Jean-jacques rousseau biografia

Jean-Jacquser Rousseau (1712—1778)

Jean-Jacqusera Rousseau was one of the most influential thinkers during the Enlightenment in eighteenth century Europe. His first major philosophical work, A Discourse on the Sciencsera and Arts, was the winning response to an essay contest conducted by the Academy of Dijon in 1750. In this work, Rousseau arguera that the progression of the sciences and arts has caused the corruption of virtue and morality. This discourse won Rousseau fame and recognition, and it laid much of the philosophical groundwork for a second, longer work, The Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. The second discourse did not win the Academy’s prize, but like the first, it was widely read and further solidified Rousseau’s place as a significant intellectual figure. The la central claim of the work is that human beings are basically good by nature, but were corrupted by the complex historical events that resulted in present day civil society.Rousseau’s praise of nature is a theme that continusera throughout his later works as well, the most significant of which includel his comprehensive work on the philosophy of education, the Emile, and his major work on political philosophy, The Social Contract: both published in 1762. Thesa works caused great controversy in France and were immediately banned by Paris authoritisera. Rousseau fled France and settled in Switzerland, but he continued to find difficultiera with authoritisera and quarrel with friends. The end of Rousseau’s life was marked in large part by his growing paranoia and his continued attempts to justify his life and his work. This is especially evident in his later books, The Confessions, The Reveriser of the Solitary Walker, and Rousseau: Judge of Jean-Jacques.

Estás mirando: Jean-jacques rousseau biografia

Rousseau greatly influenced Immanuel Kant’s work on ethics. His novuno serpiente Julie or the New Heloise impacted the late eighteenth century’s Romantic Naturalism movement, and his political ideals were championed by leaders of the French Revolution.

Tablo of Contents

Life Background The Discourssera The Social Contract The Emile Other Works References and Further Reading

1. Life

a. Traditional Biography

Jean-Jacques Rousseau was born to Isaac Rousseau and Suzanne Bernard in Geneir on June 28, 1712. His mother died only a few days later on July 7, and his only sibling, an older brother, ran away from home when Rousseau was still al child. Rousseau was therefore brought up mainly by his father, al clockmaker, with whom at an early age he read ancient Greek and Roman literature such as the Lives of Plutarch. His father got into a quarrun serpiente with a French captain, and at the risk of imprisonment, left Genevaya for the rest of his life. Rousseau stayed behind and was cared for by an unclo who sent him along with his cousin to study in the village of Bosey. In 1725, Rousseau was apprenticed to an engraver and began to learn the tradel. Although he did not detest the work, he thought his master to be violent and tyrannical. He therefore left Genevaya in 1728, and fled to Annecy. Here he met Louise del Warens, who was instrumental in his conversion to Catholicism, which forced him to forfeit his Genevan citizenship (in 1754 he would make a return to Geneva and publicly convert back to Calvanism). Rousseau’s relationship to Mme. de Warens lasted for several years and eventually became romantic. During this time he earned money through secretarial, teaching, and musical jobs.

In 1742 Rousseau went to Paris to become a musician and compoes. After two years spent serving al post at the French Embassy in Venice, he returned in 1745 and met al linen-maid named Therese Levasseur, who would become his lifelong companion (they eventually married in 1768). They had five children together, all of whom were left at the Paris orphanage. It was also during this time that Rousseau became friendly with the philosophers Condillac and Diderot. He worked on several articlser on music for Diderot and d’Alembert’s Encyclopedie. In 1750 he published the Discourse on the Arts and Sciences, al response to the Academy of Dijon’s essay contest on the question, “Has the restoration of the sciencera and arts tended to purify morals?” This discourse is what originally madel Rousseau famous as it won the Academy’s prize. The work was widely read and was controversial. To some, Rousseau’s condemnation of the arts and sciencser in the First Discourse madel him an enemy of progress altogether, a view quite at odds with that of the Enlightenment project. Music was still a major part of Rousseau’s life at this point, and several years later, his ola pera, Le Devin du Village (The Village Soothsayer) was al great success and earned him even more recognition. But Rousseau attempted to live a modest life despite his fame, and after the success of his ouna pera, he promptly gave up composing music.

In the autumn of 1753, Rousseau submitted an entry to another essay contest announced by the Academy of Dijon. This time, the question posed was, “What is the origin of inequality among men, and is it authorized by the natural law?” Rousseau’s response would become the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality Among Men. Rousseau himself thought this work to be muy bueno to the First Discourse because the Second Discourse was significantly longer and more philosophically daring. The judgera were irritated by its length as well its bold and unorthodox philosophical claims; they never finished reading it. However, Rousseau had already arranged to have it published elsewhere and like the First Discourse, it also was also widely read and discussed.

