Just Finished Reading: A Discourse on the Origins and Foundations of Inequality among Men by Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Yes, another ‘school’ book. First published in 1755 this 100 page book attempts to answer the question: ‘What is the origin of the inequality among men, and is it authorized by natural law?’
Rousseau splits his response into two parts. In Part One he discusses man in his natural state – the state of nature which, he proposes only contain natural inequalities – such as strength and other natural attributes which make people different in every day life. This is actually – and especially for its time – a creditable attempt to discern the origins of mankind without any reference to creation and precious little mention of God. It posits “thousands of centuries” for man to develop from ‘beasts’ to pre-civilised humans in a time where Young Earth Creationism was generally considered the consensus view. Part Two concentrates on where it all went wrong for mankind. Basically, Rousseau considers the move from the ‘state of nature’ to what we would regard as civilisation as a backward step – though unfortunately one from which we are unable to recover. The source of our trouble and inequalities he places firmly on the discrepancies in property ownership that began almost as soon as the idea of property first entered our minds. With increasing wealth came increasing influence and power. The rich rose to rule whilst the poor served or starved. It was only on the eve of war between the few rich and the many poor that the famous Social Contract was enacted in order to make civil society possible - but the amazing thing is (and I was honestly shocked when I read this – having already read his later book of that title) that Rousseau considered this first Social Contract as a con perpetrated by the Rich to enslave the poor further under the disguise of equality and freedom.
Over the last few weeks reading this and the Social Contract (plus elements of his other works) I have become increasingly impressed by Rousseau. Not only does he seem to have some very modern ideas – which must have been very radical 250 years ago – but I can’t help but admire his decidedly left leaning views. This is a quick and easy read for anyone interesting in 18th Century political thought (and who wouldn’t be?) as well as those interested in understand just where many of the debates about government originated. This is definitely worth a few days of your time to read and ponder over.
9 comments:
Nice summary.
I've been distantly curious about Rousseau. You've made me moreso.
Did you know that he abandoned his all of his children?
wunelle said: I've been distantly curious about Rousseau. You've made me more so.
His thinking was definitely ahead of its time in many ways. He's worth reading just for historical interest alone.
karlo said: Did you know that he abandoned his all of his children?
Yes. I understand he had 4-5 illegitimate children and abandoned them all. I certainly don't admire him for his behaviour, just for his ideas. Many philosophers (and even more 'Great' men) were less than pleasent people. Although this should be taken into account when we choose to admire them I don't think we should dismiss good ideas just because they come from bastards.
Right, so civilization is the downfall of human happiness? Is that something of the sort that he suggesting?
scott said: Right, so civilization is the downfall of human happiness? Is that something of the sort that he suggesting?
[laughs] Pretty much, yes. It's probably why the Romantic Movement loved him so much.
Maybe he seems modern because so much of the World is still hung up on bad ideas from a long time a go.
Does your class study anyone who was pro-property rights? Locke maybe?
scott said: Maybe he seems modern because so much of the World is still hung up on bad ideas from a long time a go.
250 years isn't *that* long ago... [grin]
Do you count democracy as one of those 'bad old ideas'?
scott said: Does your class study anyone who was pro-property rights? Locke maybe?
We did Locke last year but only for two weeks.
Strangely Rousseau was pro-property. He just thought that wide variations in property ownership was a *really* bad idea and one that should be resisted through acts of government intervention - so you can see why the Communists and Socialists liked him.
The course I'm doing is 'History of Philosophy'. In my first year I did a catch-all unit where we looked at various social and ethical philosophers from Aristotle to Nietzsche. My second unit was on Ancient Philosophy, I've just finished a unit on Nietzsche & my final unit is on Rousseau. After that I get to pick a topic for my dissertation.
Do you count democracy as one of those 'bad old ideas'?
Well, I'm sure you'll agree that democracy is used by far more people to do evil than to do good and there are about as many different opinions of what democracy is as there are politicians who want to spread it. But, yes, I do think we should be moving beyond democracy. There's certainly enough evidence to support the idea that democracy is causing quite a bit of pain in destruction throughout the globe as most (all?) of the governments that are the most aggressive against other nations at least *claim* to be democracies.
Which is not to say I support oligarchs or monarchs or plutocracies by any means, but can't we try something new? Wouldn't that, in fact, be the progressive action to take?
scott said: Well, I'm sure you'll agree that democracy is used by far more people to do evil than to do good and there are about as many different opinions of what democracy is as there are politicians who want to spread it.
There are certainly many varieties of political systems that call themselves a democracy though I doubt very much if *real* democracy exists anywhere or probably could ever exist. Its most probably simply too utopian.
scott said: Which is not to say I support oligarchs or monarchs or plutocracies by any means, but can't we try something new? Wouldn't that, in fact, be the progressive action to take?
Such as? Is there anything new under the sun? Personally I'm coming to the opinion that if we *must* have leaders they should be the best of us - in other words Aristocracy (in the old sense of the term).
Post a Comment