In what ways do Rousseau's reflections on progress seem consistent with other readings thus far in the course? In what ways does he seem to depart from the other seventeenth- and eighteenth-century writers we've been talking about?
Cite evidence from the texts to support your claims. As always, you are welcome to take issue with someone else's point, so long as you do so kindly and collegially.
Deadline: Wednesday (9/16), start of class.
Posts
9 comments:
Jacques Rousseau is the crack in the mold of uniformity. Rousseau is completely different from any of the authors we have read thus far in the terms of style, tone, and beliefs. His attitude towards the arts and sciences might be considered by some, notably the Royal Society, as a form of blasphemy. For example, Rousseau says "Before art had new molded our behaviors, and taught our passions to talk an affected language, our manners were indeed rustic, but sincere and natural"(365). Art and science has plagued and deformed what Rousseau held dearly, simplicity. A human's natural ability to recognize and infer a person's true character and value died with the birth of progress. Moreover, progress is only a recording of past events played in a continuous loop.
I would agree that Rousseau's content and tone (after all, it is a critique of the progress, not a praise), is different from the other optimistic authors we've read thus far as he does hold simplicity and virtue higher over science and the arts. He considered these to be frivolous, but it's hard to say whether he is being groundbreaking, or rather usurping the original contradictions that the Royal Society faced in the first place. It was they that were called blasphemous, they that were the outsiders, gaining knowledge where the Church and others thought man should not be curious of. This is not to say that Rousseau does not make good points, and I would very much agree (with the above comment) that he thinks character and virtue die with the extended knowledge of science and arts. But it seems like a very extended version of "Ignorance is bliss." To be the best human is to be the least adorned one (365). The following lines seem quite disagreeable and archaic to what we see as the "Enlightened" attitude: to say that by delving into the thoughts of man makes him forget the price of vices and commit sins more easily (365-366). This seems like something the Church would say in response to the Royal Society. He follows with examples of societies that have not benefitted, but have been ruined, by the progress of science and the arts, as adornments that taint the natural state of man. But to say that knowledge, or even man's own curiosity, can bring out such harm is not fully convincing. He seems to be saying that we have so much pride, we grow more vain with the more knowledge that we have, but wouldn't it be argued that the discoveries we find are proof of our consistent ignorance? Which is worse, then, to be reminded that you are not all knowing by fulfilling your curiosity, or to deny that pursuing knowledge is beneficial because that curiosity is never satiated?
I very much agree with Julia. Rousseau is not the one who is breaking the mold, rather the people who choose to question what had been established for so long, the Royal Society, are the mold-breakers. Rousseau is trying to preserve what he sees at right, because his forefathers saw it as right. For this reason, Rousseau is NOT like any of the other authors we have read thus far. The others were willing to put new ideas forward, to offer to their audience a new way of thinking, but Rousseau is saying that we should hold onto what we have believed for so long. "...the sciences, letters, and arts, less arbitrary, tho; perhaps more powerful, strow garlands of flowers on their iron fetters, smother those sentiments of original liberty, with which they would seem to have been born..." (p. 365).
Rousseau's like that pot smoking Kerouac reading Animal Collective listening hipster railing at conventions like the university for killing creative thought while paying as much as the rest of us to be here.
It sounds good on paper: "What a happiness it would be to live amongst us, if our exterior appearance were always the true representation of our hearts" (365) while being utterly worthless in application. He takes the human element out of the equation (greed, jealousy, pride, reason) and in fact wants us to digress, away from civilization and towards nature once again.. never mind the fact that we reasoned our way out of that mess in the first place.
Rousseau is critical of what kind of social environment progress - defined by the Royal Society at least - has encouraged (where "No one will boast of his own merit, but he will run down that of his neighbor. No one will outrageously insult his enemy, but he will slyly calumniate him" (366)) and there is definitely something to be said about the distinction between straight up mistreatment and the manipulative, calculated and deceptive kind (the second hurts more), but really it all just comes with the package; you can't expect people to use the best of their minds for progress without some of that brilliance being utilized for less noble purposes.. people are people.
