Government Philosophers Discussion by Kristen Hansen

Question 1

hansenk8 — 2017-08-24 15:22:39 UTC

Of the four philosophers discussed in this article, which two do you think differed the most? Why?

Question 1 Answer

2017-08-24 15:33:53 UTC

I think that Montesquieu and Rousseau were the most different out of the four of them because Rousseau believed that there should be no king at all, and Montesquieu didn't like the king and believed that society caused people to be violent and that they aren't naturally that way.

Question 1

2017-08-24 15:34:20 UTC

I think that Montesquieu and Rousseau differed from they others. I think this because they believed that people should be able to have more freedom. They didn't think that there should be a king, and the others liked the king.

Question 1 While reading this I believed that Charles Montesquieu and Jean-Jacques Rousseau differed from each other because Rousseau believed that there should not be any kings ever. Montesquieu also believed in the same ways that Rousseau did but his reasoning was because the society was crazy, violent, and that's what caused society to not want any kings

2017-08-24 15:34:49 UTC

Question 1

2017-08-24 15:36:25 UTC

While reading the article I believe that Rousseau and Montesquieu differed the most because they think people should be free and have no King.

2017-08-24 15:40:38 UTC

montesquieu and rousseau are different because they want freedom from the king.

Question 1 Answer

2017-08-24 15:41:00 UTC

The two Philosophers I think are different are Montesquieu and Rousseau. The reason why I think they are different is they believe people should have more freedom.

Question 2

hansenk8 — 2017-08-24 15:45:11 UTC

Which of the democratic forms of government proposed by Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau do you think is the best? Why?

Question 2 Answer

2017-08-24 15:45:43 UTC

I believe that Montesquieu's democratic form of government was the best because he believed that branches kept each other in check. Rousseau had good ideas, but they didn't seem very realistic. Locke's wasn't very good to me, his ideas were about keeping the king and not very much freedom.

Question 2

2017-08-24 15:45:58 UTC

The democratic form of government I like the best would be Rousseau. Locke's democratic form is where you would have a brutality state of nature. With Montesquieu's where the state of nature had fear that would avoid violence and war.

Question 2 Answer

2017-08-24 15:45:59 UTC

I think that Locke's proposed democratic government is probably the best because he thinks that there should be a house of representatives, but instead of a bunch of male property owners, I think it should be way more diverse. Rousseau's is also good, but I think that it's pretty unrealistic to implement, especially since he wasn't even sure how to go about it himself. Montesquieu also had a good idea, but it was based on a misunderstanding of the English government

Question 2

2017-08-24 15:48:04 UTC

I agree with John Locke's way because I feel like it makes the most sense. While reading I really agreed with Locke's when he said you can't take life, liberty, and property away from the people which I strongly believe in!

Question 2 answer

2017-08-24 15:48:30 UTC

The Philosopher I think is the best is Montesquieu says the government should maintain law, order, and property of an individual. He opposed absolute power to a monarchy.I did not like Locke's government because he believed only men could own property and vote. Hobbes was ok but he believed there should be a king but nobody can go against him.

Question 2

2017-08-24 15:52:42 UTC

I like Lockes

Question 2 answer

2017-08-24 15:58:47 UTC

I like Rousseau's democracy,
Montesquieu was good but it was based on a misunderstanding

Question 3

hansenk8 — 2017-08-24 16:00:18 UTC

Rousseau wrote in The Social Contract, “As soon as any man says of the affairs of the State ‘What does it matter to me?’ the State may be given up for lost.” What do you think he meant? How do you think his words relate to American democracy today?

Question 3 answer

2017-08-28 15:04:37 UTC

I think he means that if you start thinking "what does it matter to me" then it's like you gave up. There would be no point in the state if no one wanted to care about it. I think it relates to American democracy today is because we have a government, and people do not try to participate with most of the voting we have.

Question 3

2017-08-28 15:04:44 UTC

I think he meant that if nothing matters to you then the state may be lost. It relates to the American democracy today because if people think that nothing matters to them we will not have states today and no government.

Question 3 answer

2017-08-28 15:05:16 UTC

I think he meant that if people aren't invested in their government then it doesn't matter. Lots of people don't vote and stuff

question 3

2017-08-28 15:07:50 UTC

i think that was rousseau way of giving up.

Question 3

2017-08-28 15:10:46 UTC

Rousseau is saying that people show little interest in our country and give up. His words relate to today's society because people these days really don't know what they are voting for and give up on our economy and society.

Question 3

2017-08-28 15:17:19 UTC

what he meant is that a lot of people do not care about the country

Question 3

2017-08-28 15:18:21 UTC

I think he means if you say something in government it won't even matter.

2018-01-03 01:45:23 UTC

2018-01-03 01:45:26 UTC

unch of male property owners, I think it should be way more diverse. Rousseau's is also good, but I think that it's pretty unrealistic to implement, especially since he wasn't even sure how to go about it himself. Montesquieu also had a good idea, but it was based on a misunderstanding of the English government

kyahg222 — 2018-08-15 14:48:39 UTC

hjjjh

2019-02-16 19:03:22 UTC

lijooiih

2019-06-08 04:40:44 UTC

While reading this I believed that Charles Montesquieu and Jean-Jacques Rousseau differed from each other because Rousseau believed that there should not be any kings ever. Montesquieu also believed in the same ways that Rousseau did but his reasoning was because the society was crazy, violent, and that's what caused society to not want any kings

2020-06-12 20:58:58 UTC

f the English government more_vert unch of male property own unch of male property owners, I think

2020-06-12 20:59:11 UTC

harles Montesquieu and Jean-Jacques Rousseau differed from each other because Rousseau believed that there should not be any kings ever. Montesquieu also believed in

2020-06-15 14:56:22 UTC

Of the four philosophers discussed in this article, which two do you think differed the most? Why?

2020-08-19 21:42:04 UTC

Montesquieu and Jean-Jacques Rousseau differed from each other because Rousseau believed that there should not be any kings ever. Montesquieu also believed in f the English government f the English government

2020-08-19 23:20:06 UTC

Of the four philosophers discussed in this article, which two do you think differed the most? Why?

2020-09-18 04:06:09 UTC

think that Locke's proposed democratic government is probably the best because he thinks that there should be a house of representatives, but instead of a bunch of male property owners, I think it should be way more diverse. Rousseau's is also good, but I think that it's pretty unrealistic to implement, especially since he wasn't even sure how to go about it himself. Montesquieu also had a good idea, but it was based on a misunderstanding of the English government unch of male property own

24cguo — 2020-09-24 23:19:37 UTC

Of the four philosophers discussed in this article, which two do you think differed the most? Why?

2020-09-27 23:49:06 UTC

because Rousseau believed that there should not be any kings ever. Montesquieu also believed in

2020-10-04 00:35:00 UTC

Of the four philosophers discussed in this article, which two do you think differed most? Why?

2020-10-04 00:35:00 UTC

Of the four philosophers discussed in this article, which two do you think differed most? Why?