means that we do not consider national culture, historical traditions, or even economic conditions, is somewhat similar to the so-called "veil of ignorance" of Rawls that we are reading now. It is a situation where everyone surrenders their right to freedom without any preconditions or restrictive regulations, and then collectively synthesizes it into a collective power.

However, this approach itself carries a huge danger in reality. We often say that the whole is often greater than the sum of its parts, and that greater part is precisely the power that can override every individual. And once this power is exploited by a minority, it may become the root of authoritarianism and violence, so this is precisely a very dangerous sign.

So, some people even say that Rousseau's ideas provided a theoretical basis for authoritarianism, but this is not his starting point, yet he implies this danger.

According to Rousseau's own intention, he simplified the social contract into one sentence: 'Each of us, with our own and all our strength, is under the highest guidance of the general will, and we accept every member in the community as an inseparable part of the whole.'.

This is a very idealized state, a principle he imagined. There is a clear explanation for the concept of public opinion understood here. What does' public opinion 'refer to?

'Public will' refers to the representative of the public interest, which removes the corresponding part from the 'collective will' that is the sum of individual wills, and leaves the same part.

That is to say, everyone has their own unique opinions and ideas. Freedom is also like this. Everyone has their own understanding of freedom, and everyone only has the right to freedom. Either you are free to do one thing, while others may be free to do other things. Everyone's understanding and application of the right to freedom is different.

However, in order to achieve a common good, in order to achieve a common will, we must give up our own special understanding and rights of freedom. Therefore, this kind of public will is actually equivalent to a kind called Over Lap, which is the overlapping part. It actually expresses that we can remove all special elements and form a public interest.

Over Lap, In fact, this viewpoint is another word provided by Plato, called 'idea'. Philosophically speaking, it is this thing. Because only ideas cancel out everyone's opinion, that is, everyone's concept, everyone's viewpoint, everyone's opinion.

So, Plato was the first to distinguish between our opinions and ideas. Opinions are the special things that each of us possesses, and only that idea is our common understanding of a thing. Only that idea can form a public opinion on things. That is the common part, the common part among all our opinions, which is actually this idea.

However, for Rousseau, it certainly does not require an idea to express this meaning, so we need to understand what this general idea is. Of course, such a general will is just something we imagine, or rather, we have conceived such a component, such a thing, because it is difficult, or basically impossible for us to obtain such a general will.

According to Wittgenstein, we can only have similarities because it is difficult to reach a common opinion by removing all our personal interests and ideas, and then we need to form a common opinion, which is actually impossible. So, we can only say that A has a certain opinion that can be adopted by B. However, some of B's opinions were adopted by C, and then C may have some opinions adopted by D as E, and so on.

Is there something common in ABCD? No, it's just that A and B overlap, BC overlaps, and C and D overlap. Finally, we want to find the intersection between them. We can only remove all the special things, and only after removing them do we realize that they have nothing in common.

For the so-called aesthetics, there are actually no standards, because in fact, it is difficult for us to find such a thing. However, when we try to find it, we do not find it through empirical observation, but we first establish it according to a certain concept.

So, the general will is not the public interest formed by removing individual specific and particular opinions, as Rousseau said, but what?

But rather, he envisioned an ideal state and then considered it to explain what our laws truly represent.

So, here we once again see the important difference between Rousseau's ideas and the ideas of British empiricism. The idea of empiricism in Britain is essentially determined by the formulation of laws that we have learned through our observation and examination of actual history. So why is it said that in the British Isles, they appear as a form of natural law, while in the European continent they are precisely a form of written law. You can see the specific differences between the two from its theoretical foundation.