Was Rousseau the Key Pre-Marxist?

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Was Jean-Jacques Rousseau the key pre-Marxist philosophe closest to the yet-to-be-formulated ideal of Marxism? I know he was not in the least bit a true Marxist, but he did provide for some of the basis of Marxist thought. What do you guys think? Were there any other good pre-Marxist Enlightenment philosophes that rival Rousseau? I know that D'Holbach was a good proponent of Marxist-style materialism and atheism.

[Ostrinski]

Rousseau was an idealist. A radical, but an idealist. They can hardly be compared. Though Rousseau, like most Enlightenment figures did have some degree of influence on Marx. I'd say the classical economists like Smith and Ricardo are where he got most of his influence. I guess Feuerbach could be considered a "pre"-Marxist. Rousseau and Paine are also my favorite Enlightenment figures.

The existence of materialism predates the Enlightenment my many centuries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism#Axial_Age

[Jack]

No. Dabbling in ideas "pre-Marxism" is useless drivel based on 21st century perceptions of centuries old philosopher's works compared to the work of someone they would never know who wrote in times they didn't understand. If there is one possible "pre-Marxist" (that being, someone who influenced Marx's unique ideas heavily) it would be Hegel, only for his ideas on dialectics.

[l'Enfermé]

Maybe his attacks on private property had some influence on Marx, but then again it's generally accepted that Marx's views on private property were influenced the most by Proudhon's "What is Property?"(the one where Proudhon coined "property is theft"). And I don't really remember of reading references to Rousseau in Marx's works but probably there are some.

[Tommy4ever]

Well, both Fascism and Marxism can trace a lot of their ideas back to Rousseau. I wouldn't call him a pre-socialist or whatever, but a lot of people like to.

[ChrisK]

Rousseau was an idealist. A radical, but an idealist.

First time I've heard this. As I recall he never wrote on metaphysics, but his works seem to presuppose a materialism of sorts.

[Leo]

Rousseau was an idealist. Of course it is rather difficult not to be when one is a Christian, yet that's not the sole reason. He was a thinker of his own era, and as such he was a part of the general current which explained the world with universal and ahistoric statements. He expresses himself in the same sort of terms and concepts as idealist social philosophers such as Hobbs and Locke does, even in his arguably most materialistic work, Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men. His conception of the social contract is clearly very idealistic, and doesn't recognize conflict which resides everywhere in the material world. He expresses it like this: "The heart of the idea of the social contract may be stated simply: Each of us places his person and authority under the supreme direction of the general will, and the group receives each individual as an indivisible part of the whole." Of course he was a radical also, and some of his works I really enjoyed reading and see as valuable contributions to the history of thought and philosophy; and it is important to keep in mind that idealism had a role in the progress of humanity for a long time as well. In regards to his socio-political opinions though, Rousseau wasn't even the most radical of his era.

[ChrisK]

Rousseau was an idealist. Of course it is rather difficult not to be when one is a Christian, yet that's not the sole reason. He was a thinker of his own era, and as such he was a part of the general current which explained the world with universal and ahistoric statements. He expresses himself in the same sort of terms and concepts as idealist social philosophers such as Hobbs and Locke does, even in his arguably most materialistic work, Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men. His conception of the social contract is clearly very idealistic, and doesn't recognize conflict which resides everywhere in the material world. He expresses it like this: "The heart of the idea of the social contract may be stated simply: Each of us places his person and authority under the supreme direction of the general will, and the group receives each individual as an indivisible part of the whole." Of course he was a radical also, and some of his works I really enjoyed reading and see as valuable contributions to the history of thought and philosophy; and it is important to keep in mind that idealism had a role in the progress of humanity for a long time as well. In regards to his socio-political opinions though, Rousseau wasn't even the most radical of his era.

Okay, there seems to be a lot of confusion here about what an idealist is. An idealist is a person who believes that everything is created by the mind. It is a metaphysical, not political position. Locke and Hobbes were both stanch materialists. Locke shows this most clearly in his assertion that while secondary qualities cannot be known for certain, primary qualities most definitely exist in objective reality. And Hobbes explicitly argues for a materialist position against Descartes.

So yes, Rousseau was idealistic, but he was by no means an idealist.

[Leo]

Okay, there seems to be a lot of confusion here about what an idealist is. An idealist is a person who believes that everything is created by the mind.Not exclusively. By this definition, almost no one in the history of philosophy except certain religious theologians who believe matter to be a created by the mind of god are idealists, this means not even Plato, nor Kant or Hegel are idealists.


It is a metaphysical, not political position.It indeed is not a political position, nor is it simple enough to be described as a metaphysical position. The term metaphysics is not a particularly meaningful one anyway (originating from Aristotle's publisher who first published Physics and then called the next book Metaphysics, as in after physics).

