Although Rousseau is mostly noted today for his influence on political philosophy, I find him to be a compelling figure because of his image of human nature. His ideas may be considered “paranoid” and “flamboyant”, but nonetheless I appreciate and (for the most part) agree with his notion that all humans are innately good until society exerts evil influences on the individual. Also, Kant’s moral theory overshadowed Rousseau’s as far as our class discussions go, so I thought it was necessary to finally dissect Rousseau’s thought on the self and society.
To understand Rousseau’s argument, it is first important to understand the key components of the self. Rousseau defines the inner self as a distinctly moral and unique part of an individual. To discover the self, one must be guided by their feelings rather than reason. He says that “a man who thinks is a depraved animal” and “if all the philosophers in the world should prove me wrong, all that is important is that you feel that I am right.” Because emotions are one thing we do have control over, I think Rousseau’s point is valid even though he dismisses the importance of reason. If someone does something to make you mad, you can control whether you lash out and feel angry or stay calm and take a few deep breaths. He also argues that the goodness of the self should define us rather than our actions. This is reminiscent of Luther’s idea that a person is justified by something greater (in his case it was faith) than just their deeds. I agree with Rousseau (and Luther) because good people can do bad things, however I do not believe it makes them any less of a good person. People, even the most moral and obedient, make mistakes and have poor judgment every once in a while.
At the same time Rousseau explains the goodness of the self, he blames society for corrupting this innate morality found in everyone. Rousseau says, “ Nature made man happy and good, and society depraves him and makes him miserable”. To alleviate this misery he suggests that humans should rid themselves of the artificialities imposed on them by culture, and revert back to the ways of free and natural or else you will be like one of these savages that Rousseau describes:
“He enjoys not a moment’s relaxation; and what is yet the stranger, the less natural and pressing his wants, the more headstrong are his passions, and still worse, the more he has it in his power to gratify them; so that after a long course of prosperity, after having swallowed up treasures and ruined multitudes the hero ends up cutting every throat till he finds himself, at last, sole master of the world. Such is…the secret aspirations in the heart of every civilized man.”
Although this quote is intense, Rousseau (and I) just want others to realize that we (referring to the moral “self”) are better than we appear (referring to tainted society).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
This is a fair synopsis of Rousseau, and I enjoyed it. I guess what it really boils down to is people's own personal perspective on human nature. Some would prefer to believe in Locke's view of nature as a constant battle of self-indulgence and inflicting one's will upon anything and anyone that you come across. I can't help but lean towards Rousseau's romantic view of the self, however I feel skeptical of the underlying assumptions implicit about mankind in his writings. If the individual is self moralizing and is only corrupted once entered in society, then why is it that man has not revolted against this oppressive and (one would infer) regressive domination?
I as well enjoy Rousseau's view of the self, and bravo for your synopsis. I do take issue with the supposed necessity to abandon the claims of the natural right for civility through the Social Contract. Apparently this allows man to preserve the self and remain free, and I'm not quite sure I understand his way of thought. Of course my inability to understand could stem from many things, such as English as a second language, Rousseau being old and talking funny, and the presence of some very ambiguous-yet-appealing beverages whose contents I may or may not be familiar with. According to him, submitting the self to the general will frees the self from the subjugation of another individual. Is that not just saying that you have to enslave yourself to the will of more than one person?
I sincerely do not understand the difference between the two, except that one is more democratic. If we are collectively the law then would we not be subjugating ourselves to each other? That doesn't really sound like freedom of the self and it wouldn't always be beneficial. I would be quick to blame a potentially-spiked beverage for my inability to rationalize how I would still be free by subjecting myself to a common law, but I also just don't like Rousseau all that much.
My issue with Rousseau is rather short but its one I can't really get over. He says that we are better in the state of nature without social contract. But a fundamental quality of man is that he is social and any social interaction has a social contract in some form or another. So how can we actually get rid of the social contract?
Certainly society (and religion) is to blame for any number of horrifically immoral ideas - burning "witches," oppressing racial and sexual minorities, women, and the poor, I don't argue with Rousseau there.
Most humans are born with a sense of morality and empathy for other beings, and we use reason combined with our natural inclinations to answer morally complex questions.
On the other hand, it seems impossible for humans to live without forming some sort of community. Even a community that consists of just one family will teach it's children their own particular system of morality, based on their own experiences and the conclusions they've drawn for themselves.
I absolutely agree with Rousseau in that human nature is corruptible by society. We have seen this issue brought up many times. The underlying issue behind Rousseau's desire to get rid of artificialities and property is the idea of power. Man is always greedy and self interested, and the natural man apart from society would find little need for greed.
"And nine. Nine rings were gifted to the race of men, who above all else, desire power."
Post a Comment