Rousseau's Philosophical Ideas - Case Study Example

«Rousseau's Philosophical Ideas» Human nature is one of the most talked about subjects in philosophy and Jean-Jacques Rousseau remains as one of the most outspoken theorists pertaining to the nature of man. It is, therefore, no wonder that Rousseau rose to fame as a central figure in the development of philosophy in the eighteenth century and one of the best known exponents of the French Enlightenment (Dent, 2005). In this essay, Rousseau’s thoughts about human nature - particularly on equality, the social contract theory, enlightenment and the influx of technology, ethics, morality and freedom, and religion is discussed. A short portion of the essay also tackled Emile. In his 1754 discourse proposed by the Academy of Dijon, Rousseau (2007) examined and at the same time, illustrated his misgivings regarding the social order at that time. Rousseau believed that human nature is good and happy. This natural state, however, according to Rousseau did not remain unchanged because man was exposed to evil. Yet, Rousseau was quick to add that such evil which plagued mankind was a result of man’s deviation from his natural state and not because of sin. The simplicity with which early men lived their lives, as evaluated by Rousseau worked much to their advantages because their “simple, uniform and solitary manner of life which nature prescribed” (Rousseau, 2007a p.21) kept them healthy and strong. As man, however, changed his manner of living, where others laboured relentlessly towards complete exhaustion while stayed extremely idle; or where the rich voraciously served their appetites to the brink of indigestion, and the poor managed to subsist with unwholesome food – brought in sickness, innumerable pains and anxiety to man. Rousseau (1754) also discussed a time when survival was the main reason why mankind lived. Men from the early civilizations are usually alone, lethargic and in continuous danger. Early men think little and are fond of sleeping, but they sleep very slightly to survive attacks from vicious animals. Whenever they do think they are most concerned on how they can attain self preservation. His skills were, therefore, adapted towards survival and self preservation. Wokler (1995, p. 79) however, appeared to espouse the idea that Rousseau’s “natural man” is an animal, claiming that the “natural man” is “truly an orangutan”. It was believed that there would never have been any need for heated debates about human nature if Rousseau was able to perceived that man is by nature an animal (Wokler, 1995 p. 79). From the readings, it was seen that although Rousseau’s natural man and the orangutan behaved in practically the same way when they are alone, it does not necessarily follow that the natural man is an orangutan, since they behaved differently when they are interacting with their own kind. Along this line, however, Rousseau, himself argued that interaction with other humans is not an innate human nature, but an environmental trigger. Rousseau, Cumberland and Puffendorf differed with Hobbes (in Rousseau, 2007a p. 24) in their contention that: “…nothing is more fearful than a man in a state of nature, that he is always in a tremble, and ready to fly at the first motion he perceives, at the first noise that strikes his ears…” (Rousseau, 2007a p.24) Hobbes, on the other hand, sees man as fearless and bent on attacking and fighting every chance he gets. Conditions have not really changed since then. The contemporary man is a hybrid of man from the eyes of Rousseau and Hobbes. The arms race, the never-ending struggle for supremacy in arms and military power, is an overwhelming testimony that even the modern man is in a constant state of fear – of conquest, of slavery, of tyrants. This is why man has not stopped arming himself, to the extent of covertly stocking nuclear weaponry. At the same time, Hobbes’ model of a fearless man comes to the fore whenever man’s independence is threatened as the contemporary man sheds off his fear in defence of liberty, justice and equality. Rousseau (1754) recognized the superiority of man among other animals in terms of the quality of his intellect. Supplementing this natural mental power is man’s possession a free will, which distinguishes him apart from other animals. With this free will, man chooses or refuses and may deviate from a particular rule prescribed if it will mean self preservation, an advantage, or a chance for self-improvement. On the other hand, the rest of the animals either accept or refuse a situation by instinct. Rousseau was totally in disagreement with some of Hobbes’ propositions that : (1) man does not know goodness because he is wicked; and (2) a bad man is a robust child. Robust is this context may be taken as “strong”. For Hobbes’ first proposition, Rousseau (2005) would have welcomed a restatement from Hobbes that: “the state of nature … which the care of our own self preservation is the least prejudicial to that of others … was the best … to promote world peace, and the most suitable for mankind …” (Rousseau, 2005 p.49) Meanwhile, for the second proposition, Rousseau challenged Hobbes for the burden of proof about the strong man being a bad man. In both respects, Rousseau’s arguments seem to be more plausible. Man is basically good. Some men may have turned wicked because they were corrupted by society. It is also true that some strong men are bad, but there are also strong people who are good. Rousseau (2005), however, explained eloquently why he disagreed with Hobbes on both propositions: “… neither the development of the understanding nor the restraint of law that hinders them from doing ill; but the peacefulness of their