Haha. Trick question. The real answer is Richelieu.
>Frog thinking anglos learn about this faggot
Richlieu was just a silly character in The Three Musketeers. Rousseau was a silly character that ruined the enlightenment. Locke was a silly British man who couldn't best the god-man Hobbes.
Locke is best.
Rousseau knew her way around the island better, BUT Locke had a deeper connection to the island. I'd pick Locke desu.
>>1373004
What's wrong with Rousseau?
>>1373322
He was wrong about basically everything and was a huge, throbbing dick to just about everyone.
>>1373322
Mostly ad hominem attacks like how he refused to raise his own children. The man may be horrible, but his ideas are solid.
>Inb4 Voltaire-meme primitivism arguments
I don't think the question is Locke or Rousseau as much as (in the context of the Social Contract) Rousseau is the logical continuation of Locke.
>>1373004
Joseph de Maistre
>>1374943
>his ideas are solid
>>1374951
How is this supposed to be a counterargument? You know Locke and Rousseau mostly tried to solve the problem Hobbes posed, right? The problem of his ideology more or less justifying absolutism, authoritarianism and in the long run even totalitarianism?
>>1374953
Rousseau never came close to answering Hobbes, it's the equivalent of "nuh-uh, people don't do that!" Locke came closer, and he was a legitimately good human being so he's cool in my book. Rousseau was an asshole who was one step away from being a sophist.
>>1373145
>Rousseau was a silly character that ruined the enlightenment.
That's /his/ in a nutshell.
A bunch of uncultured fucks who talk out of their asses.
>>1374968
>it's the equivalent of "nuh-uh, people don't do that!"
Nice meme
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage#Erroneous_identification_of_Rousseau_with_the_noble_savage
>In fact, Rousseau arguably shared Hobbes' pessimistic view of humankind, except that as Rousseau saw it, Hobbes had made the error of assigning it to too early a stage in human evolution. According to the historian of ideas, Arthur O. Lovejoy:
>The notion that Rousseau’s Discourse on Inequality was essentially a glorification of the State of Nature, and that its influence tended to wholly or chiefly to promote "Primitivism" is one of the most persistent historical errors.
In other words, Rousseau did not believe that humans were innately out to harm eachother but that it was caused by the rise of civilization and more pretinently the scarcity it had caused. This is pretty much the same idea as Plato had in his Republic.
Hell, Rousseau did not even argue natural man was virtuous or even perfect as some of his critics claim.
>Rousseau maintained that man in a State of Nature had been a solitary, ape-like creature, who was not méchant (bad), as Hobbes had maintained, but (like some other animals) had an "innate repugnance to see others of his kind suffer" (and this natural sympathy constituted the Natural Man's one-and-only natural virtue)
Argue against Rousseau, not the meme-Rousseau his critics created.
>>1374968
Maybe you should read Le Contrat Social. It's much more subtle and profound than the summary you read on Wikipedia.
>>1374988
*Du contrat social
And even wikipedia's summary is more complex than what you see posted here.
