THE CONCEPTS OF FREEDOM; ROUSSEAU VS.

NIETZSCHE
By Anna Victoria M. Dela Vega
BA Political Science IV

Abstract
The notion of Freedom can be traced back to over a thousand years ago and this has been
one of the central focus of a lot of political thinkers. A lot of ideas or concepts were made by
various intellectuals and they turn out to be successful with their quest. If you come to think of it,
freedom has a lot of meanings; freedom of speech, freedom from slavery, freedom from worldly
allurements, freedom from war, or freedom from oneself. These definitions are abundant in the
internet, books, or any reading material for everyone always has this desire for freedom. This paper
focuses on comparing and analyzing the idea of freedom by Nietzsche and Rousseau. Both of the
philosophers have notion of positive liberty on which Isaiah Berlin defined as freedom to or
possession of a relevant resource or capability. To have an in-depth understanding on the different
views of freedom by the two philosophers, Rousseaus The Social Contract, Nietzsches Human,
All too Human, The Genealogy of Morals, Twilight of the Idols and other secondary references
will be analyzed. Rousseaus conception of freedom focuses on the collective side on which he
defined as obedience to the law which we prescribes to ourselves or he termed as civil liberty
while Nietzsche on the other hand views freedom as that the manly instincts that delight in war
and victory have gained mastery over the other instincts. The conception of freedom is essential
in the study of politics because it can influence the thoughts of individual. Aside from this, it can
also be the source of stability in the society. Both concepts by the two philosophers are still evident
in the society. It may be on the collective or on the individual side. However, Nietzsche was not
able to provide a clearer explanation of freedom compared to Rousseau who viewed freedom in
different forms. Lastly, Rousseau was able to provide a concept in which can be used as a tool in
maintaining the balance in the society.
I. Introduction

In building ideas about a certain concept, people usually rely on their observation. As

people open their mind to the world, knowledge about different things are being developed or

enhanced. People are able to access resources such as education which then lead to their

enlightenment regarding a lot of things. Aside from this, their perspectives are being influenced

by factors such as external environment, and different experiences. Concepts evolve through time

and may differ in different contexts, hence, it is essential to provide literatures about this in order

for everyone to have a better understanding of certain things or situations. One essential and

influential concept in the study of political theory is freedom.

Most of the people see freedom as merely the liberty to do something they want regardless

of how senseless it may be. Some use their freedom to simply show or test what they are capable

of. I think that this kind of idea about freedom is universally recognized and accepted. This can be

observed in the environment and everywhere around us. For example, if a butterfly is inside a

closed jar, people think that it is not free because it is confined in such a small space. Once someone

will open the jar and release the butterfly, they think that it is free because it can now flutter its

wings. However, if they try to think beyond the human senses, freedom does not only rely on the

butterfly being released and fly freely but because it already has the capacity or capability of

exhausting its true nature. It can achieve freedom once it comes back to its rightful place (nature)

and do its responsibility as a butterfly. This simple example can be connected to the way most

people perceive freedom as said earlier.

But before this paper will delve into the philosophies behind the concept of freedom and

the comparison of Rousseau and Nietzsches different perceptions, the emergence of freedom

should be tracked first.

P a g e 2 | 19
 The notion of freedom can be traced back to over a thousand years ago and this has been

one of the central focus of a lot of political thinkers. A lot of ideas or concepts were made by

various intellectuals and they turn out to be successful with their quest. If you come to think of it,

freedom has a lot of meanings; freedom of speech, freedom from slavery, freedom from worldly

allurements, freedom from war, or freedom from oneself. These definitions are abundant in the

internet, books, or any reading material for everyone always has this desire for freedom. A desire

that has long been dreamed of by many and is still unsuccessful to achieve. If we try to dig deeper

to the prior definitions of freedom, we could come up to different kinds of responses or answers

on what kind of freedom are we really up to.

Through the years, philosophers uses the term freedom and liberty interchangeably1.

It has been part of the society since then. The idea of freedom is said to have influence different

philosophers on the way they view things. For example, in a journal article entitled Platos

Doctrine of Freedom by R.F. Stalley, he argued that the notion of freedom is evident in Platos

moral and political thought and stated that:

The idea of freedom plays a key role in Plato's moral and political thought. In the

Republic justice is shown to be beneficial because the just man alone is truly free . . . The

Laws argues that to be free a city must avoid the extremes of liberty and of authoritarianism

. . . The underlying idea is that we are free if we willingly follow the demands of reason

rather than being coerced by external forces or by unruly desires.

(R.F. Stalley 1998: p. 145)

1
Christie McDonald,2010, Rousseau and Freedom, Cambridge University Press, New York, p. 17.
Likewise, this paper will also use the term freedom and liberty interchangeably.
P a g e 3 | 19
 From this, we can see that even before, the topic freedom is predominant in the study of

politics. There have been many notion of freedom constructed by different philosophers. However

the concepts of freedom by Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche was chosen

because even though they have different views, both of them have the notion of positive liberty

in which Isaiah Berlin defined as freedom to or possession of a relevant resource or capability

(Berlin, 1997). Rousseau was focused on the collective view while Nietzsche was on the individual

side.

This paper focuses on comparing and analyzing the idea of freedom by Nietzsche and

Rousseau. Both of the philosophers have notion of positive liberty on which Isaiah Berlin

defined as freedom to or possession of a relevant resource or capability. To have an in-depth

understanding on the different views of freedom by the two philosophers, Rousseaus The Social

Contract, Nietzsches Human, All too Human, The Genealogy of Morals, Twilight of the Idols and

other secondary references will be analyzed. Rousseaus conception of freedom focuses on the

collective side on which he defined as obedience to the law which we prescribes to ourselves or

he termed as civil liberty while Nietzsche on the other hand views freedom as that the manly

instincts that delight in war and victory have gained mastery over the other instincts. Rousseau

presented a much better explanation of his conception. Nietzsche, however, had contrasting views

on freedom. The conception of freedom is essential in the study of politics because it can influence

the thoughts of individual. Aside from this, it can also be the source of stability in the society.

II. Overview

This portion of the paper will provide an overview about the two philosophers; Jean-

Jacques Rousseau and Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche. Before comparing and contrasting their views

P a g e 4 | 19
of freedom, it is significant to provide a brief discussion about these two brilliant philosophers. It

will be followed by the notion of positive liberty by Isaiah Berlin which was used for nuancing.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau was born in Geneva in 1712 of a poor family. He was an orphan

since ten years old and became an engravers apprentice in 1728, before he left the city. In Europe,

he was to wander alone to find elusive happiness. He then became a Catholic convert at Turin and

visited various parts of Switzerland and France, with different professions a footman, seminarist,

music teacher and/or tutor. In the year 1732, he settled at Les Charmettes, known as the country

house of Madame de Warens, for eight years. He then writes about this peaceful place in his work,

the Confessions. Aside from this excellent work, Rousseau provided remarkable literatures and

novels which are significant today in the study of philosophy and politics. The most influential

work of Rousseau in terms of political philosophy was The Social Contract, published in 1762.

On the same year, he wrote an attack on religion and was arrested. But he fled to England, then

became an enemy of Hume and returned to his continental journeys. He died in 1778 and his last

years were spent largely in Paris after he finished the Confessions2.

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, on the other hand, was born in Germany (Saxony), in the

year 1844. He was able to study philology in Bonn University and Leipzig University and was

appointed as chair of classical philology at the University of Basel, Switzerland in 1869. However,

he resigned his professorship after ten years because of his health conditions. Nietzsche was able

to provide essential literature such as the following; The Birth of Tragedy, Thus Spoke Zarathustra,

Beyond Good and Evil, On the Genealogy of Morals, The Case of Wagner, Twilight of the Idols,

2
This biography is from The Penguin Classics, a brief description by J.M. COHEN.
P a g e 5 | 19
The Antichrist, Nietzsche contra Wagner, and Ecce Homo and lastly The Will to Power was

published later3.

