On What Grounds Could We Distinguish Between A Higher (authentic) And Lower (inauthentic) Self? And What Implications Does Such A Distinction Have For Our Understanding Of Freedom? Discuss With Reference To Theorists Covered In The Course (hobbes, Roussea

On what grounds could we distinguish between a higher(prenominal) (authentic ) and overthrow (inauthentic ) egotism ? And what implications does such a distinction nurture for our at a lower placestanding of e mancipationSince the time of Aristotle , philosophers strove to develop an adequate theory of charitable personality , temper of familiarity , and nature in gen durationl Cultivation of virtues and a higher moral or phantasmal self has also been a major theme of philosophical enquiry . Many of the philosophers regarded the individual in the context of the society and speculated on the true motives and desires of people . Plato and Aristotle divided the self into lower and higher categories , with lower universe our animal or fanatic self , and the higher being the uniquely piece or the rational self (Cooper 1999 . Both of them considered living according to the dictates of power , as opposed to giving into the impulses of passion as the absolute virtue that liberates human beingsOver two thousand years later on , Renaissance and Enlighten ment philosophers endeavored to find out the essential nature of human beings as divested from the influences of culture and society . The human being who existed before the advent of civilization represented the authentic self . Finding out the authentic and universal human nature was thought to be the first logical step in to determine the most natural and effective form of regime in a society . Prominent political philosophers of the era , mainly Hobbes , Locke and Rousseau described their individual notions of the original man as can be found in a theoretic pure state of nature , and based the rest of their doctrine and prescriptions for a better society on these assumptions (Solomon , Higgins 1997To Hobbes , the natural self is the lower self , which has to be tamed and kept under control .

However , there is no possibility of a higher self in Hobbes , only a train lower self in the context of a genteel society and under the rule of an all-powerful sovereign . Hobbes looked spate upon the state of freedom of nature a reign of freedom can only lead to chaos , as men s selfish passions come into mutual conflict and go crooked (Green 1993 . In the context of a civil society , which is organise under social contract , liberty of men is curtailed and compromised , alone this is necessary in to ensure stability and general genuine . Locke on the other hand is a more forward-looking thinker , who believed in freedom , progress , and rights of individual human beings . In Locke s philosophy , all people are born(p) free , and the original state of nature was the state of sinless and equality (Cunningham 2006 . Locke became a key figure in impulsive the philosophical lieus of the founding fathers of America . Rousseau , an influential figure in the French revolution , comes out as a philosopher that is sometimes very difficult to identify with Although beginning with the premise that man , by nature , is essentially good , he takes this view to the very extreme by regarding the civilized man to be corrupted , morally and spiritually...If you want to get a affluent essay, order it on our website: Ordercustompaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper