Firstly, private will is not normative, there is no morality, it is a very cold will leaning towards self-interest, but it is not a bad thing; everyone needs to have it. In fact, everyone already possesses this will. General will is a bit different; you acquire a perspective from three individuals.

When faced with two individuals who cannot agree, the losses or gains of the parties do not bind or concern you. As three individuals, you must approach problem-solving. General will is neither the will of the majority nor the will of the minority. Let’s open quotation marks: the outcome of elections does not indicate general will; it shows the will of the majority or the minority. The sense of justice in the election forms the general will, but the results are related to the will of the majority or the minority. General will does not concern itself with any interest; it looks at the world and problems from the perspective of justice. Private will equals self-interest, while general will is oblivious to interest and acts only based on a sense of justice.

Justice brings the perspective of the common interest to all utilitarian viewpoints in society. Rousseau is a public and republican, while John Locke is liberal. John Locke would probably prefer private will, favoring the individual; he is, in essence, a god of liberalism. Rousseau, on the other hand, chooses general will and states that general will precedes private will. Logically, this is true. If general will decides on someone’s execution, it is not an expression of that person’s death but rather an expression of their liberation. Jacobins have embraced this view, which can be criticized as a despotic perspective by some parties. Rousseau defends and claims property; ultimately, he is a bourgeois. Paradoxically, despite defending property, he takes issue with the problems brought by property. However, due to bourgeois thoughts and existence, he cannot outline a perspective of a world without property.

General will is not typically written as a rule. For example, grammatical rules are not written in language; the rule itself cannot be written but can be applied. Rousseau supporters are divided into two views. The first is negative freedom, which results from the decisions the individual makes on their own. The content of these decisions does not concern us; we neither hinder nor support what they do. The second is positive freedom, which does not reject the negative but draws attention to its limitations and deficiencies. According to negative freedom, there is no difference between an alcoholic and an artist or any individual. It does not concern itself with the content of the action; it is concerned with whether the individual made the decision on their own or under pressure. In this regard, freedom is evaluated. Positive freedom considers freedom as autonomy. Autonomy means self-governance, self-decision-making, also known as autonomy. According to positive freedom, freedom is for living our lives within certain rules. A painter who has experienced positive freedom lives an autonomous life because he has proven his abilities without being under pressure. However, those who have not discovered themselves and numb their lives with alcohol are not free from their perspective; they have become dependent on an object.

Referring to Richard Sennett’s authority book is directly related to the subject because people’s lifestyles are shaped within the environment and authority they are in or want to be in. This connection has emotional foundations, and according to Sennett, emotional bonds have political consequences. This authoritarian structure can be a family institution, your workplace, and emotional situations are also present in these foundations. Especially in recent times, as we have seen in many countries around the world, charismatic leaders are on the rise among leader types. This is a complex set of emotions because unfortunately, the general trend in the world is not improving. Many countries are grappling with issues such as global warming, environmental problems, and unemployment. At this point, people have turned to leaders they are emotionally connected to. Although this may not be the case for every period, we can see that many leaders are supported from this perspective. Of course, this issue has been deeply examined both psychologically and politically; you can read more detailed information in Sennett’s book. In this text, I will touch on general points.

At the core of all actions are our own emotions. These emotions turn into thoughts, thoughts into behaviors, behaviors into habits, and habits into character. We shape ourselves around an emotion. These emotions may not always have a deep root; we can sometimes be enveloped by different emotions that are the exact opposite of certain actions or the impact of an event. The origin of the word emotion is based on the Latin word “movere.”

’emovere’ meaning to move, move out or move through. Essentially, emotion is movement, and so dancing is emotion in motion.

So, the variability of emotion actually indicates that it is open to external influences, as suggested by the root of the word. However, the absence of our emotions would create a situation where we would not be aware of anything we experience, according to Aristotle. Although Aristotle’s view, which attributes the direction of emotions to physiological processes called secretions in a period that has become uninteresting or relegated to the background over time, has been replaced by modern psychology studies in recent years. Interestingly, while humanity thinks it has made progress in many areas, it suddenly finds itself at the starting point. Of course, our emotions govern our lives, sometimes even without us realizing it. The fundamental reason people choose a charismatic leader is also this. Economic difficulties can sometimes be overlooked because every society needs a father, or rather a protector, especially if the education level is low, and people are deficient in questioning consciousness.