Isaiah Berlin (1997)4 in his Two Concepts of Liberty, presented two (2) kinds of freedom;

Negative freedom, and Positive Freedom. Negative Freedom implies freedom from which means

freedom from constraints or interference. He explained this notion by saying:

I am normally said to be free to the degree to which no man or body of men

interferes with my activity. Political liberty in this sense is simply the area within which a

man can act unobstructed by others

(Berlin 1997: p.851)

For example, an individual is free to assume that he is free to get resources such as food

from the ocean or farmland because there are nobody stops him from doing so. By this context, he

possesses freedom from constraints or interference by anyone. However, when someone stops him

from getting the resources, then we can say that he is not free.

Positive freedom, on the other hand, was defined by Berlin as freedom to or is the

meaningful ability to become ones highest and best self. It consist in being ones own master and

not being prevented from choosing as I do by the other men (II p.856)

From this definition of freedom, we can use the example of accomplishing goals by a

certain person. When a person has the capability, he or she is free to do anything that he wants.

3
This biography is from The Basic Writings of Nietzsche by Walter Kaufmann.
4
See Ebenstein W. and Ebenstein A. (2000). Great Political Thinkers. Plato in the Present Sixth Edition, Thompson
Wadsworth, Two Concepts of Liberty, Isaiah Berlin, 1997, p. 851-857
P a g e 6 | 19
Individuals that express themselves by dressing differently is evident in the society today. In their

perspective, this is the best way to practice their freedom of expression.

III. Concepts of Freedom and the Comparison

This section of the paper will provide the different notions of freedom by the two

philosophers cited in their works. To be followed by the comparison of the concepts.

In collecting and explaining the different ideas of Rousseau, this paper used the primary

text The Social Contract and provided examples that can be seen in the society today.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau viewed freedom in the collective realm. Based on the writings of

the philosopher in The Social Contract, his idea of freedom is connected with the civil society. In

the formation of the society, liberty also develops. He differentiates freedom or liberty in three

forms and progress from lower to higher. First is the natural liberty or he defines as only by the

strength of the individual5. I think his idea of natural freedom is related to Isaiah Berlins positive

liberty because this kind of freedom is innate in every individual in the society and it is limited

only to the strength of the individual or simply his capabilities.

For example, an individual may do whatever he wants because he has the skill or capability

to do so. Second, when man surrenders his natural liberty and his rights to everything, he will

attain civil liberty or he can do anything that he wants as long as it is not restricted by the law.

Rousseau added that this form of liberty has a stable and more rational foundation since the laws

and rules of the political community which determine what each member may and may not do in

5
See Ebenstein W. and Ebenstein A. (2000). Great Political Thinkers. Plato in the Present Sixth Edition, Thompson
Wadsworth, Chapter Twenty-one, Rousseau, The Social Contract, p. 457
P a g e 7 | 19
relation to other members. Aside from this, man will also gain property rights in everything he

owns 6. Lastly, civil liberty will develop to moral liberty when the rules and the laws are created

by all the members of the society7. This simply means that an individual will be free if they will

obey the rules they made for themselves.

However, Rousseau emphasized that the liberty of the state of nature is not a real freedom.

He further explains:

because it is merely enslavement to uncontrolled appetites

(Rousseau, 1762)

This is because he believes that each individuals are controlled by their own different

desires. The presence of these appetites and desires seems to develop into a negative relationship

with each other in the formation of the society or it may create conflicts within the society. Even

though you have a natural freedom because you have the strength or ability of doing something

you want, for Rousseau, this is not a true liberty.

Rousseau believes that obedience to the law which we prescribe to ourselves is liberty.

And when the society is fully established, the other alternative is no longer connected with the

liberty by no rules or the natural liberty. Because the idea of civil society requires laws, the only

alternative is to obey laws even if an individual did not participate in the making process and/or

obey laws which an individual was able to participate in the making. Rousseau provided a

clarification with regards to these cases. He said that if an individual will follow the rules or laws

that he himself was not able to participate in the making process, this will make him morally

6
Ibid(5), p.447
7
Ibid(5), p.447
P a g e 8 | 19
unfree. I think that Rousseau used the terms morally unfree because the person was not able to

contribute or surrender his own right to the political community but he is forced to abide with the

laws. He is following laws that he did not made for himself, hence this idea is contradictory to

moral liberty. On the other hand, if an individual was able to participate in the making, this

persons action of obeying the laws he created for himself, is freedom. This is connected to what

he terms as General Will and this very concept involves participation of every citizen in the

making of laws8.

