So, in Rousseau's view, the principle of the general will it provides is not used to describe a current state of social and legal establishment at that time, but to explain why law "should" become the initial basis of law.
So, it's not descriptive, it's explanatory. So, to understand the characteristics of Rousseau's thought, we read all of his ideas and viewpoints, including the origin of inequality and social contract theory. The purpose of reading philosophy is not to know what he said. I have repeatedly emphasized that it is not to let him know what he said, because you need to know what he said, just read it, it's very simple.
The key is, you need to know why he said that?
This is what we need to tell everyone. What is the reason behind his statement? Why is his ideology different from other Enlightenment ideas at that time? The entire dimension of his thinking, the starting point of his consideration of the problem, and the logical reasoning that includes it, are what we need to master. These are actually more important than understanding what Rousseau said.
However, we need to rely on what he says to understand these things. If you don't learn about or read his works, you won't be able to come up with such results. So, Rousseau's proposal of the general will is based on a general principle to derive an explanation of real problems, which is in line with Rousseau's previous statement about the problem he wants to solve.
So, the combination between a legal and reasonable set of social systems and practical and feasible systems in real life is not about using a reasonable system to satisfy the reality of the system, but rather about making the reality of the system conform to those reasonable interpretations.
What if the current system does not conform to a reasonable explanation?
Revolution aims to overthrow the system of reality, which is Rousseau's idea.
Rousseau's ideas are revolutionary, and his revolution is reflected here. But when this revolutionary idea reached Hegel, it became a smoother way of saying that 'everything that is real is reasonable, and only what is reasonable can become real'.
This is the gradual evolution and development from Rousseau's thought.
This kind of 'public opinion' is manifested in practice as law. And law refers to the provisions made by the entire people as legislators to the entire people as subjects.
It is one's own regulation of oneself, not one's own regulation of others. The real law is the regulation of the rich for the poor, and the true law should be the regulation of each person for themselves. This is what is called law.
So, you can read out the principles of the social contract envisioned by Rousseau, and that the society built upon these social contract principles is entirely the society it envisioned.
However, this construction of an ideal society is often used by some Western scholars to explain the rationality of the real system, but Rousseau's core viewpoint is actually like this.
The law not only guarantees equal rights for citizens, but is also the cornerstone of freedom, because 'only by obeying the laws that people have made for themselves can freedom be called'.
We can know that according to Rousseau's conception of a society, a society constructed by such laws, and his political system, it is definitely not a constitutional monarchy, nor is it a dictatorship. It should be a thorough democracy.
It doesn't even work with a representative system, which is still formed by a small number of people. However, later on, his explanation was included in the formulation of specific policies or the norms of social systems. He also hoped that he would say that in a large country, it is difficult for us to achieve complete democracy, so we can also allow for a representative system, which means what?
We are just representatives of the people who entrust their power to us and let those people exercise this power on our behalf. So, he also acknowledges representative system, but both full democracy and representative system belong to different forms of democracy. So, for Rousseau, only those who obey people and make laws for themselves can be called freedom, because you are obeying yourself, not others.
This viewpoint evolved into Kant's view that every person can only be called free if they act according to their own moral rules. He no longer externalizes this law to society, but transforms it into an internal moral command. So, only those who abide by their inner moral commands are truly free.
So, when the concept of freedom arrived at Kant, it completely became an ethical requirement, a moral demand, rather than a social norm, because Kant himself was not enthusiastic about this institutional construction. It focused more on what was inside the human heart, he did not care about the external society, he focused more on the inner world.
So, he said, 'Based on this principle, because people obey their own laws, we don't need to ask who makes the laws, whether the laws are unfair, or why people are both free and subject to the law.'.
These issues no longer exist. Because the law is made by you, right? Why do you have to obey the law? Obeying the law is equivalent to obeying your own will. Therefore, there is no question of whether you obey the law or not, nor is there a question of justice or injustice. Whether it is just or unjust is not a problem here.
The collective formed by contracts and the formulation of laws representing the general will is called a republic.
This is the state in which Rousseau constructed an ideal country for us.
The sovereignty of the republic, that is, the highest power, belongs to all the people. In such a country, everyone has a dual identity of being a ruler and being ruled, where the ruler and being ruled have only relative meanings.
Because you entrust power to some people, they may appear to be ruling on the surface, but because they are exercising the power you give them first, they cannot be called rulers. Similarly, the so-called ruled is not completely ruled, they are only exercising their own free will, so they cannot be called ruled either. Therefore, rulers and ruled do not have absolute meaning here.
Therefore, 'The Social Contract Theory' is seeking a social contract that allows one to enter a social state without losing peace and equality.
You see, the transition of human beings from a natural state to a social state is precisely a process of losing their freedom, a process of transitioning from equality to inequality. This was originally a process of social development revealed to us by Rousseau.
But he hopes that when humanity transitions from a natural state to a social state, we will not give up freedom, nor do we want inequality. We need to ensure our freedom while also regaining equality in this social state.
So, we can even say that what the book "The Origins of Inequality" describes is his conception of an explanation of the origin of social inequality, an interpretation of the real society. And 'The Social Contract Theory' is his conception of an idealized social state, and when you put it together, you will find that the contradiction between the two is very obvious.
When you reveal the true face of a society, you want to construct another society, but encounter the biggest difficulty, which is not reflected in ideal thinking, but in a social practice level. The result of social practice is not as envisioned by Rousseau.
So, the social contract is not in the way proposed by Rousseau. We prefer to believe in the social contract, which should come from the kind of social contract given to us by Hobbes and Locke. So, the social contract provided by Rousseau, the way he constructed it, is actually not real history and has never become history. Only the social system given by Hobbes and Locke is the political system we see in the West today.
So, the emergence of the Western social system today is entirely based on the social system proposed by Hobbes or Locke, rather than Rousseau's social system. This is why Rousseau's ideas may seem beautiful, but in reality, they cannot be achieved.
However, we always start from the good will and hope that our current social system is based on the system envisioned by Rousseau. Therefore, we often interpret law as a general will, but in reality, we all know that it is not a general will. It is often the will of rulers, but we always hope that it is a general will.
So, the good wishes often do not yield good results, and it is not possible to achieve good results solely based on good will. This is a social ideal state that Rousseau hoped to establish in his social contract theory. It is precisely this ideal state that led him to oppose Locke, and even Montesquieu. This is normal and understandable why he opposed Locke? Why oppose Montesquieu?
He opposes the theory of separation of powers, he opposes it with his own reasons and reasons.
However, the difference between Rousseau's ideas and Montesquieu and Locke's ideas is too great because their theoretical foundations are already different. Using one theory to oppose another is certainly not valid. Rousseau's theory cannot completely refute Locke and Montesquieu's idea of the separation of powers.
You can only say that I have different interpretations of this issue, but it is basically impossible for you to completely refute it. Therefore, Rousseau's ideas did to a large extent lead to a discordant voice in the entire 18th century French Enlightenment movement, which also led to later German thinkers re examining that period of history and discovering that the most profound aspect of French thinkers is not Montesquieu, Voltaire, or Diderot, but rather the shuttle.
