Rousseau deepens the purely negative reaction against the philosophy of the Enlightenment. While the enlightening philosophers also discovered a unilateral cult of reason, Rousseau highlights the cult of feelings. While the philosopher-enlighteners praise individual and personal interests, Rousseau praises community and the common will. While the scouts talk about progress, Rousseau puts forward the slogan “return to nature”. At the same time, this does not mean that Rousseau, in all positions, is opposed to the philosopher-enlighteners. Often he 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 Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay The Enlightenment believed that evil came from ignorance and intolerance, supported by traditions and privilege. Therefore, enlightenment should serve as medicine. When reason and science prevail, the good of man will grow, following the progress of civilization. Rousseau was convinced that evil lies in civilization itself. Civilization leads to artificial and degenerate life. Rousseau often criticizes faith in progress and opens the way to romanticism: urban life and science distort the good and natural that is in man. I saw Rousseau emphasize in his statement that we must return to nature. I was a little confused by this statement and I wonder: 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 thesis is directed both against what he sees as overly civilized decline and against uncivilized primitivism. We can interpret Rousseau's criticism of the philosopher-enlighteners as an expression of the relationship of the lower layers of the middle classes to the upper classes. His ideas were therefore: direct democracy, equality in relation to property, the sovereign “common will”, public education of all members of the State. Rousseau highlights such simple virtues of the everyday life of ordinary people as family life, sympathy, religiosity and conscientious work of artisans and peasants, more refined manners, indifference and calculability of large merchants and representatives of a new science. Far from calling for a return to primitive conditions, Rousseau defends the simple life of the lower layers of the middle classes. He defends the everyday moral notions and unthinking faith of modestly prosperous people against the caustic and abstruse criticism of intellectuals, for whom there is clearly nothing sacred. Thus, Rousseau becomes the spokesperson for the irritated and concerned lower layer of the middle class, who, convinced of their own moral superiority, are outraged by intellectual criticism of centuries-old beliefs and traditions. Moreover, this class fears that such criticism threatens the foundations of its being. As the members of this class, due to lack of education, were not always capable of defending themselves rationally, their reaction often consisted of total condemnation of the mind and sentimental exaltation of the senses. Speaking of Locke, he supported his political views and attitudes using the philosophy of history, the core of which was 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 have no innate ideas, although we have..