Idealism is a matter of world-view, how one sees and understands the world - so is materialism. Accordingly anyone religious automatically disqualifies from being seen as a materialist, although not all atheists are necessarily materialists either. Locke's Calvinism disqualifies him from being a materialist if not his conception of tabula rasa. Hobbes also is known to be religious and held the belief that the divine can't contradict reason and experience like Locke, and this is indeed at the root of the arguments of mainstream religion today.

I think even those such as William of Ockham who defended a fully materialistic understanding of the actual, physical world around us and argued against the real core of idealism can't be regarded as a full fledged materialist because of his ontological belief in a necessary creator being, although he saw it as something which has to be held away from anything regarding our understanding of the physical world. However, while Ithink there can actually be a discussion on where people who at least border materialism very closely stand, like William of Ockham who exclusively applies its principles to the material world and separating the understanding of the physical reality from mysticis; I don't think there is any discussion about where those such as Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau whose understanding of the world is based on a marriage of reason and mysticism stand.

[ChrisK]

Not exclusively. By this definition, almost no one in the history of philosophy except certain religious theologians who believe matter to be a created by the mind of god are idealists, this means not even Plato, nor Kant or Hegel are idealists.

No, its actually quite literal. Everything is a mental construct. Even if we claim something to be a substance, it is a substance only insofar as our minds make it so.


It indeed is not a political position, nor is it simple enough to be described as a metaphysical position. The term metaphysics is not a particularly meaningful one anyway (originating from Aristotle's publisher who first published Physics and then called the next book Metaphysics, as in after physics).

It certainly has meaning now. The meaning changed over time to be the study of the fundamental nature of reality. A better translation is "Beyond the Physics."


Idealism is a matter of world-view, how one sees and understands the world - so is materialism. Accordingly anyone religious automatically disqualifies from being seen as a materialist, although not all atheists are necessarily materialists either. Locke's Calvinism disqualifies him from being a materialist if not his conception of tabula rasa. Hobbes also is known to be religious and held the belief that the divine can't contradict reason and experience like Locke, and this is indeed at the root of the arguments of mainstream religion today.

Not at all. The world is material is the materialist position. That which is beyond the universe is immaterial and that is where God is.

Anyway, if you want to get technical I would argue that all of philosophy is a form of linguistic idealism, which would mean that any materialists would be idealists.


I think even those such as William of Ockham who defended a fully materialistic understanding of the actual, physical world around us and argued against the real core of idealism can't be regarded as a full fledged materialist because of his ontological belief in a necessary creator being, although he saw it as something which has to be held away from anything regarding our understanding of the physical world. However, while Ithink there can actually be a discussion on where people who at least border materialism very closely stand, like William of Ockham who exclusively applies its principles to the material world and separating the understanding of the physical reality from mysticis; I don't think there is any discussion about where those such as Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau whose understanding of the world is based on a marriage of reason and mysticism stand.

This ignores the Stoic conception, by which everything is material, including the soul and the gods.

[Leo]

No, its actually quite literal. Everything is a mental construct. Even if we claim something to be a substance, it is a substance only insofar as our minds make it so.Again, by this definition, neither Plato, nor Kant or Hegel are idealists.


It certainly has meaning now. The meaning changed over time to be the study of the fundamental nature of reality. A better translation is "Beyond the Physics."Does it? I am not sure. Lots of people seem to understand a different meaning from the term.


Not at all. The world is material is the materialist position.Few are foolish enough to claim that the world isn't material, what else would it be?

Plato's position, for example, is exactly that the world is material. He simply says that since the world is material it is constantly moving and changing and we can only perceive it through our senses. This, Plato says, is why we can only have opinions about them, true or false, but no knowledge because our perception itself might well be erroneous and knowledge, by definition, has to be true and thus can't be mistaken because of our error. Because of this and only this does Plato say that we can have knowledge only of ideas, or concepts. His position on the ontology of the said ideas changes as he ages.


That which is beyond the universe is immaterial and that is where God is.Yet the position of philosophers such as Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau relate the divine understanding of the immaterial to the rational understanding of the world.


Anyway, if you want to get technical I would argue that all of philosophy is a form of linguistic idealism, which would mean that any materialists would be idealists.You might, if you wish, which would qualify yourself as an idealist as well by that definition since yours would also be a philosophical position.


This ignores the Stoic conception, by which everything is material, including the soul and the gods. Although the Stoics aren't really that relevant to the original question here and William of Ockham is only an example, I would nevertheless not count the Stoics among the ancient materialists. You are right and they were pantheists and saw the god(s) as nature and their understanding of the universal soul was movement, and they believed the human soul to be mortal. This is a mystical conception, although surely it is a materialistic sort of mysticism. Ontologically they were slightly more materialistic than Aristotle as well. They did think all being was material, but not all things. Unlike Aristotle, they didn't think purely immaterial beings could exist by themselves although they did think they existed as abstract bodies. So for them, as it was for Aristotle, if a leaf was wet, it was because a minuscule part of the universal concept (or idea) of wetness was in it, but extended this to everything so for instance they thought if an apple was green, this was because a minuscule part of the universal concept of greenness was in it.