passions, and their ignorance of vice…” (Rousseau, 2004 p. 33) Rousseau (1754) believes that man has natural compassion. It is this natural compassion which tempers man’s instinct for survival and self preservation against inflicting injury or harm to other men. It is possible that it is natural compassion which prevented them from dealing with other men in the same way that they dealt with wild animals who attack them or their meager resources. In this day and age, however, it is rather difficult to say that the contemporary man retained this natural compassion when we hear in the news that even infant formula is being intentionally tainted with melamine to make it appear that the milk product has a high protein content. One can not see natural compassion when modern man in search of higher profit knowingly laces milk products intended for helpless babies with a poisonous substance? On equality As a political philosopher, Rousseau (1764) unearthed a deep-seated divide between the nature of man and society. This was discussed at length in one of his earliest philosophical works Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, where he elucidated on the beginnings of society and how inequality existed in such a society. Rousseau’s literary wit and philosophical depth was shown in such as remarks as: “The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said ‘This is mine,’ and found people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society” (Rousseau, 2005 p.35). It was also posited in Rousseau (2007) that men are unequal. This inequality was further categorized by Rousseau as: (1) natural or physical inequality, which is made up of differences in age, health, bodily strength, and qualities of the mind or of the soul; and (2) moral or political equality, which is dependent on some form of principle instituted by a common consensus of men. Rousseau sees this category in the form of various privileges enjoyed by some (which he described using the adjectives, the rich and powerful) and restricted to many (referred by Rousseau as the poor and the weak). On the social contract theory The social contract theory, otherwise known as the principles of political right outlined the most desirable way to put up a political state or community in the light of the problems what Rousseau called a commercial society. In his social contract theory, Rousseau contended that a perfect society is one which is controlled by the general consensus of the population. He even suggested that this general will may be determined through an assembly where each citizen takes part to ascertain the general will of the populace (Rousseau and Cranston, 1968, pp. 101-148). In this respect, Rousseau and John Locke share similar ideas . Hume, however, disagreed with Rousseau’s idea of the social contract both on historical basis and as a method of explanation (Plamenatz, 1963 p. 300). As elucidated in Olsen and Toddington, Hume’s disagreement with Rousseau stems from the fact that the former do not welcome “disingenuous allusions to consensus which attach themselves to notions of an original contract”. Mill also disagreed with Rousseau’s social contract, although the former’s rejection of the latter’s ideas are subtle but complex (Olsen and Toddington, 2007, p. 88). Rousseau (2005) also differed with John Locke on the concept of absolute government, paternal authority and civil society. Rousseau (2005) contended that “… gratitude is a duty which ought to be paid, but not a right to be exacted” (Rousseau, 2005 p. 84) to stress his point that paternal authority is the main strength of civil society, instead of the argument proposed by John Locke that civil society owes its origins from paternal authority. On the enlightenment and the influx of technology Rousseau censured the enlightenment theory that “scientific-technological progress advances society by unifying wealth and virtue”. He believes that the extent to which the arts and sciences have advanced during that time, has also corrupted the souls of man to the same degree. Rousseau also argues that it is mankind’s vices which was responsible for the birth of sciences and the arts. Prior to the enlightenment, politicians have observed the degradation of man’s morals and virtue, but Rousseau believes that the politicians during the age of enlightenment spoke only about commerce and money (Greenberg and Schachterle, 1992, pp. 47-48). As a major thinker during the so-called age of enlightenment, Rousseau was the only one who supported the idea that emotion should stand side by side with reason. He scorned the idea of people disregarding their feelings just to fit into society (Stevenson, 2002, p 171). Rousseau also thought of the enlightenment as being responsible for man’s misery, citing acquisition of calculating skill to have caused man to be blinded to his own inner poverty as he calculates his wealth (cited in Cassirer, Pettegrove and Koelin, 1968 p. 155). In other words, enlightenment which was made possible through advances in science, technology and the arts affected man more negatively than positively. While it is true that technology allowed man to do things easier and more comfortably, it is the same technology which corrupts man to degenerate into doing things the easier way. The invention of spinning machines made the production of textiles easier and faster, yet the art and passion with which man spun threads to produce fabrics was forgotten and lost to oblivion. The know-how to manually fabricate textiles was not transferred to other members of the society. Starting with the spinning jenny and the other products of the so-called Industrial Revolution, man started to be dependent on machines. Machines are