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?

Rousseau Entry!

After speaking about the lack of misery that the savage man has, Rousseau states, "In instinct alone, man had everything he needed in order to live in the state of nature; in a cultivated reason, he has only what he needs to live in society" (Rousseau 34 in white book). It seems here that reason is a curse to the pursuit of happiness. A savage man cannot possibly be miserable if he is at peace and at good health, but a civilized man is miserable because he has reason and the ability to question his existence. Also, Rousseau believes that reason is deemed almost useless in time of need. Cleverness seems more useful in the natural environment but is that an innate instinct in savage man?

To delve into Angelica's point a little bit, I do not believe that he aimed this towards a Christian audience or it is very Christian because on page 26 (white book), he states "savage man… will therefore begin with purely animal functions." Christians would not believe that this is the beginning of mankind because Adam and Eve are the parents of humanity and they were made more or less with reason like modern humans. Also, there were no humans before Adam so I believe it would be a difficult argument to say that Adam = developed man because there was no man before him to develop from.

-Fiorentin Nacaj

Locke vs. Rousseau

Locke and Rousseau think that civil society comes into place because of property, but it is interesting that they do not agree on the the idea that property should or should not exist. Locke believes that ownership, hence property, is the purpose for man's existence through work, but Rousseau seems to say that property was simply invented because someone put his name on something and called it his. Rousseau believes that "the fruits of the earth belong to all and the earth to no one" (44). It seems that Rousseau says that simply stating this idea would have "spared" many wars. In addition, Locke and Rousseau think that nature provided man with all that man needed, but Locke believes that reason led man to make his property, and Rousseau believes that instinct led man to "make use of [the products of the earth]" (44-45).

So, Rousseau and Locke do not have the same idea as to what property is, but which idea sounds more like what we think property is? I think that we use both ideas of property today because people always attach their name to something they put work into, but it can also be very easy for people to attach their name onto something that they did not work for. Are Locke and Rousseau both right although they do not agree on this point? I think so. But, if we believe that both of these types of properties exist, what is the true definition of how one attains a piece of property? Is it simply putting your name on something? Does it require work? Is it something else?

Also, is Rousseau right? Would wars be spared if we did not have an idea of property? If we did not have property, forty people could try to eat the same apple, and they would end up fighting for that apple, and wouldn't a war start because of the lack of ownership that apple has?

The role of the divine in Rousseau

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

Reading questions: Rousseau's Discourse on the Origin of Inequality (the first part)

1. What's the import of the Letter to the Republic of Geneva? How does it relate to the issues concerned in the Discourse proper?
2. Why is it difficult to grasp the original of human nature?  Is it even possible?
3. Why do we need to know what the human being was in the state of nature in order to grasp "natural right" (40)?
4. Is Rousseau's question after the original of human nature a problem for us, given our dramatic advances in scientific and technical knowledge?
5. Why are natural and moral inequality not the same for Rousseau? What would it mean for a concept of right if they were?
6. What are the four main characteristics of human being in the state of nature?
7. How are perfectibility and freedom related to one another?
8. Does human being in the state of nature have reason?
9. Why does human being in the state of nature not need language?
10. One of the issues that we discussed in class last week concerned love? Can human being in the state of nature love others?