Kirsten Jenson
Dr. Gismondi and Dr. Esh
Western Intellectual Traditions II
1 May 2014
20th Century Critiques of Rousseau
T.S. Eliot described the twentieth century critique of Rousseau’s philosophies in his poem The Hollow Men. It states, “This is the way the world ends/not with a bang but a whimper” (Eliot 97-98). Previously to the twentieth century, western intellectuals took on a belief very antithetical to what is portrayed in these lines of The Hollow Men. Beginning with Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the eighteenth century, intellectuals argued for a progressive human nature. Twentieth century intellectuals, however, argued for a less glorious image than that which is portrayed by Rousseau, more like a “whimper” than a “bang.” Twentieth century critics rejected Rousseau’s idea of a progressive historical philosophy of human morality through critiquing his views on the nature of mankind.
Rousseau’s Argument
In the eighteenth century, Jean-Jacques Rousseau published his First Dialogue, titled Dialogue on the Arts and Sciences. In this Dialogue, Rousseau claims that human nature is malleable and is constantly being changed by society. Society however is corrupted by intellectual pursuits, such as the arts and sciences. This corruption in society, in turn, corrupts human nature. Rousseau claims, “We no longer dare seem what we really are, but lie under a perpetual restraint” (Rousseau 4). Rousseau claims that society has prompted individuals to lack their spirit, thus corrupting their morality. Rousseau believes that, without this corruption, human nature would be morally perfect. The corruption of society, however, limits this moral perfectibility. Society presents a “perpetual restraint” on man that can only be overcome through e...
... middle of paper ...
...tified. It is only through this unification of the children of light and the children of dark that the conflict within man can be overcome. Because conflict arises within man, Rousseau’s philosophy is not possible; instead, Niebuhr argues that the children of light and the children of dark must become unified for the betterment of society.
Eliot and Niebuhr argue against Rousseau’s progressive historical philosophy through refuting his view of human nature. Eliot argues that reality is very different than Rousseau’s idealized view of human nature. Niebuhr claims that conflict comes from within man, thus man is not perfectable. Rousseau’s philosophy ends with a wonderful, glorious, idealized world, but, as Eliot claims, “This is the way the world ends/Not with a bang but a whimper” (97-98). The world will end just as it has always been—with an imperfect human nature.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a man of philosophy, music, and literature. His philosophy was that humanity will do what’s best for the state as a whole, rather than the general “every man for himself” philosophy. He says that while we do have a piece of that individualistic philosophy, it is when they are in a healthy state that they value fairly the collective good for everyone around them, and express the general sense of good will. Rousseau believes that people will recognize that the will of all is the common good, but that in itself raises the questions as to the validity ...
John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau, following their predecessor Thomas Hobbes, both attempt to explain the development and dissolution of society and government. They begin, as Hobbes did, by defining the “state of nature”—a time before man found rational thought. In the Second Treatise[1] and the Discourse on Inequality[2], Locke and Rousseau, respectively, put forward very interesting and different accounts of the state of nature and the evolution of man, but the most astonishing difference between the two is their conceptions of property. Both correctly recognize the origin of property to be grounded in man’s natural desire to improve his life, but they differ in their description of the result of such a desire. Locke sees the need and purpose of society to protect property as something sacred to mankind, while Rousseau sees property as the cause of the corruption and eventual downfall of society. Although Rousseau raises interesting and applicable observations, Locke’s argument triumphs because he successfully shows the positive and essential effect of property on man.
...eing mandated for protection. Rousseau’s conception of liberty is more dynamic. Starting from all humans being free, Rousseau conceives of the transition to civil society as the thorough enslavement of humans, with society acting as a corrupting force on Rousseau’s strong and independent natural man. Subsequently, Rousseau tries to reacquaint the individual with its lost freedom. The trajectory of Rousseau’s freedom is more compelling in that it challenges the static notion of freedom as a fixed concept. It perceives that inadvertently freedom can be transformed from perfectly available to largely unnoticeably deprived, and as something that changes and requires active attention to preserve. In this, Rousseau’s conception of liberty emerges as more compelling and interesting than Locke’s despite the Lockean interpretation dominating contemporary civil society.