In the Greek/Roman antiquity, I think it could only be said that some of the pre-Socratic philosophers such as Democritus; Antisthenes, Diogenes of Sinope and the other cynics and Epicurus and his followers could be argued to be full-fledged materialists. The closes to their position in Medieval European philosophy is William of Ockham and the other nominalists, whereas I think it can be said that St. Augustine, Boethius and many other thinkers could be thought to be in line with Plato's way of thinking, while Peter Abelard could be said to be closest to the Stoics while heavily influenced by Aristotle as well, and the likes of Thomas Aquinias firmly stand in Aristotle's camp and defend his position. A later philosopher close with his pantheism to the stoics was Giordano Bruno. The materialist current in the Medieval Middle East was represented by the Dehriyyun and the most famous representative of this current was Ibn-al Rawandi. Later materialists include Hume, Diderot, d'Holbach, Feuerbach and of course Marx.

And as influential as all these people were or might have been for Marx as well as many others, I don't think that the world of philosophy is where we should be looking for if we are looking for the Marx of ancient and medieval eras. In the German Ideology, Marx says: "We know only a single science, the science of history." In this sense, what we should be looking for is a materialistic methodology in regards to history and this we find in Herodotus in the antiquity and Ibn-Khaldun in the Medieval ages.

[ChrisK]

Again, by this definition, neither Plato, nor Kant or Hegel are idealists.

No, they most certainly are. They all followed that definition.


Does it? I am not sure. Lots of people seem to understand a different meaning from the term.

That is the standard definition of the term used by those who study it.


Few are foolish enough to claim that the world isn't material, what else would it be?

Already told you. Mind.


Plato's position, for example, is exactly that the world is material. He simply says that since the world is material it is constantly moving and changing and we can only perceive it through our senses. This, Plato says, is why we can only have opinions about them, true or false, but no knowledge because our perception itself might well be erroneous and knowledge, by definition, has to be true and thus can't be mistaken because of our error. Because of this and only this does Plato say that we can have knowledge only of ideas, or concepts. His position on the ontology of the said ideas changes as he ages.

Plato was a dualist. In his ontology there is the material world and the world of the forms.


Yet the position of philosophers such as Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau relate the divine understanding of the immaterial to the rational understanding of the world.

I never said it was a tenable, I said that is what they argued for.


You might, if you wish, which would qualify yourself as an idealist as well by that definition since yours would also be a philosophical position.

No, that would not make me an idealist. I do not ascribe to any philosophical theory.

This will require more time than I have now, but will make a thread and philosophy and link to it.


Although the Stoics aren't really that relevant to the original question here and William of Ockham is only an example, I would nevertheless not count the Stoics among the ancient materialists. You are right and they were pantheists and saw the god(s) as nature and their understanding of the universal soul was movement, and they believed the human soul to be mortal. This is a mystical conception, although surely it is a materialistic sort of mysticism. Ontologically they were slightly more materialistic than Aristotle as well. They did think all being was material, but not all things. Unlike Aristotle, they didn't think purely immaterial beings could exist by themselves although they did think they existed as abstract bodies. So for them, as it was for Aristotle, if a leaf was wet, it was because a minuscule part of the universal concept (or idea) of wetness was in it, but extended this to everything so for instance they thought if an apple was green, this was because a minuscule part of the universal concept of greenness was in it.

In the Greek/Roman antiquity, I think it could only be said that some of the pre-Socratic philosophers such as Democritus; Antisthenes, Diogenes of Sinope and the other cynics and Epicurus and his followers could be argued to be full-fledged materialists. The closes to their position in Medieval European philosophy is William of Ockham and the other nominalists, whereas I think it can be said that St. Augustine, Boethius and many other thinkers could be thought to be in line with Plato's way of thinking, while Peter Abelard could be said to be closest to the Stoics while heavily influenced by Aristotle as well, and the likes of Thomas Aquinias firmly stand in Aristotle's camp and defend his position. A later philosopher close with his pantheism to the stoics was Giordano Bruno. The materialist current in the Medieval Middle East was represented by the Dehriyyun and the most famous representative of this current was Ibn-al Rawandi. Later materialists include Hume, Diderot, d'Holbach, Feuerbach and of course Marx.

