The purpose of this paper is to define and rearrange various paradoxes and vague opinions in Rousseau's theory of education. Rousseau advocates that liberal education should contain the vocational training and the manual training. His objection to aristocracy, plutocracy and exclusivism confirms the fact that he supports mass education. And Rousseau's education of women must be illuminated in consideration of the emotional and existential positions. I understand Rousseau denies the relevance between the child and reason intentionally in order to protect and maintain childhood's authenticity. The motive in which Rousseau asserts the utility of knowledge is to prevent the alienation of children. I comprehend Rousseau recommends books so as to cultivate innate nature if only they help him judge and think. Also Rousseau credits the language than the book and he doesn't recommend linguistic methods because they require careful attentions. In Rousseau learnig by discovery with the minimum experience has the significance in simplifing the experience of boys and girls and in preventing the fault of the intellectual judgment and knowledge. Rousseau thinks a young teacher desirable because he has the natural tendencies. The freedom of the student and the authority of the teacher are opposed to each other but for Rousseau the charitable and the warm-hearted authority of the teacher is the decisive factor that is able to cultivate the nature of the child. Rousseau attaches great importance to the negative methods that need highly developed techniques to cultivate the human nature. The concept of negative education for Rausseau should be understood as humanistic education to improve the quality of human existence. In conclusion the naturalistic education has something to do with the emotional and the existential matters as well as the material things and the common customs.