In the first part of Rousseau's discourse we talked about the role of the divine in the state of nature and in society. He refers to the "divine will" and the creation of Adam throughout the text and seems to use God as a supporting element to his claims without giving the divine a clear role. Professor Vaught posed an idea that the God that Rousseau describes is one who created nature for man and kind of sat back to watch what we did. If society is so corrupt, according to Rousseau, wouldn't the divine prefer man to stay in the state of nature? Would you say the state of nature is better than modern society? Or perhaps it is just a necessary obstacle?
Also, does anyone think Rousseau was strictly Christian or simply appealing to Christian beliefs because that was the predominant religion at the time? His vague incorporation of the divine makes me wonder if the latter was true.
Angelica
The issue of state of nature versus modern society is difficult due to the Rousseau's belief that the state of nature probably never even existed. He places the state of nature as some sort of unattainable state of being that humans may have never experienced, therefore he states that it is hard to understand a "state which no longer exists" (Rousseau 12). With what we've learned from Rousseau, I couldn't say which state of human existence is better.
ReplyDeleteAlso, to comment about the religious standpoint of Rousseau, I believe that he could have been appealing to Christian beliefs in order to construct relevant ideas to his time period.
I would think that the divine would have preferred for man to stay in the state of nature, but once man was created and left alone on the Earth to survive and fend for themselves, the evils of society were also created, and it was only a matter of time until corruption spread. Man was created as thinking souls - this is what separates them from animals. It is inevitable for man to experience certain situations and gain knowledge and life skills from these experiences, and as Rousseau explains, more knowledge means more ignorance.
ReplyDeleteAnd in regards to your question of whether the state of nature is better than modern society, I can't really say, but one thing I can stand by on is that both are flawed. I mean, it only makes sense or else we can firmly say that utopias exist.
I agree with the idea of Rousseau's concept of the divine. If Rousseau intended to explain that the divine created nature and 'sat back', we could assume that men were bound to evolve from the state of nature. The divine cannot control the corruption of society caused by men. The state of nature cannot be compared to the modern society in terms of better or worse. As men's main drive in the state of nature is self-preservation, men evolved as well as their natural states. As men progressed from a savage that is only mindful of immediate needs, corruption is one of the results that shaped men to suit the modern society. It is necessary. It is perhaps safer to assume that none is better than the other.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Rousseau was at a Christian standpoint to appeal to the predominant beliefs of his time; it seemed like the concepts of divine were present to strengthen the foundations or validity of his thoughts. If he was Christian himself, the entire discourse would be much more religious.
Rousseau believes civil society corrupts man. In the text he says incoming habituated to the ways of society and a slave, he becomes weak, fearful, and servile. In other words society changes man from a state of “wellness” to a state of “illness”. I’m still debating the idea that Rousseau wants man to go back to the state of nature. But he does say that society causes the degeneration of man. I think that he would prefer man to be a Shepard—not a farmer (against agriculture). I'm not sure about the Christian aspects of your question.
ReplyDeleteRousseau thought that there's a divine force that creates nature, and he also implied that human nature is constantly changing. Who causes the nature to change? I don't believe Rousseau would think human is solely responsible for the changes to nature. I believe Rousseau would argue the divine force he suggested which creates nature also has impact on the change of nature. In other words, the divine force is alway in control of human nature, from its creation to its changes. It is perhaps the divine and human being who collaboratively "corrupt" the society. Perhaps the divine's will is not to let human stay in the state of nature, but bring human being out of the primitive undeveloped state.
ReplyDeleteI would say that even though Rousseau doesn't appear to be a strict and total devoter of Christianity, he still believes in it more or less. It would be unfair to say he only said it to gain the favor of the majority.