Hume And Rousseau: A Treatise Of Human Nature

The two Enlightenment readings that spoke to me and made me think the most, were Hume and Rousseau. Though I do think that all of Hume’s writings have good points to them, the section that I will be focusing on the most is “A Treatise of Human Nature”, due to how relatable it is to my life. I foundThe reason that I find Rousseau thought invoking is because he goes against what I believe and it made me think of why I believe what I believe. The main point of the section “A Treatise of Human Nature” is to make the point that everything that we have derived, “all our reasoning in the conduct of life ” (Hume 198), has come from what we have experienced, that every idea that someone has, even any idea that they themselves don’t understand, comes

The reason that this is, is because it is also easy to prove that the future is unpredictable just by watching how something moves. If all you have ever seen was something walk by something without stopping then you will assume by experience that they will do it again next time you see them but they then might decide that they are tired and want to stop right there or something might get in there way so they are force to stop there. The reason that it is impossible to accuratelyone hundred percent predict the future comes down to how many is because there are too many variables one mustto take into account., so why do people do it. Hume’s answer, to why people try interpret the present with respect to the past is is “we are determined by CUSTOM alone to suppose the future [conforms] to the past” (Hume 199), and brought on by the costume is a belief that the thing will happen the way it did in the past and this belief, even though it doesn’t “join no new idea to the concept (Hume 201)” makes it so you are more accepting of what will happen in the future. This is why I find this paper so amazing because he gives a very good argument to something that I believe do to my past experiences and

A social contract isWhat a social contract is is and an agreement between two or more people to uphold an action between the members, and when the contract is over the people that it effects still retain the rights and liberties that they started with. The problem that can arise from this is when you are in a contract with other people, you must now take into account what the other people think is your side of the contract. Yyou must know the general will of the group and what it says you must do. If your will and the general will do not match then one of three things will happen. The first it that the social contract will become broken and everything that is associated with it will no longer apply to you. The second thing is “that whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body” (Rousseau 435) and the third is that you chose to go along with the general will and give up yours. The last two is the danger that Rousseau say exist because in those two scenarios the person must give up something for what Rousseau says is not worth much, protection. This is the point that made me think because I think that protection is a good thing but is it worth what we give, going with the general will even if it goes against our own. I say that it is because the contract is made up of the people that it effects and they cannot do something as a part of it that will not