And I think everyone can agree on progress being a good thing. Because if that hipster really had his way, he'd have no establishment to denounce and no more reason (God willing) to exist, and if Rousseau had his we'd likely see him begging for order, civility, and progress just like everyone else.
my bad thought it was supposed to be a critique of rousseau.. yeah i think eoneal said it perfectly while everyone else is looking forward Rousseau's looking back. human nature never really changes over time so all the progress we're supposedly making isn't actually getting us any farther at all.
I would have to be the dissenting opinion on Rousseau’s writings. His Critique on Progress was actually quite uniform to previous writings that we have read. He stated that the encouragement of furthering knowledge has rendered, “mankind more sociable, by inspiring the thirst of pleasing each other by works worthy of mutual approbation (Kramnick 364).” Simply, the pursuit of knowledge in arts and sciences, unnatural and artificial to the mind, induces pride and vanity once it is attained. This type of “searching” for personal vanity is exemplified in Fantomina’s desire to use multiple disguises to circumvent “natural” societal norms and engage in promiscuity.
Rousseau stated that the “Necessity rais’d thrones; and the arts and sciences support them” and that “sciences, letters, and arts,… smother those sentiments of original liberty (Kramnick 365).” The reluctance to be ruled by a Roman Catholic king was an expression of original liberty by Monmouth and the British subjects. The Duke of Monmouth as Absalom in John Dryden’s poem is a satirical representation “prideful behavior” to usurp the king of England.
Furthermore, Diderot’s entry of Enjoyment in his Encyclopédie states, “To enjoy means to know, to experience (Kramnick 265).” What other motive would there be in the search of knowledge in science and art than the enjoyment, and hence vanity and pride, of gaining such an experience?
"Virtue seldom appears in such pomp and state...dress will set forth the man of fortune and elegance the man of taste...but the wholesome robust man is known by other marks...the strength and vigor of body are found under the...coverings of the laboring peasant...not under the courtier's embroidery...so all ornaments are strangers to virtue...which is the strength and vigor of the soul...natural force and activity...before art new molded our behaviors...our manners were...sincerer and natural." (365)
While there is much to agree/disagree in above comments -- I decided to focus on an excerpt of the passage to highlight Rousseau's point that if indeed people are using the name of progress and basic virtues that everything they do (in arts or science) is justified -- then they are in the wrong.
Not that Rousseau actually flat out says it, but he goes at great lengths to note how virtue itself is not robed in such gaudy and pompous wear -- he even goes to list other great cities such as Athens and Rome to note of their achievements as well as their vices/downfalls.
(probably in the end agrees with half the comments above, disagrees with the other)
As far as if Rousseau's writing is a break away from author's we have read in the past -- probably not too far away. His purpose of writing, a "critique" as he even calls it, shows that he is utilizing a similar enlightenment writer approach to a topic. It just so happens that his topic of choice is the Enlightenment progress itself -- which may make it sound like Rousseau is departing from previous writers (in which some cases, might be true; he's doing a report card for the Enlightenment clique). Ultimately though, like most revolutionary thinkers (Locke, Hume) they are ultimately never going to be 100% freed from their own school of thought or genius in their stylistic or analytical approaches. With that regard, it's safe to say that Rousseau does a thorough job as an Enlightenment writer to critique the Enlightenment period.
I think Rousseau is unique when compared to other enlightenment writers we have read thus far. I agree with Alonzo and Julia that Rousseau's content, style, and tone is very different. He seems to feel really strong about his beliefs toward not only the progression of mankind, but England and all of Europe as well. In reading this his tone seems to be very aggressive and certain. (It can even imagined that Thomas Jefferson may have taken some of these skills for the Declaration). But anyway, I noticed that on page 364, he mentions the early ways of makind in Europe and describes almost barbaric. "Europe was relapsed into the barbarity of the first ages; the inhabitants of that part of the world, which now makes so great a figure in knowledge, were plundg'd, some centuries ago, into a state which was worse than utter ignorance". He later goes on to say that that there are always people who do not believe in further sciences and going on with advancement, and that human nature may never really change, but as a society they must continue on.
Post a Comment