Rousseau's Discourse on the Arts and Sciences
Jean-Jacques Rousseau has been called both the father of the French Revolution and a rascal deserving to hunted down by society (Boswell, The Life of Samuel Johnson, p. 462). His works, controversial in his lifetime, have lost little of their ability to inspire debate in the seceding two hundred years. Although much of this debate has focused on Rousseau's political theories, his works on morality have not been exempted from the controversy. Much of the controversy surrounding his Discourse on the Arts and Sciences relates to Rousseau's self-proclaimed role of societal critic. In this Discourse, Rousseau attacks the rise of empiricism. To him, a world based on knowledge, such as the one proposed in Bacon's New Atlantis, was immoral and destructive. This view was met with much criticism and disdain. Indeed, by taking such a view, Rousseau attacked the very core of the Enlightenment.
However, the Discourse is not only a rebuttal of empiricism. It is also an intensely personal look into Rousseau. In it, Rousseau's alienation and nostalgic feelings are clearly revealed. To Rousseau, the past was idyllic: "One cannot reflect on morals, without taking delight in recalling the image of the simplicity of the first times. It is a fair shore, adorned by the hands of nature alone, towards which one forever turns one's eyes, and from which one feels oneself moving away with regret (Discourse, p. 18). Yet it was not the past itself Rousseau found attractive, but the moral society which could only flourish in the absence of the malevolence created by the arts and sciences. Such was their sinister power, that even 'savage' man was more moral than a society full of art and science (Discour...
... middle of paper ...
... emotion, Rousseau became estranged from both his contemporaries and his world.
Historically, this estrangement remains. Rousseau has been claimed by both Fidel Castro and Jean Paul Marat as a true revolutionary and damned by the radical Frankfort School for his belief in individualism. Bertrand Russell calls him the father of Romanticism; Ernst Cassirer places him side by side with Kant in the heart of the Enlightenment. Much, too, of Rousseau can be seen in the German and English Idealists. Although these claims and counter-claims concern the whole of Rousseau's work, the Discourse itself and the responses to it foreshadowed much of the confusion that was to come. Such confusion was inevitable- a true critic must be, to some extent, divorced from his world. Perhaps then, the confusion over Rousseau is but a testament to the power and insight of his criticism.
Some of the philosopher Rousseau’s ideas were mention in Cohen’s Political Philosophy: From Plato to Mao. Rousseau’s theories describe a human in his primitive state (before the formation of societies) as being happier. Society, according to Rousseau, began when humans began to claim property as theirs and settled down in a specific location. Rousseau also supposed that, since the primitive person was happier alone, it must have been some kind of disaster that caused him to live in groups. Cohen then goes on to describe Rousseau’s ideas on inequality, which Rousseau assumed is split to two types. The first is natural or physical inequality, and the second is moral or political inequality. The second one is imaginary even preventative. (Cohen
The Enlightenment was an astonishing time of transformation in Europe. During this time in the eighteenth century there was a progressive movement that was labeled by its criticism of the normal religious, social, and political perceptions. A number of significant thinkers, with new philosophies, had inspired creativeness and change. These thinkers had many different thoughts and views on people and the way they act, and views on the government. Two well-known and most influential thinkers of this time were the English political philosopher John Locke and the French political philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. These two men had laid down some of the intellectual grounds of the modern day government and both had different opinions on what the government’s role in a society.
Before the Revolution, France experienced a period of time called the Enlightenment. Traditional concepts, such as religion and style of government, were debated upon by scholars, philosopher, and ordinary people. One of the most famous writers of the Enlightenment was philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He introduced the concept that the people should be in charge instead of an individual ruler. This idea became known as the general will. In his “Ths Social Contract” Rousseau states, “Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole” (Rousseau). Throughout the future French Revolution, Rousseau’s writings became a cornerstone to the French people. His ideas gave the French people a definition on why the position of the King should be abolished. What was even better, Rousseau even described why the people be placed in charge. At the time of the Revolution an enormous amount of France’s power was allocated to the King and very little was left for the people. In order to achieve more power for themselves, the citizens of France lobbied against a monarchy and instead for Rousseau’s philosophy that the collective whole should rule. Under the ideas of Rousseau, all French citizens would receive power because the collective whole was the governing power. However, obtaining such intentions required that the people abuse the traditional powers of France as Furet
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.
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.
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.
While it is relatively easy to confuse the ideas of Aristotle, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and René Descartes, ancient philosophy, eighteenth century politics, and mathematics all appear to be considerably disconnected subjects. Associated with these divisions are three different opinions on a common subject matter: technology. It appears that Rousseau directly opposes technology, Aristotle’s opinion rests in the middle but also shares similarities with Rousseau, and Descartes favors technology. After reading Rousseau’s Discourse On the Origin of Inequality, Aristotle’s The Nicomachean Ethics and Descartes’s The Discourse on Method, one can draw these conclusions. When looking at Rousseau’s opinion on the natural man, it is clear he believes that all things manmade are disadvantageous; Aristotle’s view on friendship can be both supportive and antagonistic, while Descartes’s method for pursuing the truth points solely to a pro-technology point-of-view.
SparkNotes: Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778): The Social Contract. (n.d.). SparkNotes: Today's Most Popular Study Guides. Retrieved February 9, 2011, from http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/rousseau/section2.rhtml
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 problems within civil society may differ for these two thinkers it is uncanny how similar their concepts of freedom are, sometimes even working as a logical expansion of one another. Even in their differences they shed light onto new problems and possible solutions, almost working in tandem to create a freer world. Rousseau may not introduce any process to achieve complete freedom but his theorization of the general will laid the groundwork for much of Marx’s work; similarly Marx’s call for revolution not only strengthens his own argument but also Rousseau’s.
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.
The Age of Enlightenment emphasized reason over tradition in order to challenge religious views and to advance knowledge of scientific thinking. Reason is what differentiates humans from animals by allowing them to think about circumstances rationally rather than strictly by instinct. Jean-Jacques Rousseau embodies the enlightenment ideals of introducing reason into everyday lives in his book A Discourse on Inequality by saying that early humans’ creation and use of language shows how reason is used in a way to challenge ideas to imagine better solutions. This way of showing that early humans used reason is both extended from and challenged in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. This text also uses language as a way to utilize reason but does so in a way that shows the use of reason in a positive and negative light, supporting and contradicting the theory shown by Rousseau and that of the Age of Enlightenment.
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...
This last step determines the heavily communitarian perspective that Rousseau adopts. If we can only be fully human under the auspices of the social contract, then that contract is more important than the individuals that agree to it. After all,...