Rousseau

[James]

Thoughts?

I'm just starting the discourse now; got lecture and seminar on thursday.

[Angry Young Man]

was rosseau a bourgeois philosopher? he influenced the french revolution, a bourgeois one according to marx. wat are his valid points?

[James]

Well its been over a year since i last read anything about him/had any lectures etc.

He was bourgeois in that he wasn't marxist. He pre-dates marxism.
I think it would be fair to describe him as a "communitarian". One of his biggest ideas is the "social contract".

But this specific piece (A Discourse on inequality) that i'm about to read is about inequality (i think)

[tolstoyevski]

Wikipedia can be very helpful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rousseau

Many of his ideas are used by bourgeois, but he is one of the first thinkers who saw the property as the origin of inequality...
Communist leaders are inspired by his idea of "general will" which is about common benefit of the society..
But his "social contract" idea is totally bourgeois esp. in the conditions of master-slave conditions of history. Platon writes about some kind of social contract in his work called "State" and after him Hobbes and Locke developes this fiction. It's non scientific, for we know that a revolution is needed to dethrone the present power. A higher class wouldn't leave his power without fighting. You can't persuade somebody to be a slave. And slaves cannot persuade their masters to set them free without fighting.

Rousseau suggests a turning back to the arms of nature, 'cause civilization is the origin of badness in the present world.

Main ideas:
general will
social contract
decline of civilisation
decline of theatre (for it makes us hypocritical)

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 04:29 PM
was rosseau a bourgeois philosopher? he influenced the french revolution, a bourgeois one according to marx. wat are his valid points?

He was one of the first materialists and was most definitely influential figure on the young Marx.

[James]

AS:
Yeah i think you are onto something there.
He predates marxism, so in that sense will automatically be "non marxist".


He does seem to be a major communitarian.


(btw, his book is certainly boring. I hate reading olde books. takes so long for them to get to their point. Although mill has got to be one of the worst for this)

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Jan 24 2006, 07:51 PM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Jan 24 2006, 07:51 PM)
[email protected] 24 2006, 04:29 PM
was rosseau a bourgeois philosopher? he influenced the french revolution, a bourgeois one according to marx. wat are his valid points?

He was one of the first materialists and was most definitely influential figure on the young Marx. [/b]
That is laughable; I guess there were no materialists during the Greco-roman epoch?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by James+Jan 25 2006, 01:07 AM--> (James @ Jan 25 2006, 01:07 AM) AS:
Yeah i think you are onto something there. [/b]

I aim to please. :)


Monty Cantsin
That is laughable; I guess there were no materialists during the Greco-roman epoch?

My mistake.

I suppose he could be called one of the first modern materialists?

[Scars]

As you can probably tell from my sig, I'm a supporter of Rousseau.

Why is Rousseau important and progressive? His most important development was identifying property as the base cause of inequality and the effects that inequality has had on humanity (for instance causing and perpetuating things like greed, envy etc). This is found in 'A discourse on the Origins of Inequality' (which can be found here: http://www.constitution.org/jjr/ineq.htm).

His education theory is also very progressive and I agree with much of what he said. Many of the conclusions that he came to were independently adopted in many Socialist nations, particularly China where practical experience was held in higher regard than pieces of paper. His education theory is largely summed up in Emile (http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/pedagogies/rousseau/Contents2.html).

His main political text is The Social Contract, which was almost the handbook for politicians in the French Revolution. It's a mix, some of it I agree with, some of it I do not. Regardless of this it is very important because of the influence that it had on the French Revolution, which is one of the most important revolutions ever. The Social Contract can be found here: http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.htm.

Was he a bourgeois philosopher? Not really. He predated Marx by more than 100 years, so in that sense he was not a Marxist then yes, he was 'bourgeois'. But he was probably the most critical of bourgeoise society and its values and from an economic point of view he was most certainly not bourgeois- he supported himself largely by doing odd jobs (tutoring, copying music, secretarial work) between running from the authorities and being thrown out of various countries. I believe his more important and valid as a social and education theorist than a political theorist- but I also believe that social concerns are more important than politics, so that suits me just fine.

Rousseau is one of those figures than many people know about but few people understand or have actually read. The most common thing that people know about is his theory of the 'noble savage', but the descriptions that they give are largely inaccurate. Primitive does not immediately equate to a noble savage. In addition most people limit their reading to the thing they are interested in- political scientists read the Social Contract, Sociologists read the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, teachers read Emile- few people bother reading all 3.

I'd encourage everyone to read his works, particularly the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. It's well worth your time.

[James]

I've just been reading over his section on language. More specifically, just got to the bit where he says that he is too scared to attempt to asnwer:
"which was the most necessary, society already formed to invent language or languages already invented to form society".

I may be reading it wrong, but it does seem that he "prefers" the "noble savage".

[James]

have you read discoure on the arts and sciences?



I have just finished discourse on inequality part one and two. He makes a few interesting points, but was rather boring and long winded (reminded me of Mill - although they argue the complete different things).
I'm not convinced by his assumption that in the state of nature, humans are solitary creatures. Indeed, his whole thesis seems to rest on this (because civil society is where humans come into contact with one another, which leads to competition, self comparison, pride, hatred, urge for power etc.

