The two greatest critics of the Enlightment are alleged (at least by Allan Bloom in The Closing of the American Mind) to be Rousseau and Nietzsche. Anyone believing this is half right; Nietzsche is serious (and difficult), but Rousseau is a clown – a pantomime intellectual. You could almost call him the archtype for the woke progressives of our day: boatloads of assertions (often presented as not open for debate), a few sharp observations (pace a blind squirrel) and a great preference for imagination to reality.
The First Discourse
This was an essay judged by the Academy of Dijon to have best answered a question they had posed: Has the restoration of the sciences and arts tended to purify morals? As is too often the case, peer review by intellectuals failed to detect what is substantially a fraud. Oh, that’s harsh, isn’t it? Not really, for Rousseau’s essay is sophomoric from beginning to end. Don’t take my word for it, Rousseau himself added this forward in 1763 as he assembled a collection of his writings:
What is celebrity? Here is the unfortunate work to which I owe mine. Certainly this piece, which won me a prize and made me famous, is at best mediocre, and I dare add it is one of the slightest of the whole collection.
Now, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to blame the Academy of Dijon for asking such a foolish question, even if they did reward an impertinent answer, for Rousseau re-worked his thesis to address this question instead: Has the restoration of the sciences arts tended to purify or corrupt morals? And the particular French word he uses (mouers) translates not just as morals, but also as manners. This is important because this was his first volley at the French aristocracy (and Voltaire in particular), which would be his bête noir [shamelessly stealing another nuanced French phrase] throughout his writings. Taking Rousseau out of the French social context of the mid 18th century is the surest way to miss some subtle points he does indeed make. It is fair to him to remember that the inequality of French society would soon reach a breaking point, and the corruption of that elite still puts our current elite to shame.
So having slightly reworked the question, in his favor, he argues that knowledge has worked corruption upon man’s better nature. What makes this discourse very strange is that when he revisits the underlying social norm-making in the Second Discourse, he is nearly universal in condemnation of man as a social/civic being; here he praises Sparta and Persia while he condemns Athens (and by implication his contemporaneous France). This does pose a novel answer to the quarrel of the Ancients versus the Moderns from the preceding century – Rousseau would dismiss them both.
The Second Discourse
What later became known as the Second Discourse was published under the title of On the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men. If his First Discourse was a warning shot, this was intellectual fire for effect.
Before we proceed, I want you to imagine a straw-man argument, but not just any straw-man. This may be the Ur-straw-man; the Platonic ideal of a straw-man; a straw-man that physically manifested would stand on the ground in Geneva and reach to the edge of space; a straw-man that in full conflagration would out-shine the sun.
With that in mind, you are now properly prepared to consider Rousseau’s conceit of the natural man (in contrast to civil man). His great object is to refute Hobbes’ state of nature, that man in the state of nature lives a life nasty, brutish and short. So Rousseau simply imagines a state of nature and a mankind therein that never existed. He hypothesizes an asocial man – a benign unthinking but happy animal, whereas we know that virtually all primates are social (as well as many other species). This is necessary because he wants man to be pure and society to be the corrupting agent on that purity. It’s really that simple, that’s his whole argument, and he writes quite a bit to say that. If he were to consider that man never lived as a solitary beast, but socially, his argument just falls apart or he would have to identify a tipping point (and a plausible one might have been the development of agriculture) where social behavior goes from positive to negative (or that there is some kind of balancing even in his present time). The difficult question is – if man was so well off without any social instincts, how did those social instincts form and even moreso prevail over time if they run counter to his natural instincts. This is one of those points not open to debate. For him, even family, let alone clan or tribe are fabricated; artifacts of wrong choices that destroyed the natural [purely animalistic] man – who was in essence without sin (again contra Hobbes, and the Church). Language too is an artifact, not a natural thing, and thence reason; for ideas require language. He doesn’t elaborate here (as he will later), for doing so probably would’ve cost him his life (and he would end up on the lam as an outcast from all decent society), but religion must be fundamentally an artifact as well – though deftly danced around by always falling back on the creator [of man and the natural world even if not quite the Biblical figure]. Here the irony is lost on him, for absent the Enlightenment he criticizes, the norms of only a few centuries earlier would surely have seen him burned at the stake. And once religion is accepted as an artifact and not divine truth, his later proposed civil religion (in The Social Contract) is laughable, particularly when invoking God.
