Response to Rousseau
One key aspect of Western philosophy which is applicable to both modern and historical politics and which is discussed at length by Rousseau is that concept, or set of concepts, which views politics as a necessary, but imperfect, way to grapple with human nature and the self-interests which are believed to drive human behavior. Although this perception of human nature has opposing views among Western philosophers such as Locke, I took the collective impact of Rousseau's observation that: "In the state of nature, where everything is common, I owe nothing to him whom I have promised nothing; I recognise as belonging to others only what is of no use to me. In the state of society all rights are fixed by law, and the case becomes different" (Rousseau) as an affirmation of traditional Western philosophical ideas. Rousseau's social contract theory evidences a set of penetrating insights into the hierarchical and self-interested aspects of humanity, which in some ways, by some points of view seemed contrary, to me, to the essential viewpoint and philosophical perspective which may be necessary for Western society to embrace in the future. So an important insight for me, in fact, the most important insight in my opinion is that these great philosophers denote, to a very large degree, the visions of the past, and ideas about politics, which, while still very current, are probably apt to evolve in the future. One might even go so far as to suggest that the present, with its global discord and challenges presents a time of "punctuated equilibrium" for Western philosophical and political thought.
To begin with, Rousseau's grappling with the seemingly contradictory origin of personhood which he views as being largely defined by the role in society an individual occupies and provides, with his simultaneous intimation that the role and place one has in society will probably be determined by one's individual capacities and talents, namely: one's personhood. Though Rousseau's reasoning on this issue may seem, at first glance, to be incomplete, or even paradoxical, a close reading of the ideas and concepts put forward by Rousseau reveals that his ideas are not, in fact, circular or contradictory, but emerge from an even more deeply embedded philosophical tradition in Western society. These deeply rooted assumptions, originating from philosophers such as Hobbes, but extending back to Plato's Republic have proven to offer a profitable foundation on which many other philosophical ideas have been based. When Rousseau writes the following passage, his declaration is rooted in a sense of natural being -- what man is in a so-called "state of nature" is also applicable to what role he plays in society :
The human species has, I think, two sorts of inequality: the one I call natural or physical because it is established by nature, and consists of differences in age, health, physical strength, and traits of the mind or soul; the other kind we can call moral or political inequality, for it depends on a sort of convention and is established, or at least sanctioned, by the consent of men.
(Rousseau, 1999, p. 23)
The trick with this passage is to understand that beneath the all-too-obvious social hierarchy that is inferred by the statement, Rousseau's intentions are to demonstrate that the function of human society is, in fact, to criticize that same society by contrasting its hierarchical functions (which are based in "primitive nature") with the latent capacities of the individuals who are, themselves, defined by the hierarchy. For Rousseau, the methods by which men achieve power over one another plays the same function in nature as it does within human society
My thought is that any distinction of hierarchy where the intimation is that the rule of one class over another is both natural and necessary, will result in the erosion of culture in both the ruling and subjected classes. However, I would suggest that the historical case of African American slavery represents a very apt model for how the political philosophies of hierarchy can lead to enduring corruption because the contemporary political situation of the United States both domestically and internationally, is still very much connected to race and race-based hierarchies. By following Rousseau's idea that the ruled must be led by their rulers, there is a feeling in my mind that an entirely different mode of thinking could be and should be engaged, not to vindicate, but to rescue the world from the antiquated philosophies of the past. The point at which the self-interest of leaders becomes, itself, the most dangerous threat to any nation, culture, or society, is among the most important lessons I learned from the reading of Rousseau, at least in terms of concretizing these ideas, as I understood them, to a working, historical reality. Rousseau's writings intimate that humanity may, by the light of its rationality, reclaim a utopian, or near-utopian, society. Balanced against the idea of social order is Rousseau's firm conviction that the most important factor, in the formation of a just society, would be the preservation of the individual liberties of each of the citizens in that society. To Rousseau, a society which contained too may laws or rules, whether intended to ensure liberty or simply to oppress people, would be undesirable. Any ideal society must ensure the freedom of its citizens while simultaneously preserving their safety and the productivity of the society as a whole. Therefore, it would be logical to assume that one of the most important reforms in an ideal society would be concerned with educational reform. In Rousseau's vision, knowledge would be considered the most important "possession" or accomplishment. Due to the fact that individual liberty is a keystone for a just society, no-one in a postulated ideal society should be forced to pursue any endeavor whether they have aptitude for it or not, but all should be encouraged to find their inner-talent and special interests as the highest achievable goal in life. That and respecting the rights of all others to pursue their individual talent and skills and interests.