Have you seen equilibrium?

[Vanguard1917]

We studied Rousseau last year, though i tried my best to avoid him and i didn't write any essays on him. I prefered Locke, Hobbes and Machiavelli. Marx was OK, too. :o

When it comes to studying modern political theorists, E.B. Macpherson's book The political theory of possessive individualism: Hobbes to Locke is always a good place to start. It's likely to be on your reading list. Have a look at it if you haven't already.

[James]

cheers for the book title. They have it in the library according to their website, so i'll pick one up tomorrow.

Ah well we are doing some different thinkers - last term we did liberty/individualism (Hobbes, Locke, Mill, Hayek), this term we are doing equality/community (rousseau, marx, fabians, rawls). I think i share your view of rousseau. I definetly prefer locke to mill and rous for readability. Hobbes too, considering how old it is. Also found hayek very interesting.

[Scars]

<<have you read discoure on the arts and sciences?>>

Yeah, I largely agree with its ideas (for those who haven&#39;t read it, essentially it argues that the development of science and the arts have perpetuated and even created many of the &#39;bad&#39; aspects of society, for instance greed, envy, vanity etc. It&#39;s similar to many Anarcho-Primitivist arguements, but Rousseau denies that you can move society backwards in the way that Primitivists say you can), I don&#39;t think that the arts and science have been half as benefical as people make them out to be, but at the same time I do not believe that their development have been all bad and many of the negative aspects created by the development of the arts and technology are made worse by the existance of Capitalism.

<<I have just finished discourse on inequality part one and two. He makes a few interesting points, but was rather boring and long winded (reminded me of Mill - although they argue the complete different things). >>

Part One is probably the more intesting and better written, but it is quite long winded. However that was the style of the time and most writers (philosophical or otherwise) of that time did write in a style that we would deem long winded and boring. Besides, it&#39;s no worse than Marx and more poetic.

<<I&#39;m not convinced by his assumption that in the state of nature, humans are solitary creatures.>>

At the time that assumption was completely valid. However now it would seem that humans lived in small family groups, however the basic principles remain the same- the family group would work together for their own benefit, sharing things equally etc (&#39;Primitive Communism&#39;) and civil society only emerged when family groups came into contact with one another. Because of the time span it&#39;s difficult to make any concreate assertions about how it was back then.

<<Have you seen equilibrium?>>

No, but I&#39;ve been meaning to.

<<I may be reading it wrong, but it does seem that he "prefers" the "noble savage".>>

Yeah, I&#39;d say he did see the noble savage to be superior to modern humans and he would argue that at that level of development technology, arts, science etc would be utterly irrelivant so the &#39;lack of culture&#39; wouldn&#39;t be a factor to them.

Howver in the modern context he would say that people should attempt to be like their noble savage ancestors by living a simple life, rejecting materialism, etc as opposed to advocating some sort of rolling back of the clock.

[Apka]

this term we are doing equality/community (rousseau, marx, fabians, rawls).

You should add Ronald Dworkin to that list.. i&#39;d recomend "The Theory and Practice of Equality".

[James]

there is something about rousseau&#39;s arguments that unnerve me. I can&#39;t put my finger on it yet. Although i think it is wraped up in his belief in a "higher state".

[Bannockburn]

I may be reading it wrong, but it does seem that he "prefers" the "noble savage".

Yeah, about as much as Nietzsche prefers master morality. In all fact JJR in the beginning of the discourse seems to give an inclination towards this term, "noble savage", but you&#39;ll see that if left on their own, they too will eventually destroy themselves. Its later on, or just go to wiki, and it tells you there.

All the social-contrat theorist are half and half. JJR was for the french what Locke was for the Americans. Yet, funny thing is - the whole state of nature in all cases can not be demostrated, and can never be. No reason to believe it then.

[James]

Yeah i have to read the social contract this week, so i guess his philosophy will become clearer to me.

I agree: like many from his general period it seems to be based on an abstract hypothetical situation.

[Scars]

<<like many from his general period it seems to be based on an abstract hypothetical situation.>>

Because that&#39;s all they had to work with. Sociology and Anthropology didn&#39;t really exist and what little work that was done was not easily available and was very limited. Besides, Rousseau&#39;s hypothosis about the state of nature is no less probably than Hobbe&#39;s Darwinistic survival of the fittest state of nature and from the little evidence available there&#39;s every chance that Rousseau&#39;s hypothosis is correct (or atleast more correct than the other extreme) as any fighting would be done out of necessity and because of the incredibly low population density it&#39;d easy to avoid or flee other groups.

<<the whole state of nature in all cases can not be demostrated, and can never be. No reason to believe it then.>>

It&#39;s likely evolution will never be fully demonstrated- should we stop believing that too? It&#39;s philosophy, not science, thus obviously it can never be falsified (and falsification is the hallmark of a science).

[James]

now reading the social contract.
I must say; it is MUCH better.

(also i read in another commentary that rousseau changed his mind, inbetween discourse and social contract regarding liberty and society).