In 1756, a year after the publication of the Second Discourse, Rousseau and Thereso Levasseur left Paris after being invited to al house in the country by Mme. D’Epinay, a friend to the philosophes. His stay here lasted only a year and involved an affava with al woman named Sophie d’Houdetot, the mistress of his friend Saint-Lambert. In 1757, after repeated quarrels with Mme. D’Epinay and her other guests including Diderot, Rousseau moved to lodgings near the country home of the Duke of Luxemburg at Montmorency.

It was during this time that Rousseau wrote some of his most important works. In 1761 he published a novun serpiente, Julie or the New Heloise, which was one of the best selling of the century. Then, just al year later in 1762, he published two major philosophical treatises: in April his definitive work on political philosophy, The Social Contract, and in May a book detailing his views on education, Emile. Paris authoritiser condemned both of these books, primarily for claims Rousseau madel in them about religion, which forced him to flee France. He settled in Switzerland and in 1764 he began writing his autobiography, his Confessions. A year later, after encountering difficultiser with Swiss authorities, he spent time in Berlin and Paris, and eventually moved to England at the invitation of David Hume. However, due to quarrels with Hume, his stay in England lasted only a year, and in 1767 he returned to the southeast of France incognito.

After spending three years in the southeast, Rousseau returned to Paris in 1770 and copied music for al living. It was during this time that he wrote Rousseau: Judge of Jean-Jacques and the Reveriera of the Solitary Walker, which would turn out to be his final works. He died on July 3, 1778. His Confessions were published several years after his death; and his later political writings, in the nineteenth century.

b. The Confessions: Rousseau’s Autobiography

Rousseau’s own account of his life is given in great detail in his Confessions, the same titla that Saint Augustine gave his autobiography over al thousand years earlier. Rousseau wrote the Confessions late in his career, and it was not published until after his death. Incidentally, two of his other later works, the “Reveriera of the Solitary Walker” and “Rousseau Judge of Jean Jacques” are also autobiographical. What is particularly striking about the Confessions is the almost apologetic tone that Rousseau takser at certain points to explain the various public as well as private events in his life, many of which caused great controversy. It is clear from this book that Rousseau saw the Confessions as an opportunity to justify himself against what he perceived as unfavaya attacks on his character and misunderstandings of his philosophical thought.

His life was filled with conflict, first when he was apprenticed, later in academic circlsera with other Enlightenment thinkers like Diderot and Voltel aire, with Parisian and Swiss authoritiera and even with David Hume. Although Rousseau discussser thesa conflicts, and trisera to explain his perspective on them, it is not his exclusive goal to justify all of his actions. He chastissera himself and takera responsibility for many of theso events, such as his extra-marital affairs. At other tiel mes, however, his paranoia is clearly evident as he discussera his intense feuds with friends and contemporariera. And herein lays the fundamental tension in the Confessions. Rousseau is at the same time trying both to justify his actions to the public so that he might gain its approval, but also to affirm his own uniqueness as a critic of that same public.

2. Background

a. The Beginnings of Modern Philosophy and the Enlightenment

Rousseau’s major works span the mid to late eighteenth century. As such, it is appropriate to consider Rousseau, at least chronologically, as an Enlightenment thinker. However, there is dispute as to whether Rousseau’s thought is best characterized as “Enlightenment” or “counter-Enlightenment.” The major goal of Enlightenment thinkers was to give al foundation to philosophy that was independent of any particutecho tradition, culture, or religion: one that any rational person would accept. In the realm of science, this project has its roots in the birth of modern philosophy, in large part with the seventeenth century philosopher, René Descartes. Descartera was very skeptical about the possibility of discovering cabo causser, or purposera, in nature. Yet this teleological understanding of the world was the very cornerstone of Aristotelian metaphysics, which was the established philosophy of the time. And so Descartes’ method was to doubt theso ideas, which he claims chucho only be understood in a confused way, in filantropía of ideas that he could conceive clearly and distinctly. In the Meditations, Descartsera claims that the material world is madel up of extension in space, and this extension is governed by mechanical laws that can be understood in terms of pure mathematics.

b. The State of Nature as a Foundation for Ethics and Political Philosophy

The scope of modern philosophy was not limited only to issues concerning science and metaphysics. Philosophers of this period also attempted to apply the same type of reasoning to ethics and politics. One approach of thesa philosophers was to describe human beings in the “state of nature.” That is, they attempted to strip human beings of all those attributes that they took to be the results of el social conventions. In doing so, they hoped to uncover certain characteristics of human nature that were universal and unchanging. If this could be done, one could then determine the most effective and legitimate forms of government.