One truly curious bugbear for Rousseau is Sparta – he obsesses with it as a purer society than Athens. Which he shouldn’t because it is as much a betrayal of natural man as any other society, even the societies of the then primitive peoples of the Americas. Rousseau fails to grasp that the Spanish crushed the Aztecs as allies of the other noble savages of Meso-America that had been brutally oppressed by those Aztecs. This of course is classic Rousseau – really weak on logic. You have to wonder, was it because he really saw limitations to logic or was he just flat out bad at it.
It would be a few years later that Adam Smith would publish The Theory of Moral Sentiments, that would address some of the same social ills that filled Rousseau’s mind. The difference is that Smith understood human nature better, and that man’s social instincts (good and bad) are core to him, not an affectation that bent him away from his true natural state. Here you can see the appeal of Rousseau to the revolutionaries who would claim him – man is innately good; the social-system is corrupt and was in fact designed (as opposed to evolved or arising out of spontaneous order) to work corruption (in this particular case, inequality – from property). Destroy that system and free man from his chains! Like Marx who followed him, Rousseau was not wrong about all of the injustice he saw in his world – it did exist; it is his explanation for it, and the impulses unleashed to set that right that are horrifyingly wrong. This is also quite at odds with his later argument in favor of the general will (a social construct if there ever was one and beloved of authoritarian and totalitarian alike) since any such will [to power] is a corruption upon the innate goodness of asocial man. Nietzsche of course builds on the will, but it isn’t really clear from him that it is to power in the political sense. [Another case of the use of native words subject to mistranslation.]
When Solzhenitsyn said “[T]he line between good and evil runs not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either — but right through every human heart”, Rousseau would weep. For he is refuted without recourse.
Has the restoration of the sciences and arts tended to purify morals?
What a dumb question.
And we think modern academics have a lock on such.
The difficult question is – if man was so well off without any social instincts, how did those social instincts form and even moreso prevail over time if they run counter to his natural instincts.
What did he have to say about the migration of rural people to the cities? Or did he just sweep that under the rug?
He obsequiously praises Geneva in the preface to his Second Discourse, where he was returning from his first semi-exile. It is that flattery – when he extends it – that is so excessive as to question his sincerity in the first place. If it were Voltaire writing it, you would taste the sarcasm intended, but it just seems with Rousseau that excess is his tendency. For a man who was born and partially raised amongst a budding middle-class craftsman world, the appeal of the farm (which in that era was impoverishment) would be nothing but romanticism.
Again, logic isn’t his forté, and presumably therein is his appeal to others with the same limitation.
I just classify all French intellectuals of the 18th century as pre-commies and am done with the whole affair.
Jean-Baptiste Say as well? Although he straddled the 18th and 19th Centuries. So you get partial credit.
Voltaire was a great advocate of freedom of religion and expression. Montesquieu and Lavoisier would also be excluded. You would be intellectually the poorer for that.
I mean, I’d say that Voltaire’s view of religion was a bit more complex than freedom. He certainly wanted the freedom to do and say as he pleased. I don’t know if his ideal world would had freedom of religion as much as freedom from religion. He had no coherent concept of what government should look like, and I don’t really see how it would have differed much from what the French Revolution ultimately produced. He believed in an enlightened monarch who would basically take his cues from philosophers. Like everything in Voltaire’s life, it was more than a little self-serving.
Voltaire believed in what was good for Voltaire. And he knew to cut his criticisms just short enough to where he’d always have a wealthy benefactor he could leech off of.
Like everything in Voltaire’s life, it was more than a little self-serving.
The nub of Rousseau’s dislike for the man. And perhaps some jealousy that Voltaire never suffered as he had.
I love to hate on Rousseau.
It should be no surprise that he is held in great regard by those who yearn for philosopher-kings, like Leo Strauss, one of the main intellectual forebears of the neocons.
Rousseau generally hated the everyman. Some of his less published quotes reveal that loathing. I believe that hatred carried through to later philosophers like Marx and Engels, certainly Lenin. And insomuch as the postmodern tradition relies on Rousseau, it demonstrates its hatred of the commoner.
“forced to be free” CWAA
I will admit it’s refreshing to see a philosopher express themselves in relatively straightforward language. So many of those who came after Rousseau made it their main objective to disguise their vile urges with ever-increasing sophistry.
Actually it is kind of odd, because the philosopher-king goes back to Plato, the godfather of the Enlightenment. Rousseau was a believer in democracy – because he believed that every man would vote wisely and for the common good.