[James]

I&#39;m finding this site to provide a reasonable summary and analysis:

http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/socialcontract/

[James]

"In a word, besides the principles that are common to all, every nation has in itself something that gives them a particular application, and makes its legislation peculiarly its own. Thus, among the Jews long ago and more recently among the Arabs, the chief object was religion, among the Athenians letters, at Carthage and Tyre commerce, at Rhodes shipping, at Sparta war, at Rome virtue. The author of The Spirit of the Laws has shown with many examples by what art the legislator directs the constitution towards each of these objects. What makes the constitution of a State really solid and lasting is the due observance of what is proper, so that the natural relations are always in agreement with the laws on every point, and law only serves, so to speak, to assure, accompany and rectify them. But if the legislator mistakes his object and adopts a principle other than circumstances naturally direct; if his principle makes for servitude while they make for liberty, or if it makes for riches, while they make for populousness, or if it makes for peace, while they make for conquest — the laws will insensibly lose their influence, the constitution will alter, and the State will have no rest from trouble till it is either destroyed or changed, and nature has resumed her invincible sway."

- i think this is a rather good warning to those that think they can simply "place" a form of government on a people.

[James]

can someone help me?
I don&#39;t understand where he thinks laws come from. He seems pritty keen on a "law giver". He seems to also be inspired by the concept of a "divine source" (i don&#39;t think you can ignore his belief in God).

[Scars]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 08:20 PM
can someone help me?
I don&#39;t understand where he thinks laws come from. He seems pritty keen on a "law giver". He seems to also be inspired by the concept of a "divine source" (i don&#39;t think you can ignore his belief in God).
By law giver I&#39;d imagine he means the Soverign (the collective that expresses the General Will). The general will determines what laws are and are not needed on the basis of what is in the common good for the general population.

Can you ignore his Christianity? No, probably not. However God plays a very small part in his works and his concept of Christianity and God were very different to the &#39;norms&#39; of both French and Swiss society at the time. However it is most certainly no reason to dismiss him. Besides, Chavez seems to be incredibly popular at the moment, and he&#39;s most certainly a more observant Christian than Rousseau ever was.

[James]

Oh no, i wasn&#39;t attacking him for his christianity.
I&#39;m not convinced by your explanation for lawgiving.

Would you mind reading book 2, law section again please? It seems like it needs a "divine outsider". The people only become moral once they have laws, but only the moral can give them laws.
Or so it seems.

Like with him and poland/corsica (writing their constitutions)

[James]

just read Charles Dicken&#39;s piece on savages - which was partly in response to such works as rousseau (which idealised a noble savage, compared modern society with a state of nature etc).
Granted alot of it is crude racism, it did prove to be an interesting read.

[JasonJ]

If anyone is truly interested in discussing Rousseau more thoroughly, I have devoted most of my blogspace to this very discussion. I was arguing the merits of the Social Contract with a capitalist type until recently when I hurt his widdle feewings. Anyhow, I would love to discuss the finer points with anyone interested in such discourse.

You can find me at just left of center (http://justleftofcenter.blogspot.com/)

[James]

i replied a few days ago: you havn&#39;t got around to answering yet.
This is what i posted:


Ok i&#39;m still in the process of reading his work, and reading various commentaries. On this specific area of his work i have various points of interest that i would like to raise.

Rousseau argues that the citizens should be “excessively dependent” on the state. Why? To garuntee the freedom from dependence on another man (“toute dependence personnelle”). This clearly shows how Rousseaus concept of freedom comes from elimination of the king, or master. It is the freedom that he sought when he was a servant to a diplomat. It is the freedom from a single master. He sees danger in a master of one man: he seems to see no danger when the master is not one man, but an institution (the majority).


According to Rousseau, men become truly free when they enact their own laws. However, Rousseau also argues that men are ignorant. It is not the “free will”, or conscience that is the source of truth/morality/”the way”, but the general will/general good. Indeed, such “freedom” of enacting their own law is secondary: “one does not have to progress very far through the pages of the social contract to see how modest this role of enactment is allowed to become” (introduction, page 42, The social contract, penguin classics).

This leads us onto how laws emerge. To Rousseau, men can’t be trusted to form the original laws: there is a need for a law giver (“freedom for Rousseau consists of putting oneself willingly under rules devised by someone else” (ibid)).

Indeed, his other works, especially Emile, reveals how Rousseau views the “Tutor” as dominant figure. This translates, in his Social contract, into the importance/dominance of the lawgiver. The people, in effect, need someone to save them from themselves. They need an englightened person to spark the process off. To me, this shows how his concept of the General Will is flawed. It shows how the General Will is not democratic, but simply one specific “purpose” or “perception” of the “good life” (common good). Who or what is the original source? A great man? A religion (he was after all a Christian)?


The concept of a general will is messianic.
Rousseau states:
"the general will is always right and tends to the public advantage; but it does not follow that the deliberations of the people are always equally correct."

Combine this with the "Legislator" chapter in book two, and i say that here be the foundations for totalitarianism (as seen later by the Social Contract inspired Jacobin dictatorship and the Great Terror).