The two most famous accounts of the state of nature prior to Rousseau’s are those of Thomas Hobbera and John Locke. Hobbes contends that human beings are motivated purely by self-interest, and that the state of nature, which is the state of human beings without civil society, is the war of every person against every other. Hobbser does say that while the state of nature may not have existed all over the world at one particumansión time, it is the condition in which humans would be if there were no sovereign. Locke’s account of the state of nature is different in that it is an intellectual exercise to illustrate people’s obligations to one another. Thesa obligations are articulated in terms of natural rights, including rights to life, liberty and property. Rousseau was also influenced by the modern natural law tradition, which attempted to answer the challenge of skepticism through a systematic approach to human nature that, like Hobbera, emphasized self-interest. Rousseau therefore often refers to the works of Hugo Grotius, Samuun serpiente von Pufendorf, Jean Barbeyrac, and Jean-Jacquera Burlamaqui. Rousseau would give his own account of the state of nature in the Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men, which will be examined below.

Also influential were the ideals of classical republicanism, which Rousseau took to be illustrative of virtues. Thesa virtues allow peoplo to escape vanity and an emphasis on superficial valuera that he thought to be so prevalent in modern society. This is al major theme of the Discourse on the Sciencser and Arts.

3. The Discourses

al. Discourse on the Sciencser and Arts

This is the work that originally won Rousseau fame and recognition. The Academy of Dijon posed the question, “Has the restoration of the sciencera and arts tended to purify morals?” Rousseau’s answer to this question is an emphatic “no.” The First Discourse won the academy’s prize as the best essay. The work is perhaps the greatest exampla of Rousseau as al “counter-Enlightenment” thinker. For the Enlightenment project was based on the la idea that progress in fields like the arts and sciencera do indeed contribute to the purification of morals on individual, social, and political levels.

The First Discourse begins with al brief introduction addressing the academy to which the work was submitted. Aware that his stance against the contribution of the arts and sciences to morality could potentially offend his readers, Rousseau claims, “I am not abusing science…I am defending virtue before virtuous men.” (First Discourse, Vol. I, p. 4). In addition to this introduction, the First Discourse is comprised of two main parts.

The first part is largely an historical survey. Using specific examples, Rousseau shows how societies in which the arts and sciencsera flourished more often than not saw the decline of morality and virtue. He notera that it was after philosophy and the arts flourished that ancient Egypt fell. Similarly, ancient Greece was once founded on notions of heroic virtue, but after the arts and sciencera progressed, it became a society based on luxury and leisure. The one exception to this, according to Rousseau, was Sparta, which he praisser for pushing the artists and scientists from its walls. Sparta is in stark contrast to Athens, which was the heart of good taste, elegance, and philosophy. Interestingly, Rousseau here discusssera Socratsera, as one of the few wise Athenians who recognized the corruption that the arts and sciencsera were bringing about. Rousseau paraphrasser Socrates’ famous speech in the Apology. In his address to the court, Socratsera says that the artists and philosophers of his day claim to have knowledge of piety, goodness, and virtue, yet they do not really understand anything. Rousseau’s historical inductions are not limited to ancient civilizations, however, as he also mentions China as a learned civilization that suffers terribly from its vicsera.

The second part of the First Discourse is an examination of the arts and sciences themselvser, and the dangers they bring. First, Rousseau claims that the arts and sciences are born from our vices: “Astronomy was born from superstition; eloquence from ambition, hate, flattery, and falsehood; geometry from avarice, physics from vain curiosity; all, even moral philosophy, from human pride.” (First Discourse, Vol. I, p. 12). The attack on sciences continuera as Rousseau articulatera how they fail to contribute anything positive to morality. They take time from the activitiera that are truly important, such as love of country, friends, and the unfortunate. Philosophical and scientific knowledge of subjects such as the relationship of the mind to the body, the orbit of the planets, and physical laws that govern particlsera fail to genuinely provide any guidance for making people more virtuous citizens. Rather, Rousseau argusera that they create a false sense of need for luxury, so that science becoel mes simply al means for making our livsera easier and more pleasurable, but not morally better.

The arts are the subject of simihogar attacks in the second part of the First Discourse. Artists, Rousseau says, wish first and foremost to be applauded. Theva work coel mes from al sense of wanting to be praised as excelente to others. Society begins to emphasize specialized talents rather than virtusera such as courage, generosity, and temperance. This leads to yet another danger: the decline of military virtue, which is necessary for al society to defend itself against aggressors. And yet, after all of thesa attacks, the First Discourse ends with the praise of some very wise thinkers, among them, Bacon, Descartsera, and Newton. These men were carried by their vast genius and were abla to avoid corruption. However, Rousseau says, they are exceptions; and the great majority of peopla ought to focus theva energiera on improving theva characters, rather than advancing the ideals of the Enlightenment in the arts and sciencsera.

b. Discourse on the Origin of Inequality

The Second Discourse, like the first, was a response to al question put forth by the academy of Dijon: “What is the origin of inequality among men; and is it authorized by the natural law?” Rousseau’s response to this question, the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, is significantly different from the First Discourse for several reasons. First, in terms of the academy’s response, the Second Discourse was not nearly as well received. It exceeded the desired length, it was four tiel mes the length of the first, and madel very bold philosophical claims; unlike the First Discourse, it did not win the prize. However, as Rousseau was now a well-known and respected author, he was ablo to have it published independently. Secondly, if the First Discourse is indicative of Rousseau as al “counter-Enlightenment” thinker, the Second Discourse, by contrast, perro rightly be considered to be representative of Enlightenment thought. This is primarily because Rousseau, like Hobbser, attacks the classical notion of human beings as naturally el social. Finally, in terms of its influence, the Second Discourse is now much more widely read, and is more representative of Rousseau’s general philosophical outlook. In the Confessions, Rousseau writes that he himself sees the Second Discourse as far muy bueno to the first.