however dependent on electrical power, which in turn, is dependent on the availability and affordability of oil. While oil may not really be a very scarce resource, only a few men managed to take control by virtue of the geography of its source. Man who was originally the master of earth has, therefore, bowed down to institutions which society has introduced on the pretext of keeping things in order. Institutions which control oil now dictate the way man conducts everyday activities. When oil prices increase, a series of inevitable consequences take place, in the guise of a domino effect: prices of basic commodities increase, gasoline prices increase, so with electricity rates, companies retrench their labor force, and men lose their jobs. It has now become obvious, the civilized man whose superior intellect devised machines, unknowingly allowed society and its institutions to take control of practically everything which will support their existence. Hence, the civilized men die as slaves. Rousseau believes in the importance of spiritual and moral values in the molding of a “free social and political order”. The formation of a scientific world is heralded by the creation of a moral society, since intellectual freedom, according to Rousseau, can only be achieved when man has attained moral freedom. (Applebaum, 1992, p. 387). In this respect, Rousseau, like Kant links freedom to morality (Hirschmann, 2007, p. 178) Humans sought union with other humans because of what Rousseau (1754) called physical and moral love. As psychologists refer to man as a social animal who needs the company of other men, most philosophers do agree with Rousseau on this. It is human nature to have feelings of love. Such feelings of love developed into what Rousseau (1754) referred to as two of the finest feelings natural to humans: conjugal love and paternal affection. And thus, the family was instituted. Rousseau (2007) was inclined to believe that the beginnings of society and the institution of laws presented opposite effects : more restrictions for the poor and additional powers for the rich. Such effects tend to destroy man’s natural liberty. With only a few individuals benefiting from the institutions created by man, the disadvantaged majority fell prey to the horrors of fatal strife and war among nations. It was also made obvious in the discourse on inequality that Rousseau resented what has been called as the “right of conquest”. He sees no fervor in creating a right founded under conditions of conquest or violence. As early as 1754, Rousseau unearthed a duo of the very synonyms that govern today’s international politics: rich and strong, as well as poor and weak. From the assessment of Rousseau, the earliest constitutions which took the form of covenants performed among the covenors were imperfect, limited and unstable. Leaders were chosen to help followers protect their most-cherished possession – liberty. Ancient and modern politicians, however, earned their places of notoriety in the political history of the world as leaders chosen to protect liberty but turned out to be the same instruments by which such liberty is curtailed and worst, completely snatched from the people. To name of few, there were Fidel Castro, Julius Caesar, Adolph Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Mao Tse Tung, Ferdinand Marcos, Joseph Stalin, and Suharto. Rousseau adopted the ethics of sentiment. Based on such ethical principles, he believed that morality is not a product of selfish calculation but a natural product of man’s emotion yet unspoiled by culture. (Wundt, 2008 p. 86) Analyzing Rousseau’s concept of freedom, Bay (1970, p. 63) asserted that Rousseau’s model of freedom is man’s recognition of what he is potentially capable of becoming outside of what he innately possesses in order to attain harmony with society and the general will. Bay also stated that his personal idea of freedom is a reverse of Rousseau’s. This conception of freedom from the viewpoint of Rousseau is best expressed in a quotation from The Social Contract: “… to be free to not to be left to do what you want to do but to be enabled to do what you ought to do” (Rousseau and Cranston, 1968 p. 41). On religion Rousseau aimed to design a religion which would encourage “civic membership” and make the duties of citizens obligatory in communities which are no longer bound by traditional religion. In the eyes of Rousseau, religion is necessary to promote social discipline in the modern liberal polity (Cristi, 2001, p 16). With such design in mind, it was observed that Rousseau is not sold to the Augustinian argument that politics is required to maintain peace for religious believers. Ironically, however, Rousseau does not see religion as capable of returning man and nature back to its perfect state after it was corrupted by science and technology. But rather, Rousseau was beholden by “celestial Intelligences” from which enlightenment and happiness will spring forth (Deneen, 2005, p. 151). On Emile Speaking of beginnings, Book 1 of Rousseau’s (2007b) Emile is a foundational work on the education of Emile during infancy, the beginning of a person’s life. However, although Emile was considered by Rousseau, himself as his “most penetrating and foundational work”, Rousseau believes that it is not a discourse on education (Dent, 2005 p.81). Dent (2005) proposed that Emile is a philosophical work expounding that man is naturally good.. Rousseau (2007b) shared significant sensible advise on how infants should be treated. He cautioned against petting the child, or rocking and singing the baby to sleep. He also underscored the need for the child to be breastfed by his own mother, which are actually natural