And as influential as all these people were or might have been for Marx as well as many others, I don't think that the world of philosophy is where we should be looking for if we are looking for the Marx of ancient and medieval eras. In the German Ideology, Marx says: "We know only a single science, the science of history." In this sense, what we should be looking for his a materialistic methodology in regards to history and this we find in Herodotus in the antiquity and Ibn-Khaldun in the Medieval ages.

It seems to me that you want to equate materialism to atomism. Maybe I'm misreading you, but atomism is one subcategory of materialism.

Also, I would deny that Marx is a materialist in this sense of the term.

[Hermes]

I'm probably wrong, but if we're going by dictionary definitions, there are five different definitions of idealism in my dictionary and only one of them is the one you describe, ChristoferKoch. My dictionary could be wrong or I could be misunderstanding you, but idealism is most certainly more than just what you describe.

Even though I think we're just arguing semantics, now.

[Leo]

No, they most certainly are. They all followed that definition.


Plato was a dualist. In his ontology there is the material world and the world of the forms.

You just say Plato was a dualist, a few lines after claiming he thought everything was made up of the mind.

In any case, only the middle aged Plato was clearly a dualist, I'd say. When younger, I don't think he was clear on the question, and when he was older (for example in his dialogues such as Parmanides) he started questioning his previous work and thought he went too far about his position on the ontological existence of ideas.


That is the standard definition of the term used by those who study it.

No they didn't. Idealism is not claiming that matter doesn't exist, the question is how the mind relates to matter. Idealism claiming that matter is shaped by the mind. It is a question of precedent. The traditional idealist position is universalia ante res, universal concepts before the things. The classic materialist position is universalia post res, universal concepts after the things. The middle position, universalia in rebus, the universal concepts in the things has been regarded as materialist by the traditional idealists and idealist by the materialists. Evidently, I agree with the later perspective.


I never said it was a tenable, I said that is what they argued for.

You called it materialist. There is nothing materialist about it.


I do not ascribe to any philosophical theory.

There are no philosophical theories, only philosophical positions. This isn't science we are talking about.


It seems to me that you want to equate materialism to atomism. Maybe I'm misreading you, but atomism is one subcategory of materialism.

Only two of the many I mentioned were atomists, namely Diogenes and Epicurus. Marx was quite in favor of the opinions of the latter, and wrote excessively about him: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1839/notebook/index.htm http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1841/dr-theses/index.htm


Also, I would deny that Marx is a materialist in this sense of the term.

He was a materialist in the sense of the above mentioned materialists, but also more. All these mentioned people were, at the end of the day, materialists but not historical materialists.

[Luís Henrique]

You might, if you wish, which would qualify yourself as an idealist as well by that definition since yours would also be a philosophical position.

ChristopherKoch is under the delusion that he doesn't hold philosophic positions.

Luís Henrique

[Franz Fanonipants]

i hope not rosseau was fucking terrible

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Smith and Ricardo were strong influences on Marx's thinking on economic issues. And Hegel for his work on dialectics, of course.

[Leo]

ChristopherKoch is under the delusion that he doesn't hold philosophic positions.

... why?

[Luís Henrique]

... why?

You mean, why is he, or why do I think he is?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

In this sense, what we should be looking for is a materialistic methodology in regards to history and this we find in Herodotus in the antiquity and Ibn-Khaldun in the Medieval ages.

I think Thucydides would be a much better choice than Herodotus.

Luís Henrique

[Leo]

You mean, why is he, or why do I think he is?

Why he is. It is a really strange position to have.


I think Thucydides would be a much better choice than Herodotus.

Purely as a historian, Thucydides is certainly superior to Heredotus. However, Thucydides' work is limited to a single military conflict which he lived through and told the story of, that is the History of the Peloponnesian War. Herodotus, on the other hand, while telling the story of a far longer period for the entire known ancient world, uses a methodology which tells us not only an account of what has happened but also how the different societies of the ancient world lived and thought, their stories, their myths and Herodotus does draw materialistic conclusions about history itself, such as "Circumstances rule men; men do not rule circumstances".

[Luís Henrique]

Why he is. It is a really strange position to have.

Well, you would have to ask him. My best guess is this:

I also say it would be a waste of time as philosophical language contains no true meaning. Ie, philosophical statements and problems are nonsense. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/marx-wittgenstein-and-t144863/index.html?p=1924100&highlight=philosophical#post1924100)

Luís Henrique

[Sans]

Well, you would have to ask him. My best guess is this:

I also say it would be a waste of time as philosophical language contains no true meaning. Ie, philosophical statements and problems are nonsense.


Well, a question is what constitutes a philosophical position.

I think we should respect the idea that people can hold no philosophical position in the traditional sense, given that they categorize metaphysics a certain way (f.ex. as 'pictures' failing to picture any situation). However, that in itself can certainly be said to be a philosophical position in the broad sense, though it is not strictly metaphysics. It is a philosophy of language, I'd say.