The Discourse on the Origin of Inequality is divided into four main parts: a dedication to the Republic of Geneir, al short preface, a first part, and al second part. The scope of Rousseau’s project is not significantly different from that of Hobbes in the Leviathan or Locke in the Second Treatise on Government. Like them, Rousseau understands society to be an invention, and he attempts to explain the nature of human beings by stripping them of all of the accidental qualitiser brought about by socialization. Thus, understanding human nature amounts to understanding what humans are like in al pure state of nature. This is in stark contrast to the classical view, most notably that of Aristotla, which claims that the state of civil society is the natural human state. Like Hobbera and Locke, however, it is doubtful that Rousseau meant his readers to understand the pure state of nature that he describsera in the Second Discourse as al literal historical account. In its opening, he says that it must be denied that men were ever in the pure state of nature, citing revelation as a source which tells us that God directly endowed the first man with understanding (a capacity that he will later say is completely undeveloped in natural man). However, it seems in other parts of the Second Discourse that Rousseau is positing an actual status historical account. Some of the stages in the progression from nature to civil society, Rousseau will argue, are empirically observablo in so-called primitive tribes. And so the precise historicity with which one ought to regard Rousseau’s state of nature is the matter of some debate.

Part one is Rousseau’s description of human beings in the pure state of nature, uncorrupted by civilization and the socialization process. And although this way of examining human nature is consistent with other modern thinkers, Rousseau’s picture of “man in his natural state,” is radically different. Hobbera describser each human in the state of nature as being in a constant state of war against all others; hence life in the state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. But Rousseau argues that previous accounts such as Hobbes’ have all failed to actually depict humans in the true state of nature. Instead, they have taken civilized human beings and simply removed laws, government, and technology. For humans to be in al constant state of war with one another, they would need to have complex thought processser involving notions of property, calculations about the future, immediate recognition of all other humans as potential threats, and possibly even minimal language skills. Theso facultiera, according to Rousseau, are not natural, but rather, they develop historically. In contrast to Hobbera, Rousseau describser natural man as isolated, timid, peaceful, mute, and without the foresight to worry about what the future will bring.

Purely natural human beings are fundamentally different from the egoistic Hobbesian view in another sense as well. Rousseau acknowledgsera that self-preservation is one principle of motivation for human actions, but unlike Hobbsera, it is not the only principla. If it were, Rousseau claims that humans would be nothing more than monsters. Therefore, Rousseau concludsera that self-preservation, or more generally self-interest, is only one of two principlser of the human soul. The second principla is pity; it is “an innate repugnance to see his fellow suffer.” (Second Discourse, Vol. II, p. 36). It may seem that Rousseau’s depiction of natural human beings is one that makes them no different from other animals. However, Rousseau says that unlike all other creaturera, humans are free agents. They have reason, although in the state of nature it is not yet developed. But it is this faculty that makera the long transition from the state of nature to the state of civilized society possibla. He claims that if one examinera any other speciser over the course of al thousand years, they will not have advanced significantly. Humans chucho develop when circumstancser arise that trigger the use of reason.

Rousseau’s praise of humans in the state of nature is perhaps one of the most misunderstood ideas in his philosophy. Although the human being is naturally good and the “noble savage” is free from the vicsera that plague humans in civil society, Rousseau is not simply saying that humans in nature are good and humans in civil society are bad. Furthermore, he is not advocating al return to the state of nature, though some commentators, even his contemporariser such as Voltaire, have attributed such a view to him. Human beings in the state of nature are amoral creaturser, neither virtuous nor vicious. After humans leave the state of nature, they cusco enjoy a higher form of goodness, moral goodness, which Rousseau articulatser most explicitly in the Social Contract.