Aside from General will, freedom is also connected with his idea of equality. Based on his

observations, he argued that liberty cannot exist without it [equality]. This is because in his idea

of civil society, the notion of equality is intertwined with liberty.

In defining and analyzing Nietzsches concept of freedom, this paper used the different

works by the philosopher, namely; Nietzsches Human, All too Human, The Genealogy of Morals,

Twilight of the Idols and other secondary references such as The Basic Writings of Nietzsche by

Walter Kaufmann. Also, to provide a better explanation, this paper provided contemporary

examples. This approach is quite different from the way this paper explained Rousseaus idea of

freedom because Nietzsches ideas are quite unclear.

Nietzsche, as a philosopher, opposes any rule of law, he believes that self-responsibility is

important in attaining freedom. He focuses on the radical individual. This paper collected different

views of Nietzsche about freedom which are connected with the individual. These views are the

following.

8
Ibid(5), p.450
P a g e 9 | 19
In Human, All too Human, 39;

The fable of intelligible freedom. . . . Now one finally discovers that this nature [of

man] cannot be responsible, since it is completely a necessary consequence and is

assembled from the elements and influences of past and present things; consequently one

is not responsible for anything, not for his nature, nor his motives, nor his actions, nor his

actions nor for his effects. Thereby one achieves the knowledge that the history of moral

sensations is the history of an error, the error of responsibility which rests on the error of

freedom of the will.

(Nietzsche 1986: p. 34)

Next is Nietzsches idea of Sovereign Individual in The Genealogy of Morals, Second Essay,

Section 2;

the man who has his own independent, protracted willconsciousness of his own

power and freedom this master of a free will

(Nietzsche 1967: p. 59)

Lastly, in the Twilight of the Idols;

Freedom means that the manly instincts that delight in war and victory have gained

mastery over the other instincts.

(Nietzsche 1968; 104)

P a g e 10 | 19
 The different ideas of freedom presented above is related to Isaiah Berlins freedom to.

This is because Nietzsches idea revolves around an individual and its self-responsibility or

capability.

For Nietzsche, no rule of law can lead you to achieving freedom. He believes that as long

as you have the knowledge and capability of being responsible, that is, you accept the

consequences or benefits that corresponds your actions, you can attain freedom. For example, in

writing a paper, it is a matter of choice, the individual has the right to decide whether he or she

must finish the assigned work or not. With the given past experiences and proper education. The

individual may assume that he or she is capable of finishing the paper. Not because he/she is bound

to submit it to the professor to pass the subject, but because this individual is responsible. It is his

or her choice and will to accomplish the requirements for it will definitely benefit him/her and no

other. This kind of situation coincides with Nietzsches concept of freedom for it solely focuses

on the self-responsibility and disregarding any rule of law which is the professors requirement for

his/her student. Once one tries to abide with the law because of the reason that he needs to follow

it, definitely denies Nietzsches freedom.

Also, Nietzsche has this idea of the sovereign man which literally means that he is the one

superior. This superiority is not just because of power gained through violence or previous

privileges that was just inherited from existing leaders. This kind of superiority is gained or

attained by someone who has the courage and the capability to make promises. Promises that are

not just made but also being actualize. It is very easy to make such kind of commitment, especially

when you are not sincere enough when you delivered it. Examples of which includes politicians.

Specifically the incoming president, Mr. Rodrigo Rody Duterte, a lot of promises were said and

the people do not know yet if it will be actualized. Some are realistic enough to convince the

P a g e 11 | 19
majority but some are beyond the reach of any normal human being. This is just based on a

phenomenological point of view and has no biases whatsoever. Since the Philippines is a

democratic country, every citizen has the right to give their own opinion with regards to the current

situation. Promises as what it had been discussed are supposed to be actualized in order to attain

freedom. So, once Mr. Duterte fails to actualize those promises, he is not free, when viewed using

Nietzsches notion of freedom.

