Rousseau Reflections

"One would see the leaders fomenting whatever can weaken men united together by disuniting them; whatever can give society an air of apparent concord while sowing the seeds of real division; whatever can inspire defiance and hatred in the various classes through the opposition of their rights and interests, and can as a consequence strengthen the power that contains them all" (Blue Book 89).

I wanted to present this quote to promote discussion on some of Rousseau's briefly mentioned ideas that  we didn't have time to focus on in class because we were more focused on his big ideas in the essay. When I read this section, I immediately circled it and wrote in the margins: "Britain with India's Hindus and Muslims." I sat in on a class early this semester that discussed the roots of India's revolution. Before class we had read Gandhi's Critique on Civilization (1908), where he discusses (I'm simplifying this, but it's very interesting to read) how he essentially blames railroads and technology as the downfall of India because they allowed man to travel farther than his feet naturally could take him--leading him to communities different than his own and to cause race and religious tension. (I actually didn't remember this until I started writing this blog, what I was going to bring up was...) While (Wikipedia tells me) Britain was not the first to build railroads in India, they were responsible for expanding it. In class, Professor Moss Roberts discussed how one way the British raised and maintained their political power in India was by pushing the Muslim and Hindu communities toward conflict. So rather than working together to push out the British, they were pre-occupied with land and religious tension.

While my first thought went to that seemingly far away history lesson, it seems to be this foreign politics tactic has been reused again and again, existent even today--in our own government.

Did any other particular "truths" pop out to you guys in Rousseau's text that are prevalent to our history?

Presentation Points on Kant

What role does nature play on the actions of human beings?
Human beings make progress as a whole, not as individuals.
Reason allowing men to create by moving away from instinct, which is what separates them from animals.
Kant's idea of transforming resources, which connects to Locke's idea of property.
Antagonism being a paradox that allows society to form and allows human beings to get closer to nature's end.
Antagonism existing between societies.

Reading questions on Kant's "Idea for a Universal History ..."

Some of these questions are not explicitly answered in the text.

1. Why can we not perceive a rational purpose in the actions of human beings?
2. How would a purpose in nature govern human actions?
3. How is antagonism a natural purpose for Kant? 
4. Is there a difference between a natural purpose and a natural instrument?
5. Does Locke think that antagonism, or the state of war, is a natural purpose?
6. Give your own examples of both aspects of man's unsocial sociability.
7. What constitutes a just civil constitution for Kant?
8. Why is human being an animal that needs a master?
9. How are states and individuals like one another, according to Kant? 
10. What contemporary international body is like the organization of states that Kant describes (hint: it's not the US)?
11. Does Kant also believe private property plays a important role in history (like Locke)?
12. In what sense does Kant think that humans are rational beings?