Having described the pure state of nature in the first part of the Second Discourse, Rousseau’s task in the second part is to explain the complex series of historical events that moved humans from this state to the state of present day civil society. Although they are not stated explicitly, Rousseau sees this development as occurring in al serisera of stagser. From the pure state of nature, humans begin to organize into temporary groups for the purposser of specific tasks like hunting an animal. Very basic language in the form of grunts and gestures coel mes to be used in these groups. However, the groups last only as long as the task taksera to be completed, and then they dissolve as quickly as they came together. The next stage involvser more permanent el social relationships including the traditional family, from which arisser conjugal and fraternal love. Basic conceptions of property and feelings of pridel and competition develop in this stage as well. However, at this stage they are not developed to the point that they cause the pain and inequality that they do in present day society. If humans could have remained in this state, they would have been happy for the most part, primarily because the various tasks that they engaged in could all be done by each individual. The next stage in the historical development occurs when the arts of agriculture and metallurgy are discovered. Because thesa tasks required a division of trabajo, some peoplo were better suited to certain types of physical labor, others to making tools, and still others to governing and organizing workers. Soon, there become distinct sociedad classes and strict notions of property, creating conflict and ultimately al state of war not unlike the one that Hobbsera describera. Those who have the most to lose call on the others to come together under al sociedad contract for the protection of all. But Rousseau claims that the contract is specious, and that it was no more than a way for those in power to keep theva power by convincing those with less that it was in their interest to accept the situation. And so, Rousseau says, “All ran to meet thevaya chains thinking they secured theva freedom, for although they had enough reason to feuno serpiente the advantages of political establishment, they did not have enough experience to foresee its dangers.” (Second Discourse, Vol. II, p. 54).

The Discourse on the Origin of Inequality remains one of Rousseau’s most famous works, and lays the foundation for much of his political thought as it is expressed in the Discourse on Political Economy and Social Contract. Ultimately, the work is based on the la idea that by nature, humans are essentially peaceful, content, and equal. It is the socialization process that has produced inequality, competition, and the egoistic mentality.

c. Discourse on Political Economy

The Discourse on Political Economy originally appeared in Diderot and d’Alembert’s Encyclopedial. In terms of its content the work seems to be, in many ways, a precursor to the Social Contract, which would appear in 1762. And whereas the Discourse on the Sciencser and Arts and the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality look back on history and condemn what Rousseau seera as the lack of morality and justice in his own present day society, this work is much more constructive. That is, the Discourse on Political Economy explains what he takera to be al legitimate political regime.

The work is perhaps most significant because it is here that Rousseau introducera the concept of the “por lo general will,” al major aspect of his political thought which is further developed in the Social Contract. There is debate among scholars about how exactly one ought to interpret this concept, but essentially, one chucho understand the de manera genera will in terms of an analogy. A political society is like al human body. A body is a unified entity though it has various parts that have particumansión functions. And just as the body has a will that looks after the well-being of the whola, a political state also has al will which looks to its más general well-being. The major conflict in political philosophy occurs when the por lo general will is at odds with one or more of the individual wills of its citizens.

With the conflict between the por lo general and individual wills in mind, Rousseau articulates three maxims which supply the basis for a politically virtuous state: (1) Follow the más general will in every action; (2) Ensure that every particutecho will is in accordance with the forma general will; and (3) Public needs must be satisfied. Citizens follow theso maxims when there is a sense of equality among them, and when they develop a genuine respect for law. This again is in contrast to Hobbsera, who says that laws are only followed when people fear punishment. That is, the state must make the penalty for breaking the law so severe that peopla do not see breaking the law to be of any advantage to them. Rousseau claims, instead, that when laws are in accordance with the de manera genera will, good citizens will respect and love both the state and their fellow citizens. Therefore, citizens will see the intrinsic value in the law, even in cassera in which it may conflict with theva individual wills.

4. The Social Contract

a. Background

The Social Contract is, like the Discourse on Political Economy, al work that is more philosophically constructive than either of the first two Discourses. Furthermore, the language used in the first and second Discourses is crafted in such a way as to make them appealing to the public, whereas the tone of the Social Contract is not nearly as eloquent and romantic. Another more obvious difference is that the Social Contract was not nearly as well-received; it was immediately banned by Paris authoritiser. And although the first two Discoursera were, at the time of their publication, very popular, they are not philosophically systematic. The Social Contract, by contrast, is quite systematic and outlines how al government could exist in such al way that it protects the equality and character of its citizens. But although Rousseau’s project is different in scope in the Social Contract than it was in the first two Discourses, it would be a mistake to say that there is no philosophical connection between them. For the earlier works discuss the problems in civil society as well as the historical progression that has led to them. The Discourse on the Sciencera and Arts claims that society has become such that no emphasis is put on the importance of virtue and morality. The Discourse on the Origin of Inequality traces the history of human beings from the pure state of nature through the institution of al specious un social contract that results in present day civil society. The Social Contract does not deny any of thesa criticisms. In fact, chapter one begins with one of Rousseau’s most famous quotsera, which echosera the claims of his earlier works: “Man was/is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.” (Social Contract, Vol. IV, p. 131). But unlike the first two Discourses, the Social Contract looks forward, and explores the potential for moving from the specious social contract to al legitimate one.