Moreover, the sovereign man should have the capability of creating promises and not false

hope. Even though superiority is at its hands, he is still responsible of providing apt responses to

the one he has promised. If think thoroughly and ponder upon the idea of a sovereign man, it is

very difficult to achieve. Once you have given your word to someone, it is most expected to come

into reality. Another example is, if you are talking to your three-year-old niece and you have

mentioned about something that you would bring her when you come back, she will always

remember that and ask you about it when you come back. It is very difficult to explain whenever

you forgot it and has no possible remedy that could replace her expectations. It could give her the

impression that you are not honest or reliable and those things are simply absorbed by children in

that age. So, it is not just about the capability of making promises but the strength to provide or

actualize it. Even though this is just a simple example, this can provide a view of what is the ideal

individual which is really difficult to achieve.

But how do individuals come up to making promises? It is because they have the free will

to do so and they are consciously aware that they are capable of accomplishing it. Saying

something that you are not willing or not certain that you can achieve it, is simply just a statement.

A statement that is worthless and is not a product of freedom. Once you engage in something that

is essential not only for you but with someone who is important to you, you are obliged to do it in

P a g e 12 | 19
order for you to attain freedom. According to Ken Gemes (2009), the idea of responsibility is

connected with to the idea of free will even before. Most people who write about free will considers

the condition for responsibility. If an individual responsible for his or her action means that they

deserve punishment/reward for it9.

It doesnt necessarily mean that you are just bound to what you have said that is why you

are trying do it but it is because you want to do it, and is fulfilled once it was actualize. No external

factors affect it but only you yourself still has the power to oblige with what you have promised.

Lastly, as Nietzsche defines freedom as that the manly instincts that delight in war and

victory have gained mastery over the other instincts. (Nietzsche 1968; 104). This definition is

derived from liberal institutions who has undermine the will to power. They reduce themselves to

just a mere member of the society. In order for them to attain freedom, they must engage in war

for war is a training in freedom. In war, you practice self-responsibility, you become indifferent to

every kind of feeling, to the extent, even to life. One is ready to give up someone or even his own

life for the benefit of all. All those innate characteristics regarding war manipulates all other

instincts. For example, in the movie Captain America: Civil War, two teams fight for what they

think is right. But in the end, they realized that they should not be fighting against each for they

are both on the same sides. There may be a confusion which led into an unexpected rivalry but

both teams showed characteristics that could lead them to their own freedom, self-responsibility.

Some people view an ideal or supreme individual as those who are capable of going to war and/or

those who have survived the war. If he attained this kind of consciousness, that manly instincts of

man from war is now superior with his other instincts, he is free.

9
Ken Gemes, 2009, Nietzsche on Free Will, Autonomy, and the Sovereign Individual
P a g e 13 | 19
 In sum, Nietzsches concept of freedom is all about self-responsibility. The feeling or the

need to give back something to the self without any exceptions. As long as one wants to attain this

kind freedom, one must be courageous enough in facing the consequences that this fight could

bear upon. Never try to think of something irrelevant, focus on your goals in order to be successful.

In the comparison of the different views of Rousseau and Nietzsche, both of them have a

notion of positive liberty or freedom to. It focuses on the individuals capacity to do what he or

she wants and is connected with self-responsibility. However, Rousseau added explanations about

his concepts of freedom, relating it to the society as a whole. While Nietzsche on the other hand

still focuses on the radical individual. Which is why Rousseau presented a better view of freedom..

Leo Damrosch (2010), argued that the most dangerous kind of being unfree comes not from

without but from within. He added that, deep down Rousseau must have been haunted by the

suspicion that Thomas Hobbes might be right: even if we are free to do what we want, we are not

free to want what we want10. This is because of the external factors that influences Rousseaus

view of the society. It can be traced back in his childhood that he was an orphan at an early age.

