In What Way, According to Rousseau, is Humanity Perverse - Essay Example

? In what way, according to Rousseau, is humanity perverse? Is this alleged perversity inconsistent with Kant’s celebration of enlightenment? Introduction The history of intellectual thought and philosophy is a history of the investigation into human progress. For philosophers and historians, perhaps, the most pronounced shift in these areas occurred in the transition between Medieval Age modes of understanding to Renaissance and Enlightenment thought. In gaining a perspective on this shift, philosophers have considered the extent that intellectual progress can be equated with true gains for humanity. Two of the most seminal thinkers in these regards are Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant. For Rousseau, despite intellectual progress, humanity is perverse. This essay considers Rousseau’s perspective on humanity and evaluates the extent that it is inconsistent with Kant’s celebration of the Enlightenment. Analysis One of Rousseau’s most pervasive modes of inquiry emerges from the distinction he makes between the Medieval Ages and the Renaissance. For Rousseau, this distinction functions as a means of establishing divergent patterns of human thought and character, with the Middle Ages functioning as a precursor to Enlightenment modes of understanding. The distinction is an important one, as Rousseau recognizes that in the shift from Medieval Age perspectives to Enlightenment thought is a corresponding shift in human manners and interaction. While Rousseau recognizes human interaction has improved, he continues to question the extent that human mores have correspondingly progressed. For Rousseau, the shift from Medieval Age to Enlightenment thinking, while beneficial to some degree, has correspondingly resulted in a perversion of humanity. Rousseau notes that “the men who make up this herd we call society will, if placed in the same circumstances, do all the same things unless stronger motives deter them” (Rousseau as cited in Cahoone 2003, p. 33). The herd that is society is this new mode of supposed progress that has been achieved. For Rousseau, rather than true progress being achieved, humanity’s true instinctual desires have been subsumed to false platitudes. While this had been heralded as a step forward for humanity, Rousseau believes these are actually counter-productive and pervert humanity from their natural state of existence. In these regards, Rousseau points to a number of pre-Enlightenment collectives, such as the Germanic tribes, that, he believes, were able to function in a more harmonious state as a result of their proximity to natural human instincts. German philosopher Immanuel Kant considered many of the same aspects of human nature and Enlightenment similar to Rousseau. There are varying degrees to which Kant’s celebration of the Enlightenment is inconsistent with Rousseau’s view of the perversity of humanity. Kant’s celebration of the Enlightenment is, perhaps, most inconsistent with Rousseau’s views on the perversity of humanity in terms of the beneficial social gain achieved in the move from the Medieval Ages to the Renaissance. It has been demonstrated that Rousseau rejects blanket assertions of this move as being an indictor or social progress as to an extent he believes that it perverts the natural state of humanity. This is contrasted with Kant’s perspective on Enlightenment as a clear and direct means of humanity absolving itself from its immaturity. Consider Kant’s writing, “Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's understanding without guidance from another” (Kant, p. 45). To a large extent, the inconsistency between Kant and Rousseau’s perspective here can be linked to notions of intellectual modernism. While Kant has embraced the idea that intellectual and social progress operate on a linear path of enlightenment, Rousseau has resisted this concept, contending instead that it is oftentimes possible for ostensible social progress to be a perversion of humanity’s natural state. To a degree, these conflicting perspectives would come to distinguish modern from post-modern modes of thought. While to an extent Rousseau rejects modern forms of social engagement, he recognizes that Enlightenment thinking in terms of intellectual thought can function as a means of creating a more egalitarian society. In this form of understanding, he has articulated the social contract as a means of establishing the proper relationship between the populace and the sovereign government. The social contract, in these regards, functions as a means where humanity can enter into a social relationship in a way that is functional and true to human nature. The social contract rejects notions of divine sovereignty and contends that governance and social organization can work when humans, like the Germanic tribes and other ‘barbarian’ cultures before them, are able to function in a mode of self-governance. The social contract is then the natural contract humans make upon entering into this social engagement. Rousseau notes that, “There is often a great deal of difference between the will of all and the general will; the latter considers only the common interest, while the former takes private interest into account, and is no more than a sum of particular wills” (Rousseau 1968, p. 72). In this context of understanding, Rousseau recognizes that on small factional scales humanity may organize in perverse ways that are against the will of the general good, but when considered among the totality of the general populace, these negative tendencies are negated. This indicates that individuals and small factions of groups, despite intellectual progress, can be inimical to society to a certain extent. While Rousseau and Kant disagree on the blanket nature of social progress as achieved through the Enlightenment, to a degree it’s clear that Rousseau’s perspective on the social contract and Kant’s perspective on social mores are consistent. The divergence in understanding between Kant and Rousseau’s perspectives on human perversion and social progress are evident when considered from a larger scale. To an extent, such differentiations are characteristic of intellectual tendencies, evident even in contemporary disciplines of sociology. As evidenced earlier, Rousseau believes that through the social contract individuals on a large scale will tend towards the good of the people. Kant’s perspective, articulated in his categorical imperative, argues that humanity should operate in a way where one’s action can be extended universally. Kant states that one should “act in such a way that the maxim of your will could always hold at the same time as a principle of a universal legislation” (Kant, p. 34). To a degree, Rousseau and Kant are examining different aspects of humanity. While Rousseau is arguing for the goodwill of the people to self-govern, Kant is rather developing a proscriptive ethics. Still, within these inconsistent perspectives is a consistent epistemological approach to reality. In these regards, both Kant and Rousseau are embracing democratic notions of sovereignty. That is, while on an individual scale Rousseau believes that the Enlightenment perverts the natural state of human instinct and Kant believes that it delivers humanity from its state of immaturity, both individuals’ perspectives are aligned on a macro-scale of self-governance. Ultimately, both individuals agree that through rejecting notions of divine sovereignty and engaging in broad scale and ethical acts of self-governance, humanity can achieve true ‘enlightenment’. Conclusion In conclusion, this essay has examined Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s conception of human perversity. It has further considered the extent that Rousseau’s perspective on human perversity is inconsistent with Kant’s celebration of the Enlightenment. In these contexts of understanding, it’s argued that the main inconsistency between the perspectives is in terms of micro and macro-scales of thought. On an individual scale, Rousseau rejects the Enlightenment as pure progress, while Kant embraces it as an escape for immaturity. Conversely, on a large-scale, both theorists recognize that in rejecting divine sovereignty, society can be entrusted with achieving self-governance through the social contract and categorical imperative. References Cahoone, L. (2003). From Modernism to Postmodernism: An Anthology Expanded. Edition of book, Wiley-Blackwell,New York. Cahoone, L. (2003). From Modernism to Postmodernism: An Anthology Expanded. Edition of book, Wiley-Blackwell,New York. Kant, I. (1956). Critique of Practical Reason. Edition of book, Bobs-Merrill,New York. Rousseau, J. (1968). The social contract. Edition of book, Penguin,New York. Read More