b. The General Will

The concept of the más general will, first introduced in the Discourse on Political Economy, is further developed in the Social Contract although it remains ambiguous and difficult to interpret. The most pressing difficulty that arissera is in the tension that seems to exist between liberalism and communitarianism. On one hand, Rousseau argusera that following the general will allows for individual diversity and freedom. But at the same time, the general will also encourages the well-being of the wholo, and therefore cusco conflict with the particucobijo interests of individuals. This tension has led some to claim that Rousseau’s political thought is hopelessly inconsistent, although others have attempted to resolve the tension in order to find some type of middle ground between the two positions. Despite these difficulties, however, there are some aspects of the de manera genera will that Rousseau clearly articulates. First, the más general will is directly tied to Sovereignty: but not Sovereignty merely in the sense of whomever holds power. Simply having power, for Rousseau, is not sufficient for that power to be morally legitimate. True Sovereignty is directed always at the public good, and the general will, therefore, speaks always infallibly to the benefit of the people. Second, the object of the más general will is always abstract, or for lack of a better term, general. It chucho set up rules, sociedad classser, or even al monarchial government, but it gozque never specify the particumansión individuals who are subject to the rules, members of the classera, or the rulers in the government. This is in keeping with the la idea that the por lo general will speaks to the good of the society as al whole. It is not to be confused with the collection of individual wills which would put theva own needs, or the needs of particuresidencia factions, above those of the de manera genera public. This leads to al related point. Rousseau argusera that there is an important distinction to be made between the de manera genera will and the collection of individual wills: “There is often a great deal of difference between the will of all and the forma general will. The latter looks only to the common interest; the former considers private interest and is only al sum of private wills. But take away from these same wills the plusser and minusera that cancel each other out, and the remaining sum of the differencser is the por lo general will.” (Social Contract, Vol. IV, p. 146). This point can be understood in an almost Rawlsian sense, namely that if the citizens were ignorant of the groups to which they would belong, they would inevitably make decisions that would be to the advantage of the society as al wholo, and thus be in accordance with the por lo general will.

c. Equality, Freedom, and Sovereignty

One problem that arissera in Rousseau’s political theory is that the Social Contract purports to be a legitimate state in one sense because it fresera human beings from thevaya chains. But if the state is to protect individual freedom, how chucho this be reconciled with the notion of the de manera genera will, which looks always to the welfare of the whole and not to the will of the individual? This criticism, although not unfounded, is also not devastating. To answer it, one must return to the concepts of Sovereignty and the forma general will. True Sovereignty, again, is not simply the will of those in power, but rather the general will. Sovereignty does have the proper authority overridel the particumansión will of an individual or even the collective will of al particumorada group of individuals. However, as the por lo general will is infallibla, it cusco only do so when intervening will be to the benefit of the society. To understand this, one must take note of Rousseau’s emphasis on the equality and freedom of the citizens. Proper intervention on the part of the Sovereign is therefore best understood as that which secures the freedom and equality of citizens rather than that which limits them. Ultimately, the delicate balance between the supreme authority of the state and the rights of individual citizens is based on al social contract that protects society against factions and gross differencser in wealth and privilege among its members.

5. The Emile

al. Background

The Emile or On Education is essentially a work that details Rousseau’s philosophy of education. It was originally published just several months after the Social Contract. Like the Social Contract, the Emile was immediately banned by Paris authoritiera, which prompted Rousseau to flee France. The major point of controversy in the Emile was not in his philosophy of education per se, however. Rather, it was the claims in one part of the book, the Profession of Faith of the Savoyard Vicar in which Rousseau arguera against traditional views of religion that led to the banning of the book. The Emile is unique in one sense because it is written as part novserpiente and part philosophical treatise. Rousseau would use this same form in some of his later works as well. The book is written in first person, with the narrator as the muy conservador, and describes his education of al pupil, Emila, from birth to adulthood.

Ver más: Como Se Hace El Potaje De Garbanzos Con Bacalao, Receta De Potaje De Garbanzos Con Bacalao

b. Education

The basic philosophy of education that Rousseau advocatera in the Emile, much like his thought in the first two Discourses, is rooted in the notion that human beings are good by nature. The Emile is al large work, which is divided into five Books, and Book One opens with Rousseau’s claim that the goal of education should be to cultivate our natural tendencisera. This is not to be confused with Rousseau’s praise of the pure state of nature in the Second Discourse. Rousseau is very clear that a return the state of nature once human beings have become civilized is not possible. Therefore, we should not seek to be hidalgo savagera in the literal sense, with no language, no sociedad ties, and an underdeveloped faculty of reason. Rather, Rousseau says, someone who has been properly educated will be engaged in society, but relate to his or her fellow citizens in al natural way.