This type of vision runs in opposition to Rousseau's philosophical predecessor, Plato, whose "Republic" postulated an ideal society. Plato's exhaustive treatment of the theme of justice in "The Republic" s articulated by Socrates results not only in the probing of metaphysical and philosophical themes, but in the theoretical construction of the ideal society, envisioned as a great city during the symposium where "The Republic" takes place. The primary focus point of the structure of the society is the pursuit or emulation of Plato's ultimate notion of justice; however, the specifics of social order and political government seem far from "just" or ideal to a modern reader such as myself. To begin with, Plato's notion of "class" strikes the modern reader of being merely a euphemism for "caste system" and the resultant lack of individual liberty and freedom seems more autocratic than ideal. Plato's idea of class emerges from the top down, so to speak, in that he recommends that the ideal city be ruled by an elite. Likewise, Plato's observations on class extend to the "wage-earners" and soldiers, as well as the philosopher-rulers; women and children and slaves also form separate classes. So, although Plato's conception of the ideal society is envisioned from the top down, the foundation of the ideal city actually rests upon the shoulders of those classes which he most disparaged. (Plato,1991).
This kind of imaginative flight serves two purposes relative to the present discussion, the first is that it shows that Rousseau retained an essentially positivistic vision of both history and of human society and human capacities, the second is that it reveals a "redemptive" quality to Rousseau's philosophical ideas. In other words, Rousseau is suggesting, just as he insisted on a glorious past for humanity in a former "state of nature" he is intimating a future which can redeem the present and the road to that future is paved by human rationality and our capacity to understand our circumstances, materially and philosophically. And this point, which may seem hazy at best, is -- in point of fact -- the point of the argument which "solves" Rousseau's apparent paradox regarding the contradiction of self-possession and social hierarchy. The old schism between natural inequality and natural liberty. The solution to the paradox is, obviously: human rationality and the postulated future it will access. Unlike Hobbes who saw the world reduced to power; Rousseau sees it as reduced to potential extrapolated by human rationality. (Ewin, 1991).
Such an assertion does resolve the paradox and it replaces Hobbes more cynical vision with a vision of human capacity which should serve to simultaneously ignite a sense of individual freedom and capacity and civic responsibility and civic pride. However, it is precisely the postulating of this vision which serves as the morally redemptive capacity in Rousseau's world-vision. Set against the context of his philosophical vision, only the light of human rationality offers an adequate redress to the estrangement humanity now faces in its "civic" state.
While it may yet be true that all acts of a political nature are rooted in self-interest, it is not a matter of public-service, but of public passivity, which allows such self-ambition to manifest and impact on politics and society. However strong the rational conclusions, observations, and inspired thoughts of these past philosophers --to my mind -- none of the theories offered seem to address the issues which seem most problematic and current in contemporary society. By following the ideas in these philosophical systems which elevate self-interest, social schism, warfare, and political expedience, the social, political, and cultural resources of the West are weakened, not strengthened.
References
Ewin, R. E. (1991). Virtues and Rights: The Moral Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Plato. (1991). The Republic of Plato (Bloom, A., Trans.) (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.
Rousseau, J. (1999). Discourse on the Origin of Inequality (P. Coleman, Ed.) (Philip, F., Trans.).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Good Links
www.paperpimp.biz
www.warpapers.weebly.com
www.poetrypapers.weebly.com
www.papaspapers.weebly.com
www.poepapers.weebly.com
www.plathpapers.yolasite.com
www.poetrycritiques.biz
ww.speakingofshakespeare.yolasite.com
