aim_rousseau

=Aim= Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote with the intention of defining the natural human. Several ideas evoked this concept, ideas like the noble savage, shared sovereignty, and other paradoxical convictions. In “The Beginning that Never Was: Mediation and Freedom in Rousseau’s Political Thought,” Jennifer Einspahr wrote, “self-created moral morass and reclaiming its ‘natural’ or original purity, either by rejecting conditions of mediation altogether or by eliminating mediation’s ambiguity through the exercise of the rational will...man’s original state is one of transparency and immediacy” (Einspahr 438). This quote displays Rousseau’s desire for the masses to return to the state of the natural man. He wanted “transparency and immediacy;” these two ideas were far from the state of the French population during Rousseau’s life where “self-created moral morass” was rampant. Rather than basing life off of immediacy, the masses based their thoughts, opinions, and actions on society’s wants. The individual and society could not coexist with many of Rousseau’s theories on life, and, in fact, he preferred the individual to the unit. Maurice Cranston depicts this feeling in “The French Revolution: Ideas and Ideologies,” he wrote, “ Rousseau defined freedom as ruling oneself, living only under a law which one has oneself enacted” (Cranston 12). Shared sovereignty exhibited the idea that there could be rule through a swarm of individuals. The people would “rule themselves” and in doing so better their own lives through following their own “immediacy.” Rousseau aimed to create a population that would be clear in their wants, in some sense, return to an animal-like state in order to be “purer” and gain “freedom.” Through the defining and categorizing of the natural man and his personality, the intent of Rousseau’s work becomes clear. Writing, describing, and illuminating were avenues that Rousseau used to show the corruption of the French society and the necessity of thoughtful change towards human development and choice.

The leading goal of Jean-Jacques Rousseau was to enlighten society by exposing what was lost in the exchange for the advancement of civilization at the expense of the natural human. He took the side of the poor and the dispossessed, not the sophisticated Parisians of the time. He put aside the facts of humanities historical past and chose to focus on human nature. Only in the light of society, we as humans choose to conduct acts like the violence of war. He animalizes humanity. “Nature alone does everything in the operations of an animal, where as man contributes as a free agent to his own operation” (Smith). Hobbs or Locke would contend that the freedom to choose anything, and so would Rousseau. Following the idea “the freedom to exercise the will and not to be interfered with by others around us” he would add the phenomena or the quality or faculty of perfectibility. Rousseau is unique in putting this idea of unlimited openness to change in the same sentence as freedom. He sees it not as much a feature of the individual but as it is for humanity. Both Hobbs and Locke would find humanity more constant. He believes that “man is the sensitive creature,” that we are naturally compassionate, have pity, and are kind, and that this can be supported by our instinct to be emotional over fictional instances of suffering. All of this changes as we enter society. Society inflates more powerful passions that mask our sensitivity. “Selfishness and egoism are in fact reinforced for him by the development of reason” (Smith). This development of rationality leads to individuals becoming artificial, corrupt, and calculating. In the end, Rousseau believes the return to the state of nature is no longer an option of humanity. He strives to communicate that we cannot do this based of off the historical evidence of why humanity transitioned from a natural state to a civilized one.

Within the very beginning of the //Part Two of The Discourse// Rousseau says, “the first person who having enclosed a piece of land took it into his head to say ‘this is mine,’ and found people simple enough to believe, him was the true founder of civil society.” Although philosophers like John Locke would agree with this Rousseau distances himself by further stating “What crimes, wars, murders, what miseries and horrors would the human race have been spared had someone pulled up the stakes or filled in the ditch and cried out to his fellow men, do not listen to this imposter, you are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all and the earth to no one.” Despite this statement, Rousseau believes that there is in no way that we could return to or would want to live life without private property, and so he does not contend that it is the best interest of humanity to live collectively, like in a communist system. He does believe that the market economy and the governance that protects that system leave the individual better off. However, he is not willing to accept this trade because of the vast inequalities created between human beings from the market system. Society has caused us to think of each other, but we strive to improve our lives first, then others in a calculating way. We made our lives about commerce and money and lost our connection to morality and kindness. This exposure of the transition, focused on the impressive positives of humanity lost, not the impressive advancements of civilization, is at the heart of the thinking of Jean-Jacque Rousseau.

Works Cited Cranston, Maurice. “French Revolution: Ideas and Ideologies.” //History Today// 39.5 May 1989: 10-14. //EBSCOhost//. Web. 18 October 2012.

Einspahr, Jennifer, “The Beginning that Never Was: Mediation and Freedom in Rousseau’s Political Thought.” //Review of Politics// 72.3 (2010): 437-61. //EBSCOhost//. Web. 18 October 2012. Professor Smith “Democracy and Participation: Rousseau's Discourse." Yale University. YouTube, 2008. web 19 Oct. 2012. Lecture. -Luca Valente

Rousseau Home Page