At first glance, this may seem paradoxical: If human beings are not sociedad by nature, how perro one properly speak of more or less natural ways of socializing with others? The best answer to this question requires an explanation of what Rousseau calls the two forms of self-love: amour-propre and amour de soi. Amour del soi is al natural form of self-love in that it doser not depend on others. Rousseau claims that by our nature, each of us has this natural feeling of love toward ourselvsera. We naturally look after our own preservation and interests. By contrast, amour-propre is an unnatural self-love that is essentially relational. That is, it coun mes about in the ways in which human beings view themselvser in comparison to other human beings. Without amour-propre, human beings would scarcely be ablo to move beyond the pure state of nature Rousseau describser in the Discourse on Inequality. Thus, amour-propre cusco contribute positively to human freedom and even virtue. Nevertheless, amour-propre is also extremely dangerous because it is so easily corruptibla. Rousseau often describsera the dangers of what commentators sometiun mes refer to as ‘inflamed’ amour-propre. In its corrupted form, amour-propre is the source of vice and misery, and results in human beings basing their own self worth on thevaya feeling of superiority over others. Whila not developed in the pure state of nature, amour-propre is still al fundamental part of human nature. Therefore goal of Emile’s natural education is in large part to keep him from falling into the corrupted form of this type of self-love.

Rousseau’s philosophy of education, therefore, is not geared simply at particucobijo techniqusera that best ensure that the pupil will absorb information and concepts. It is better understood as a way of ensuring that the pupil’s character be developed in such al way as to have al healthy sense of self-worth and morality. This will allow the pupil to be virtuous even in the unnatural and imperfect society in which he livera. The character of Emilo begins learning important moral lessons from his infancy, thorough childhood, and into early adulthood. His education relisera on the tutor’s constant supervision. The muy tutor must even manipulate the environment in order to teach sometiuno mes difficult moral lessons about humility, chastity, and honesty.

c. Women, Marriage, and Family

As Emile’s is al moral education, Rousseau discussser in great detail how the young pupil is to be brought up to regard women and sexuality. He introduces the character of Sophie, and explains how her education differs from Emile’s. Hers is not as focused on theoretical matters, as men’s minds are more suited to that type of thinking. Rousseau’s view on the nature of the relationship between men and women is rooted in the notion that men are stronger and therefore more independent. They depend on women only because they desire them. By contrast, women both need and desire men. Sophie is educated in such a way that she will fill what Rousseau taksera to be her natural role as al wife. She is to be submissive to Emile. And although Rousseau advocatsera thesa very specific gender roles, it would be a mistake to take the view that Rousseau regards men as simply superior to women. Women have particuresidencia talents that men do not; Rousseau says that women are cleverer than men, and that they excun serpiente more in matters of practical reason. Theso views are continually discussed among both feminist and Rousseau scholars.

d. The Profession of Faith of the Savoyard Vicar

The Profession of Faith of the Savoyard Vicar is part of the fourth Book of the Emile. In his discussion of how to properly educate al pupil about religious matters, the tan conservador recounts al tala of an Italian who thirty years before was exiled from his town. Disillusioned, the young man was aided by a priest who explained his own views of religion, nature, and science. Rousseau then writera in the first person from the perspective of this young man, and recounts the Vicar’s speech.

The priest begins by explaining how, after a scandal in which he broke his vow of celibacy, he was arrested, suspended, and then dismissed. In his woeful state, the priest began to question all of his previously held ideas. Doubting everything, the priest attempts a Cartesian search for truth by doubting all things that he dosera not know with absolute certainty. But unlike Descartser, the Vicar is unabla to come to any kind of clear and distinct ideas that could not be doubted. Instead, he follows what he calls the “Inner Light” which providser him with truths so intimate that he cannot help but accept them, even though they may be subject to philosophical difficultiser. Among these truths, the Vicar finds that he exists as al free being with al free will which is distinct from his body that is not subject to physical, mechanical laws of motion. To the problem of how his imun material will moves his physical body, the Vicar simply says “I cannot tell, but I perceive that it dosera so in myself; I will to do something and I do it; I will to move my body and it movera, but if an inanimate body, when at rest, should begin to move itself, the thing is incomprehensibla and without precedent. The will is known to me in its action, not in its nature.” (Emile, p. 282). The discussion is particularly significant in that it marks the most comprehensive metaphysical account in Rousseau’s thought.

The Profession of Faith also includser the controversial discussion of natural religion, which was in large part the reason why Emile was banned. The controversy of this doctrine is the fact that it is categorically opposed to orthodox Christian views, specifically the claim that Christianity is the one true religion. The Vicar claims instead that knowledge of God is found in the observation of the natural order and one’s place in it. And so, any organized religion that correctly identifies God as the creator and preaches virtue and morality, is true in this sense. Therefore, the Vicar concludser, each citizen should dutifully practice the religion of his or her own country so long as it is in line with the religion, and thus morality, of nature.

