Rousseau delves into the purely negative reaction against the philosophy of the Enlightenment. While the philosophers-enlightenment also discover a unilateral cult of reason, Rousseau highlights the cult of feelings. While the philosophers of the Enlightenment exalt the individual and personal interests, Rousseau exalts the community and the common will. While the illuminists talk about progress, Rousseau launches the slogan "return to nature". At the same time, this does not mean that Rousseau, in all positions, is in opposition to the philosophers-enlightenment. He often completely shares their views - for example, Rousseau also believes that a person is kind by nature. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The Enlightenment believed that evil stemmed from ignorance and intolerance, supported by tradition and privilege. Therefore, enlightenment should serve as medicine. When reason and science win, the good in man will grow, following the progress of civilization. Rousseau was convinced that evil lies in civilization itself. Civilization leads to an artificial and degenerate life. Rousseau often criticizes the faith in progress and opens the way to romanticism: urban life and science distort what is good and natural in man. I saw Rousseau make the point that we must return to nature. I was a little confused by this statement and I asked myself: by saying this did he mean a return to primitive life? I agree that a person is part of the community. Apparently, according to Rousseau, we must return to nature in the sense of "the embodiment of a natural and virtuous life in the human community." In this case, his argument is directed both against what he saw as ultracivilized decline and against uncivilized primitivism. We can interpret Rousseau's criticism of the Enlightenment philosophers as an expression of the relationship of the lower strata of the middle classes to the upper classes. So his ideas were: direct democracy, equality in relation to property, sovereign "common will", public education of all members of the state. Rousseau highlights the simple virtues of the everyday life of ordinary people such as family life, friendliness, religiosity and conscientious work of artisans and peasants, more refined manners, indifference and calculability of great merchants and representatives of a new science. Far from calling for a return to primitive conditions, Rousseau defends the simple life of the lower strata of the middle classes. It defends the everyday moral notions and unreflective faith of people of modest prosperity from the caustic and abstruse criticism of intellectuals, for whom there is clearly nothing sacred. Rousseau thus becomes the spokesperson for the irritated and worried lower stratum of the middle class, which, convinced of its own moral superiority, is outraged by the intellectual criticism of secular faiths and traditions. Furthermore, this class fears that such criticism threatens the foundations of its being. Since the members of this class, due to lack of education, were not always able to defend themselves in a rational way, their reaction often consisted in the total condemnation of the mind and the sentimental exaltation of the senses. Speaking of Locke, he substantiated his political opinions and attitudes using the philosophy of history, the core of which were the teachings of natural law and the social contract. Based on the lecture “Locke believed that we came into the world as a blank sheet of paper. We do not have innate ideas, but we have innate rational abilities that work on the matter that is printed on the sheets of paper that are our mind” (Provost). We can see this in the statement of.