Rousseau has been a fascinating read, and clear proof that an elegant style of writing can lend a great deal of perceived credibility to its author. As an added layer of security, Rousseau is quick to point out that he is only speaking "conjectures" (pg. 132, Exordium), and is not referencing supernatural revelation or the opinions of any underdeveloped sciences (Part 1, Paragraph 1). In a word, these thoughts are based on Rousseau's observations of man in Society (probably where he was living) and in more Savage states (the oft referenced Caribs), and stretch back in time by means of Philosophy to man in his original State of Nature: alone, simple-minded, able-bodied, and untroubled.
Rousseau is the first of the philosophers we have read that has depicted pre-Society man in any sort of favorable terms, and it calls ethical systems such as Aristotle's directly into question. How can we maintain that theoria is man's highest aim if he has no need of such a complicated activity in his original State? Are the intellectual virtues just man's coping mechanisms for life in Society, where appearance takes such a large role? Even if we were to try to reject the exercise of our intellectual capacities, could we even be successful in our attempt to return back to our original, simple State?
Undoubtedly, no. The complications and influence of society on our body and mind are practically inescapable at this point. We must find some way to live with our "overdeveloped" intellectual capacities. As Rousseau points out, we never develop any capacity unnecessarily, so there must be some way to make use of this extra faculty. To try and neglect it will surely lead to a feeling of discontent and unease. Even in light of our Savage nature, we must embrace our biggest defect: our intellect. We may never be able to live in the State of Nature, but we can make the best of our Society-adjusted selves by doing what Savage man did naturally: to exercise our capacities as they are naturally suited to us, and to avoid unnecessary desires.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Note: I have not read Nietzsche, but what little I do know suggests that he would disagree vehemently with my conclusion.
ReplyDeleteI think you're right. We must proceed like Stoics. There is no sense in wishing for a state of nature to which it is absolutely impossible to return.
ReplyDeleteRousseau is justified in talking about the state of nature because this is an inquiry into the origin of inequality. But, if we take Rousseau seriously, I think we would have to leave the state of nature behind in future inquiries because how man behaves there has no bearing on how we should behave now.
You may have just been speaking casually and I may be reading too heavily into your words, but I don't think Rousseau would define an overdeveloped intellect as man's greatest defect. He even refers to it as man's "perfectibility." But then he never goes on to describe it in terms that sound nearer perfection than the Savage man.
ReplyDeleteI'm starting to wonder if Rousseau's point is that the societies he was writing about were conditioning the intellect in the wrong direction. Surely if it is perfectible it is also corruptible. Maybe it is not a matter of turning back to Nature but toward perfectibility in a way that society does not currently encourage.
Allow me to answer you a bit unconventionally:
ReplyDeleteBuilding a tower of cards is extremely difficult. Not only do you have to worry about knocking it over yourself, your environment can completely ruin any and all of your work in an instant. But, if you were able to find the perfect environment, and you were able to practice for long enough, you may actually be able to build a tower of cards - perhaps even hone your tower-making skills far beyond what would have been possible in a normal environment.
Just as it may be possible to perfect one's card-tower-making skills, I believe the intellect is perfectible as well. The problem is the environment, or the Society, surrounding that intellect. Thus far, it has done nothing but hold back intellectual perfection.
So is the intellect perfectible? Possibly. If "the ideal environment" (whatever that would be) could be found, then yes. But does Society, as it has been and is now, allow for perfectibility? Not at all. It really has only led to problems. Fortunately, we can still fight against these problems, and it is this very process of undoing Society's damage that we must go through if we wish to perfect our intellect.
@ Mr. Lefavor: does insight into the state of nature really have "no bearing" on how we should behave now?
ReplyDeleteI think Mr. Stabenfeld has a very worthy point.
One wonders what a society would be like that was adequately aware of how social conditions pervert healthy natural learning and desire. If we tried to let healthy natural inclinations thrive (as some might say Montessori and Waldorf schools try to do with young children) we could do much better than we do. Of course, all this hinges on widespread insight into a natural, healthy human condition, and it is precisely this that society seems to erode.