In his “Discourse on the Origin and the Foundations of Inequality Among Mankind,” Jean-Jacque Rousseau attributes the foundation of moral inequalities, as a separate entity from the “natural” physical inequalities, which exist between only between men in a civilised society. Rousseau argues that the need to strive for excellence is one of man’s principle features and is responsible for the ills of society. This paper will argue that Rousseau is justified in his argument that the characteristic of perfectibility, as per his own definition, is the cause of the detriments in his civilised society.
Both Hobbes and Rousseau have different even opposing views on the topic of the natural state of man. These views play a major role on their beliefs and reasoning for why man needs society and government. These beliefs can be easily summarized with Hobbes believing in an inherent selfishness and competition in man, whereas Rousseau’s views on things is far more positive, believing that man is far happier in his natural state, and the root of his corruption is the result of his entrance into society. Rousseau’s theory is based on a state prior to the formation of society and any form of government. Thomas Hobbes, the founding father of political philosophy and who was in great opposition to the natural state of man, emphasizes that all people are selfish and evil; the lack of governmental structure is what results in a state of chaos, only to be resolved by an authority figure. Hobbes’s initial argument of natural state, in human nature, proves how society is in a constant state of destruction, mentally and physically, if not under controlled or command. Although Hobbes’s opinion was morally correct, Rousseau believes that all people are born in a state of emptiness, somewhat of a blank state and it is life experiences that determine their nature, society being a major driving force for people’s ill-will and lack of moral sensibilities. Hobbes, overall, is proven correct because all people need to be directed in order for society to properly function.
Society has a great impact on our lives. It tells us how to act, what to wear, what to eat and what decisions to make. Society, though, is often corrupted and shapes us in a certain way. Jean Jacques Rousseau, a late Enlightenment thinker felt strongly about this and stated that humanity must be free of society and its bounds and therefore argued that we should act like the savages who were free of society’s bonds. Rousseau was not alone in this thinking as evidence of societal corruption is seen in D.H. Lawrence’s poem, “Snake,” and in William Golding’s novel, Lord of the Flies. Rousseau’s ideas of societal corruption are quite prevalent in both the novel and the poem. In addition, the theme of choices and their consequences can also be seen.
One of the interesting things about Rousseau was that he had different views then previous philosophers, such as Hume and Locke, on the state of nature. In Rousseau’s point of view humans in the state of nature would be most like a noble savage. What this means is that Rousseau believed that in the state of nature humans are naturally good, and are lead by basic appetites or sentiments. This would also be a prehistoric place where humans would not have discovered rationality or morality. This mainly applies because Rousseau believes that these prehistoric humans made, as later discussed, decisions based on sentiment and not on reason, thus since morality requires the ability to chose between right and wrong it would be impossible to be moral. Rousseau believes that evil starts to occur when civilizations are created. This is mostly due to increasing amounts of dependence on others and the need of unnecessary luxuries. In fact another possible reason that this evil arises and what sets prehistoric human apart from other animals is the need for self-improvement. Thus the prehistoric human would live in solitary state, in complete autonomy, and as his own sovereign. Along with this he would not strive for anything outside their imme...
Jean Jacques Rousseau in On Education writes about how to properly raise and educate a child. Rousseau's opinion is based on his own upbringing and lack of formal education at a young age. Rousseau depicts humanity as naturally good and becomes evil because humans tamper with nature, their greatest deficiency, but also possess the ability to transform into self-reliant individuals. Because of the context of the time, it can be seen that Rousseau was influenced by the idea of self-preservation, individual freedom, and the Enlightenment, which concerned the operation of reason, and the idea of human progress. Rousseau was unaware of psychology and the study of human development. This paper will argue that Rousseau theorizes that humanity is naturally good by birth, but can become evil through tampering and interfering with nature.