I think of it as lip service to the idea, much like our current government. It believes in democracy so long as it delivers the outcome that the rulers want.
I wouldn’t quite say lip service, just the profound conceit that they possess the truth that all should hold to. If people voted as they should, we would be unanimous – and all deviations from that are because of deceits others have fallen for. It’s how you know they are zealots, the love of their own cant over what they actually observe.
Terrific essay, JI.
The one nice thing about dudes like Rousseau is that his retardation really makes decent thinkers stand out.
I just started listening to Martyr Made’s podcast on Nietzsche and Dostoevsky. Will report back.
Thanks, and in fairness, it isn’t his fault that other people respect his thinking/writing so much – it gives them what they want.
The Taco Bell of philosophy?
Yo quiero contrato social!
I was reading something last year (history piece but don’t remember which one), who made a comment (in regret) along the lines that, in western Europe and Britain, Locke has triumphed over Rousseau. I was trying to figure out what the author was smoking.
Great essay!
It’s even better because I’m reading it while eating a Bojangles 3 piece.
Fuck Yeah!
https://www.northernnewsnow.com/2023/04/20/record-break-duluth-breaks-all-time-snow-record-thursday-morning/
NOW can we get on with spring and summer?
No. You get to go right into fall and back to winter again.
Forecast for 5 inches of snow. Snowing now
You want mud and mosquitoes – you’ll get ’em!
It dropped 40 degrees in the last couple days and looks to be well below normal for the next week.
Someone start a tire fire or something.
But… the NYT told me that the kids of today would never know what snow was due to global
warmingclimate change.They told me We were headed for an ice age
Crap, was supposed to be This link
67 and sunny here.
*shrug*
I reopened my windows today.
You should re-boot your PC at least once a week.
What about 6.29 years?
I can practically smell the unpatched security holes from here.
That’s not any of my home machines.
There’s a long story behind that poor server – mostly pathetic.
That’s not any of my home machines.
That’s even worse.
I mean, I guess it’s OK if it’s not connected to the network in anyway.
80 today and sunny here. It’s all a lie though, as we drop back down into the 40’s/50’s through next week.
It ain’t Juneteenth yet.
Man on Orlando flight throws a fit over crying baby
To Orlando? No way…
I get it, air travel is basically awful now, but who is the adult here?
CWAA
I was on a flight once with a mom traveling alone with a very fussy infant. A bunch of people took turns walking with the little guy and nothing else happened.
It was actually pretty cool.
I remember being on one of the baby-flights coming back from Guangzhou in the mid-2000s. There must have been 50 couples bringing home unwanted baby girls.
Fortunately, I was in first class and did not have to cope with the coach cabin for that 10+ hour flight.
*remembers first trip to Europe with a massive hemorrhoid and a kid kicking my seat for eight hours*
That should be a death penalty-eligible offense.
Also reminds me that it’s probably just as well that I’ve lost my enthusiasm for traveling there. Any countries left over there that haven’t become total surveillance police states or otherwise pathetic shadows of their former glory?
Meh. Who cares about that shit? You aren’t moving there, you are going to some amazing art, architecture and history.
I can’t recommend it highly enough.
I could possibly be tempted by one of those river cruises…
I tried the Lethe cruise once.
It was unmemorable
::golf clap*::
*after DDG search
I took a ‘hotel barge’ from Oxford to Windsor in May of 98. 60 miles, 6 nights. It was marvelous. The skipper knew lots of history & trivia, took lots of on-shore walks to interesting places. Sadly, he now operates only in France. Even better, it was early in the season, so it was myself and an Aussie journalist for the first half, then he was off to his next experience to document. Had the boat, and the skpper’s attention, all to myself, which only improved the trip.
I love the deadpan gold.
😁
Speaking of rivers…
MORE OTTERS!
Travel generally just doesn’t jiggle my handle. I mean, I enjoy it OK, but to me it’s similar to living in a big city – the bennies just aren’t worth the hassle.
Which one was the Congressperson? Or were they both?
Remembers first and second trip to Europe with 700 of my newest friends.
Oh, so sat next to Keith Olbermann?
This dude never heard of earplugs?
It appears he left them at the bar.
The kid will choke on those.
How quickly?
Congratulations! You win the internets today!
Will I have to report that on my taxes next year?
L O L
“We have these to hold down the sound sir.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0sLidTL5bo
That is a seconder child and a seconder man. I have no sympathy for either of them. Maybe they should just fight to the death?
