will be as free as in the pure state of nature which although it has passed irreversibly, a
rapprochement of it in the framework of society is what is best for humans and that can only
be achieved through direct democracy. Rousseau’s social contract is abs olute, unlike Locke’s
theory which entails only the partial surrender of liberty in exchange for security. Absolute,
but collective, liberty comes at the moment when the General Will manifests itself whereas
everyone’s self -interest becomes one state-sized cooperative force. 19 This presupposes the
voluntary absolute submission of the individual to the General Will as the manifestation of
his own interest and the coercion of the irreconcilables, not very unlikely the Marxist-Leninist
theory which holds altruistic beliefs regarding human nature and the collective interest.
Further, this idea entails the intrinsic encouragement of revolution, a form of civil war which
while being for Hobbes a return to the unwanted State of Nature, 20 is here another testament
to an assessment of societies, hence, humans as capable of seeing through. Finally, there is
an element of providentialism in Rousseau’s thought but of a metaphorical character that
holds that by recognizing our original providential good nature we can manipulate our history
and remake our existence. 21 Therefore, while his proposition is based on massive consent,
Rousseau’s political thought is based on a timeless judgement of human nature.
Hume’s view of human nature is not so unlike Rousseau’s in terms of the idea of
humanity and its nature not being the same across the ages. This argument may have sound
odd to someone that had read Hume’s statement from his first Inquiry: ‘Mankind are so much
the same, in all times and places, that history informs us of nothing new [but] the constant
and universal principles of human nature’. 22 First, we need to consider that Hume viewed the
19 McClelland, pp. 260-261. 20 McClelland, p. 197. 21 Scott, pp. 707-709. 22 David Hume, An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, ed. C. W. Hendel (Indianapolis, 1955), p. 93.
31
Made with FlippingBook HTML5