Rousseau came to the conclusion that the best way to examine the inequality in society is to examine the beginning of mankind itself. He tried to imagine the early state of man assuming there was ever actually a state where man existed only with the nature, in a solitary, and primitive lifestyle. He did not however revert as far back to the idea of the Neanderthal man to examine the ideas man held and where they came from. Instead, he looked at a state where man looked, and seemed to have the same physical abilities as he does today. Rousseau also concedes that a time where the ideas of government, ownership, justice, and injustice did not exist may not have ever existed. If what many religions tell us is true, then, in mans beginning, he was from the start, handed down laws from god which would influence his thinking and decisions. Through this, the only way such a period could come about would have to be through some catastrophic event, which would not only be impossible to explain, but consequently, impossible to prove. Therefore, imagining this state could prove not only embarrassing, but would be a contradiction to the Holy Scriptures.
While the writings of Karl Marx and Jean-Jacque Rousseau occasionally seem at odds with one another both philosophers needs to be read as an extension of each other to completely understand what human freedom is. The fundamental difference between the two philosophers lies within the way which they determine why humans are not free creatures in modern society but once were. Rousseau draws on the genealogical as well as the societal aspects of human nature that, in its development, has stripped humankind of its intrinsic freedom. Conversely, Marx posits that humankind is doomed to subjugation in modern society due to economic factors (i.e. capitalism) that, in turn, affect human beings in a multitude of other ways that, ultimately, negates freedom. How each philosopher interprets this manifestation of servitude in civil society reveals the intrinsic problems of liberty in civil society. Marx and Rousseau come to a similar conclusion on what is to be done to undo the fetters that society has brought upon humankind but their methods differ when deciding how the shackles should be broken. To understand how these two men’s views vary and fit together it must first be established what they mean by “freedom”.
Both Aristotle's “Politics” and Jean Jacques Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality address the natural right and superiority of man and his subsets. In his piece, Aristotle discusses the emotional feeling of superiority, while Rousseau discusses the more logistic aspects. Together, their writing begs the question of the morality of slavery. Aristotle seems more willing to accept slavery as a natural creation by humans, however, in the end both of their pieces show the immorality and abnormality of slavery.
From his figurative window, Rousseau sees a Europe ravaged by conflicts resulting from supposedly peaceable and civilized institutions (111). He posits that the essentially problematic flaw, the cause of conflict, is a contradiction in modes of relating: while individuals live within a framework of enforced norms ("l...
Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a great philosopher who lived in the Enlightenment. He was a very influential philosopher and “Thinker” he has written many books including The Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. Rousseau’s theory was in essence that humans were created naturally pure and innocent but over time and new technologies become more evil. He had thought that in the very first light of man he was completely innocent, a being who had no intention to harm anyone else. However as time progressed and the growing capacity for man increased and the
In his Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau hypothesizes the natural state of man to understand where inequality commenced. To analyze the nature of man, Rousseau “strip[ped] that being, thus constituted, of all the supernatural gifts he could have received, and of all the artificial faculties he could have acquired only through a lengthy process,” so that all that was left was man without any knowledge or understanding of society or the precursors that led to it (Rousseau 47). In doing so, Rousseau saw that man was not cunning and devious as he is in society today, but rather an “animal less strong than some, less agile than others, but all in all, the most advantageously organized of all” (47). Rousseau finds that man leads a simple life in the sense that “the only goods he knows in the un...
“Everything is good as it leaves the hands of the author of things” but “everything degenerates in the hands of man” (Rousseau Emile, Book I) Every human being is fundamentally good and perfect at it’s birth and through human manipulation humans become corrupted. Rousseau’s statement on humanity's fundamental goodness and it’s corruption through nurture is reflected in Mary Wollstonecraft’s novel Maria. In Maria, Wollstonecraft shows how humans are perfect at birth but with the harsh realities of society those virtues and emotions that made one perfect become twisted and turned against oneself by society. Wollstonecraft, through her characters, shows that those emotions which drive people through life can be turned against them and ruin their lives. Wollstonecraft’s character Jemima best illustrates Wollstonecraft’s ideas of human goodness corrupted by society as well as her moral sense theory, that emotional responses like anger or sympathy guide to moral and ethical ways of life but are inherently risky when paired with society.