Also, his family was poor and he experienced different challenges in his life. It can be seen in his

work, The Confessions. Also his connections and relationship with women was seen as a factors

which had an effect in is writings and life. As for Nietzsche, Peter Gay (n.d) mentioned about

Nietzsches being insane. Because of this, he became silent in the industry. In contrast with

Rousseau, he was called a misogynist or someone who hates or distrust women. This kind of

argument is interesting because it dwells with the effects of external environment to the

philosophers idea.

10
Leo Damrosch, 2010 chapter 14, Paranoia and freedom in Rousseaus final decade, Rousseau and Freedom,
Cambridge University Press, New York, p. 233.
P a g e 14 | 19
 Another argument is from Matthew Simpson (2006), according to him, Rousseaus The

Social Contract covers a wider scope in terms of the study of social and political theory, it focuses

mainly on how people might construct a genuinely free political society. When Rousseau

explained about the ancient issue of the best form of government, he considered his knowledge

about freedom in framing a situation in which an independent individual could be united with other

people without undermining his freedom. With this we can tell that Rousseaus notion of freedom

was built for the betterment of the society without destroying each persons liberty

On Nietzsches side, even though he presented his concept of freedom with his idea of

sovereign individual. However, in Human All too Human contradicted himself. According to

Nietzsche (1968), as cited in Gemesa (2009); Gemesb (2009), the overall goal of Nietzsches

rejection of free will and responsibility in Human All too Human is to reject the notions of guilt

and deserved punishment and reward;

For he who is punished does not deserve punishment; he is merely being employed

as the means of henceforth deterring others from certain action; likewise, he who is being

rewarded does not deserve his reward: for he could not have acted otherwise than he did.

(Human All too Human: p. 105)

These are just some critiques and analysis on the idea of freedom by Rousseau and

Nietzsche. But because this paper is focused on the idea of positive liberty, it will consider the

stand of Berlin that Rousseaus idea of liberty:

P a g e 15 | 19
 is an absolute valueis kind of religious concept...is identical with the human

individual himself [and] man for Rousseau is somebody responsible for his acts

capable of doing good and evil, capable of following the path either of right or of wrong.

(Berlin 2002: p. 31)

Moreover, Berlin explained that this kind of idea is meaningless if the man is not free. Also

maybe because of the presence of desires and the different interpretation of context by each person

this kind of idea suggests an ideal or utopian sense of freedom.

This paper also used the concept of Isaiah Berlin in analyzing Nietzsches concept of

freedom. From the different points gathered from his writings, Nietzsches concept depends on the

context of situation. He has contrasting views of freedom depending on the context or situation.

His points do not consider rules or laws. His ideas are focused mainly on the capability and ability

of a certain individual. Generally, he is just concerned with the individual himself. However,

because of these contrasting views, his notion of freedom becomes unclear.

Likewise, Will Dudley (2002) argued that Nietzsches lack of systematicity makes it

difficult to locate the appropriate texts and passages that treat the topic in which one is interested.

This means that because of the different translations of his works. He added that, Nietzsches

interpretation of freedom is the same with those of Kant and Hegel before him. It begins with the

recognition that the subjects ability to choose, which liberalism equates with freedom. However,

in terms of the ability of the individual to choose, it is still determined by forces external to itself.

In this case, the subject or the individual fails to be free. Just like with the idea of desires by

Rousseau. The individual is bound not to be free because of wants and desires.

P a g e 16 | 19
 Since there are too many different interpretation of contexts and words, there is a need to

have an in-depth study of ideas. Thus like Hegel, Nietzsche recognizes that the most freely willing

individuals remains incompletely free, and that an adequate account of freedom must therefore

discuss the activities that provide a liberation that willing cannot (Dudley 2002). Since

Nietzsches writings includes the elite and the masses, this kind of statement may mean that there

are limitations when it comes to freedom. Based on what is observed in the society.