Speaking of delusional fabulists
President Joe Biden announced plans to boost U.S. funding to slash deforestation in Brazil’s Amazon rainforest and to help developing countries combat climate change during a meeting with world leaders on Thursday.
The president, during a virtual meeting with the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, committed $500 million over five years to reduce deforestation in Brazil. The move would make the U.S. one of the biggest contributors to the Amazon Fund, a conservation program established over a decade ago. However, this investment would require Congressional approval.
Biden also pledged $1 billion to the Green Climate Fund, a United Nations-led program aimed to help developing countries become more resilient to climate change and transition to clean energy sources. The funding would double the country’s overall contribution.
The Biden administration is aiming to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030 and has urged developed countries to provide international climate assistance to poorer nations. The countries convening at the forum account for roughly 80% of global greenhouse gas emissions and global gross domestic product, the White House said
Back to nature. We’ll heal the planet if it harelips everybody on bear creek.
Imagine this, but instead of papers and tissues it’s checks from your checking account.
https://twitter.com/TriumphICDHQ/status/1299812760902041600?lang=en
If it short-dicks every cannibal in the Congo!
1. How the fuck does the president have the authority to unilaterally fund saving the rainforest in Brazil?
2. Who really thinks this money is going to save the rainforest?
3. It’s not a coincidence this money is being given to Brazil weeks after they announced their trade deal with China. More will probably follow.
China looks like they’re going to try to compete with the US’s policy of turning countries into lapdogs with “aid” and “trade deals” that are just giveaways to the ruling class. I guess we’ll just have to see which fake economy buckles under the corruption-a-thon first.
BRILLIANT! This is how Reagan beat the Soviets, by tricking them into spending as stupidly as we do!
“…cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030…”
Does any that include covering North American forests and plains with solar panels while we lecture Brazilians?
The Brazilians will be encourage to go au natural while our emissions get waxed.
Introducing the Glong!
4/20 always delivers.
I love it.
Jeebus. It actually shoots.
I will be disappointed if the shot doesn’t ignite the weds in the bowl.
The difference between alcohol & pot? 5 drunk guys will start a fight. 5 stoned guys will start a band.
Can affirm. Worst altered participants at Burning Man are the drunks.
Fenix Ammunition sent out a ‘Happy 4/20!’ email ad this morning. I can personally recommend their 9mm 147grn. FMJs for practice ammo.
Listen to Matt & Blonde?
lulz
And people always want to shit on High-Point.
Huh, I’ve never seen a firearm that was itself a 4473 violation.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/2-texas-cheerleaders-shot-after-wrong-car-parking/story?id=98686531
WTF is wrong with people? If cheerleaders jump into my car, I’m not shooting them.
This has gotten far less national attention.
I wonder why… not.
Clearly, a Trump supporter.
So the cheerleaders won’t be visiting the White House?
Probably a lil too old for gropey.
Illegal? Cartel? Or just, garden variety moron?
I never thought this would happened to me. Cheerleaders jumped in my car, recognized their mistake, apologized, and left.
Spirit fingers, not trigger fingers.
This is a great take down JI. Are you taking suggestions on other Philosopher’s that need to be taken down a peg to make a series? I’d love to see you pick apart Kant like this.
Heidegger
He was a mean little beggar.
He could drink you under the table.
The virtue of Rousseau’s first two discourses was relative brevity, particularly compared to the voluminous Kant. But I wanted to visit him particularly because of Bloom’s take; which equally got me going on Nietzsche. Bloom is one for two in my scoresheet. Rousseau also happens to backhand the Pyhrronists which is something I plan on taking a deeper dive into – as the desire for absolutes/certainties is I think one of humanity’s real mental weaknesses. And I’m definitely hooked on reading more Nietzsche, as I started to find my way into his style.
For Geography/cartography nerds:
https://twitter.com/PrinceVogel/status/1632922043216805888
Paging @robodruid (which you will not likely see, so I’ll page you again in the evening post). I sent an email re that idea you had.
https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-charges-against-alec-baldwin-dropped-in-fatal-shooting-death-of-halyna-hutchins
That’s some bullshit right there.
Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, Baldwin’s co-defendant and ex-Rust armorer, still faces charges, keeping the investigation open and giving prosecutors the power to subpoena going forward.
Yep, justice is for the little people, not household names that have the correct opinion.
I can’t say that I would vote to convict if a family member hunted Baldwin down and applied some frontier justice.