Was Rousseau a philosophe?

2011-10-07T12:36:00.003-04:00

Jean Jacques Rousseau was a philosophe, to use the colloquial term, to the nth degree.

Where Dumarsais would claim, “The philosopher forms his principles from an infinity of particular observations,” Rousseau takes the reader through his Discourse on Inequality, No. 2 with his “spirit of observation and exactness” on clear display (Kramnick 22). Dumarsais explains the philosopher does not cultivate the mind alone, but “carries his attention and needs further” (22).

Rousseau, though possibly failing on the side of forced civil formality, thought his thoughts, sought out the origins of his thoughts, scoured the resources to build a foundation upon which his Truth could stand, and presented to his fellow citizens an argument for the Social Contract, which transforms the idea of government for the people, and, by the people.

First, to tend to the “possibility” that Rousseau failed in the forced civil formality: Upon reading his Discourse, this reader did not find herself remarking on the revelation of an irascible personality, which would cast him from the category of philosophe, if the definition in Dumarsais’ Encyclopedie is the final word on what a philosophe is, when he states, “[the philosophe] tried to be agreeable to those with whom chance and his choice have thrown him” (22).

Although, some declarations, once learning Rousseau was a difficult person to get along with, would stand out in this light, such as, “… it was iron and corn, which first civilized men, and ruined humanity” (Rousseau 5). To be frank, that is a pretty heavy statement; one this reader could imagine igniting the ire of those in the room, since humanity was defined by progress and the creations of the artisans who worked with iron, the wars they were able to support, and the agrarian societies, and the surplus of corn it produced to support the military, were all tied into this progress. How could progress ruin humanity when it was humane to progress?

Removing Rousseau’s personality from the question of whether or not he was a philosophe, and sticking only to his Discourse on Inequality, the reader is pushed past the confines of questioning the Church and Religion and into questioning her own culpability in being born free, but running “headlong into [her] chains in hopes of securing [her] liberty” (Rousseau). While Rousseau is said to have distrusted reason and science, which were paramount in the foundation for the philosophes, it is with extreme reason and clarity he is able to chisel away at “the sanction of divine right to sovereign authority,” for example, and poke and prod those who thought themselves above any higher questioning of themselves; could the enlightened be even more enlightened (Rousseau 15)?

The philosophe “loves society extremely,” and Rousseau’s discourse is evidence of this, in that, the obvious yoke of the Church around the neck of the people was sitting on top of the one passed down since “the first man … found people simple enough to believe” the ground he enclosed was his: property, and only a person who cared would take the extensive time and the exhaustive research to make this so clear to others (Rousseau 1). Again, answering the question, Is Rousseau a philosophe, based on his Discourse, and not how he personally got along with everyone, since this would take him out of the running as a philosophe, as he would be labeled the “ordinary philosopher” who is savage toward everyone and flees them, and avoids them, the Discourse reflects meditation and participation, observation and contemplation, and study (Kramnick 22).

The grounds of Reason are used by Rousseau to question the grounds upon which people work, played, worshipped and slept: the borders they accepted between themselves and their neighbors, the jobs they accepted, the role in society they held were based on an unquestioning acceptance of what it means to personally own property, rather than collectively, and the worst in man is propagated through the ownership of property, not because man is bad, but good, if he is allowed to be (Kramnick 139).

Immanuel Kant remarked, “Enlightenment is man’s release from his self-incurred tutelage” (1). Moving from the Discourse and to Rousseau’s “Profession of Faith of a Savoyard Vicar,” Rousseau, again, has taken this idea of release from a tangible, tutelage, and, this enlightening and threatening idea of thinking for oneself, and pushes it past the narrow confines to, not only, think for oneself, but recognize the self, the individual, as the sole responsibility for the evil and suffering in the world: evil is not natural, the individual is the author of evil (139).

Rousseau identifies and expounds upon a yoke that is under the yoke of manmade inequality: personal responsibility; no longer “the devil made me do it,” no longer subject to another’s “book which understands for me, a pastor who has a conscience for me,” but, I am responsible for me, and I am part of humanity, Homo sun, humani a me nihil alienum puto (1/22). Rousseau is a philosophe who is “full of humanity,” when he shines the light on justice, which has nothing to do with coming from on high; workings outside of the individual, which would betray the lack of freedom; the chains in hopes of securing liberty, and everything to do with the infinite freedom of each individual recognizing the “infinite power and self-love” within (139). Rousseau espoused not only thinking for oneself, but be fully conscience of one’s existence: Born without shackles, live without shackles, and within this freedom will come the natural inclination to work well with others.

Rousseau, a philosophe, unraveled Truth everywhere he perceived it (21).

Kramnick, Isaac. The Portable Enlightenment Reader.

Revamping.

2011-07-01T11:37:00.004-04:00

Thank you for stopping by. I have decided to take everything down; I hope you have been catching Rae Dunn in France--beautiful photos and pottery.

Raedunn.blogspot.com

What was

Was Rousseau a philosophe?

Revamping.