V. Conclusion

The concepts of freedom by the two philosophers reveals to have similarities and

differences. In dealing with the similarities, the paper used Isaiah Berlins notion of positive

liberty or freedom to which means possession of a relevant resource or capability. In terms of

the differences, different statements and arguments from different works and literature were

presented in the paper.

In the study of political theory, the notion or the concept of a certain thing or phenomena

must be considered. This is because it plays a vital role in the formation of new and enhanced idea

for the benefit of the society and for the good of all. Freedom is just one of the many concepts in

philosophy. It is said that the idea of freedom had a great impact not only on the writings of great

philosophers but with the society as a whole. It maintains a stable society as what Rousseau

explained and it can help a certain individual to think or assess himself with regards to the society.

In conclusion, both concepts by the two philosophers are still evident in the society. It may

be on the collective or on the individual side. However, Nietzsche was not able to provide a clearer

explanation of freedom compared to Rousseau who viewed freedom in different forms. Nietzsche

focused on the radical individual while Rousseau was on a wider scope of freedom. Even though
P a g e 17 | 19
Nietzsche did not expound his idea of freedom, it can be seen that he do not consider any rule of

law in building his ideas, this is in contrary to Rousseau because he believes that an individual

may only attain freedom when he will abide or follow the law. In terms of who presented a better

idea of freedom, Rousseau formulated a freedom that is applicable to the stability of society. In

the sense that his concept of freedom is associated with obeying the laws. Because by obeying the

laws, even if you are controlled by it, this can lessen the individuals desires that can lead to

corruption. These concepts can also help in the communication or establishing relationship of the

individuals. If they share a universally accepted notion, this can lessen the different

misunderstandings within the society and among the individuals.

Also, interesting factors were also discovered such as the consideration of external

environment such as the relationships, education and lifestyle of the philosophers. Because of the

influence of these factors, the ideas of the philosophers may change through time. It can be seen

that aside from the observation of the philosophers in the society, they are also affected by their

own biases. That is why in the formation of knowledge, concepts and contexts are significant.

P a g e 18 | 19
References:

Ebenstein, W., & Ebenstein, A. O. (2000). Great political thinkers: Plato to the present. Sixth
Edition. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers.
Dudley, W. (2002). Hegel, Nietzsche, and Philosophy. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved
from [Will_Dudley]_Hegel,_Nietzsche,_and_Philosophy_Thi(BookZZ.org).pdf
Gemes, K. (2009). Nietzsche on Free Will, Autonomy, and the Sovereign Individual. Nietzsche
on Freedom and Autonomy. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from
[Ken_Gemes,_Simon_May]_Nietzsche_on_Freedom_and_Au(BookZZ.org).pdf
Hoffmann, S. (n.d.). Postface: Rousseau and freedom. Rousseau and Freedom. Retrieved from
[Christie_McDonald,_Stanley_Hoffmann]_Rousseau_and(BookZZ.org).pdf
Berlin, I. (2002). Freedom and its Betrayal. H. Hardy (Ed.). Retrieved from
[Isaiah_Berlin]_Freedom_and_Its_Betrayal(BookZZ.org).pdf
Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1967. On the Genealogy of Morals (W. Kaufmann, Trans.). New York.
Vintage Books. University of the Philippines Visayas. Main Lisbrary. p. 59 (B 3313 Z7
E65 1967)
Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1968. Twilight of the Idols and Anti-Christ (R. J. Hollingdale, Trans.).
Penguin Group. University of the Philippines Visayas. Main Library. p. 104 (B. 3312.
E5. H6. 1968b)
Nietzsche, F., Hollingdale, R. J., & Schacht, R. (1996). Nietzsche: Human, All Too Human: A
Book for Free Spirits (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from
[Friedrich_Nietzsche,_R._J._Hollingdale,_Richard_S(BookZZ.org).pdf
Simpson, M. (2006). ROUSSEAU'S THEORY OF FREEDOM. Retrieved from
[Matthew_Simpson]_Rousseau's_Theory_of_Freedom_(Co(BookZZ.org).pdf
Stalley, R. (1998). Plato's Doctrine of Freedom. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 98(2),
145-158. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4545279

P a g e 19 | 19