courses of nature, which should not be forgotten and discarded. As Rousseau puts in in Book 1 of Emile: “When a child cries he is uneasy, he feels some need which he cannot satisfy; you watch him, seek this need, find it, and satisfy it. It you can neither find it nor satisfy it, the tears continue and become tiresome. The child is petted to keep him quiet, he is rocked or sung to sleep; if he is obstinate, the nurse becomes impatient and threatens him; cruel nurses sometimes strike him. What strange lessons for him at his first entrance into life!” (Rousseau, 2007b p.45). Dent (2005) commenting in Book 1, indicated that: “… of more importance are Rousseau’s reflections on the significance of a child’s cries and the way these are responded to by those around them, most especially in instances where the child is reacting to failing to have their desires satisfied or to finding their actions impeded” (Dent, 2005 p.86). Book 5, on the other hand, tackles the last years of Emile maturing under the tutelage of his mentor. Rousseau (2007b) begins Book 5 by asserting that what men and women have in common are equal, but what in matters where they differ, men and women are incomparable. Rousseau described the differences between men and women, and explained that in some aspects, the incomparability between men and women is brought about by the fact that one complements the other. The portion of Book 5, however, where Rousseau contended that woman is made to please man and that woman are meant to be subjugated by men, connotes chauvinism. In this day and age of women’s liberation and women empowerment, the chauvinistic philosophy of men being superior to women, is rather out of place. Even in the 18th century, where Enlightenment started to bloom, the idea of men subjugating women exemplifies what Rousseau do not accept as right of conquest. Reflections on the works of Rousseau revealed that his philosophical ideas in the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, which was referred to in Dent (2005) as the Second Discourse, recurred in his other writings, particularly Emile. These are indications that Rousseau was consistent in his works with respect to the philosophical arguments he is espousing, which primarily focused on the “the natural goodness of man”. Further reflection on Rousseau’s works, however, indicate that man in the state of nature is innocent. Yet, this innocent state is corrupted as a consequence of technological advancements. In his innocent state, men invented simple tools to aid him in his simple activities. As man advanced his learning, machines were contrived to make things work easier or better. This advancement, however, started to corrupt the innocent nature of man. As technology made things easier, man is enticed to do everything the easy way. More often than not, this same technology allows man to think that he is, while he is in fact not. As Finley (not dated) puts it, technology “creates veils and masks to hide behind, and be different than we are”. Those veils and masks corrupted the innocent and civilized man to wither, degenerate and die as a slave to his own creation. REFERENCES Applebaum, H. A. 1992. The Concept of Work: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern. Albany: State University of New York Press. p. 387. Bay, C. 1970. The Structure of Freedom. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. p. 63. Cassirer, E., Pettegrove, J. P. & Koelin, F. C. A. 1968. The Philosophy of the Enlightenment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Cristi, M. 2001. From Civil to Political Religion: The Intersection of Culture, Religion and Politics. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. p. 16. Deneen, P. J. 2005. Democratic Faith. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. p.151. Dent, N. J. H. 2005. Rousseau. New York: Routledge. p.86. Finley, M. not dated. [online]. [Accessed 4th January 2009]. Available from the World Wide Web: http://mfinley.com/articles/it-and-us.htm Greenberg, M. L. & Schachterle, L. 1992. Literature and Technology. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses. p. 47-48. Hirschmann, N. J. 2007. Gender, Class, and Freedom in Modern Political Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. p. 179. Olsen, H. P. & Toddington, S. 2007. Architectures of Justice: Legal Theory and the Idea of Institutional Design. Hampshire, England: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 88. Plamenatz, J. 1963. Man and Society Vol.1. London: Longman, p. 300. Rousseau, J. J. 1754. A Discourse on a Subject Proposed by the Academy of Dijon: What is the Origin of Inequality Among Men and is it Authorised by Natural Law? [online]. [Accessed 2nd January 2009]. Available from the World Wide Web:http://www.constitution.org/jjr/ineq_01.htm Rousseau, J. J. 1968. The Social Contract. London: Penguin Classics. pp. 41, 101-148. Rousseau, J. J. 2004. Discourse on Inequality. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing. pp. 21, 33. Rousseau, J. J. 2005. A Discourse Upon the Origin and the Foundation of the Inequality Among Mankind. Sioux Falls, SD: NuVision Publications, LLC. pp. 35, 49, 84. Rousseau, J. J. 2007. Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. Minneapolis, MN: Filiquarian Publishing, LLC. pp. 19, 24. Rousseau, J. J. 2007b. Emile: On Education. Charleston, SC: BiblioBazaar, LLC. p.45. Stevenson, J. 2002. The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Philosophy. Indianapolis, IN: Alpha Books. p. 171. Wokler, R. 1995. Rousseau: Past Masters. New York: Oxford University Press. Wundt, W. M. 2008. Ethics: An Investigation of the Facts and Laws of the Moral Life. Charleston, SC : BiblioBazaar, LLC. Read More