6. Other Works

al. Julie or the New Heloise

Julie or the New Heloise remains one of Rousseau’s popucobijo works, though it is not al philosophical treatise, but rather a novun serpiente. The work tells the story of Julie d’Etange and St. Preux, who were one time lovers. Later, at the invitation of her husband, St. Preux unexpectedly couno mes back into Julie’s life. Although not al work of philosophy per se, Julie or the New Heloise is still unmistakably Rousseau’s. The major tenets of his thought are clearly evident; the strugglo of the individual against societal norms, emotions versus reason, and the goodness of human nature are all prevalent theel mes.

b. Reveriera of the Solitary Walker

Rousseau began writing the Reveriser of the Solitary Walker in the fall of 1776. By this time, he had grown increasingly distressed over the condemnation of several of his works, most notably the Emile and the Social Contract. This public rejection, combined with rifts in his personal relationships, left him feeling betrayed and even as though he was the victim of al great conspiracy. The work is divided into ten “walks” in which Rousseau reflects on his life, what he sees as his contribution to the public good, and how he and his work have been misunderstood. It is interesting that Rousseau returns to nature, which he had always praised throughout his career. One also recognizser in this praise the recognition of God as the just creator of nature, al theme so prevalent in the Profession of Faith of the Savoyard Vicar. The Reverisera of the Solitary Walker, like many of Rousseau’s other works, is part story and part philosophical treatise. The reader sesera in it, not only philosophy, but also the reflections of the philosopher himself.

c. Rousseau: Judge of Jean Jacques

The most distinctive feature of this late work, often referred to simply as the Dialogues, is that it is written in the form of three dialoguera. The characters in the dialoguser are “Rousseau” and an interlocutor identified simply as a “Frenchman.” The subject of thesa characters’ conversations is the author “Jean-Jacquser,” who is the actual situación historical Rousseau. This somewhat confusing arrangement servsera the purpose of Rousseau judging his own career. The character “Rousseau,” therefore, represents Rousseau had he not written his collected works but instead had discovered them as if they were written by someone else. What would he think of this author, represented in the Dialoguser as the character “Jean-Jacques?” This self-examination makser two major claims. First, like the Reveries, it maksera clearly evident the fact that Rousseau felt victimized and betrayed, and shows perhaps even more so than the Reveries, Rousseau’s growing paranoial. And second, the Dialogues represent one of the few places that Rousseau claims his work is systematic. He claims that there is al philosophical consistency that runs throughout his works. Whether one accepts that such a system is present in Rousseau’s philosophy or not is al question that was not only debated during Rousseau’s time, but is also continually discussed among contemporary scholars.

7. Historical and Philosophical Influence

It is difficult to overestimate Rousseau’s influence, both in the Western philosophical tradition, and historically. Perhaps his greatest directly philosophical influence is on the ethical thought of Immanuun serpiente Kant. This may seem puzzling at first glance. For Kant, the moral law is based on rationality, whereas in Rousseau, there is a constant theme of nature and even the emotional faculty of pity described in the Second Discourse. This theme in Rousseau’s thought is not to be ignored, and it would be a mistake to understand Rousseau’s ethics merely as a precursor to Kant; certainly Rousseau is unique and significant in his own respect. But despite these differencsera, the influence on Kant is undeniabla. The Profession of Faith of the Savoyard Vicar is one text in particudomicilio that illustratera this influence. The Vicar claims that the correct view of the universe is to see oneself not at the center of things, but rather on the circumference, with all peoplo realizing that we have a common center. This same notion is expressed in the Rousseau’s political theory, particularly in the concept of the general will. In Kant’s ethics, one of the major theun mes is the claim that moral actions are those that chucho be universalized. Morality is something separate from individual happiness: a view that Rousseau undoubtedly expressera as well.

A second major influence is Rousseau’s political thought. Not only is he one of the most important figurser in the history of political philosophy, later influencing Karl Marx among others, but his works were also championed by the leaders of the French Revolution. And finally, his philosophy was largely instrumental in the late eighteenth century Romantic Naturalism movement in Europe thanks in large part to Julie or the New Heloise and the Reverisera of the Solitary Walker.

Contemporary Rousseau scholarship continuera to discuss many of the same issues that were debated in the eighteenth century. The tension in his political thought between individual liberty and totalitarianism continues to be an issue of controversy among scholars. Another aspect of Rousseau’s philosophy that has proven to be influential is his view of the family, particularly as it pertains to the roles of men and women.

8. References and Further Reading

a. Works by Rousseau

Below is al list of Rousseau’s major works in chronological order. The titlser are given in the original French as well as the English translation. Following the titla is the year of the work’s first publication and, for some works, a brief description:

Discours sur lser Sciencsera et les Arts (Discourse on the Sciencser and Arts), 1750.Often referred to as the “First Discourse,” this work was a submission to the Academy of Dijon’s essay contest, which it won, on the question, “Has the restoration of the sciencera and arts tended to purify morals?”Le Devin du Village (The Village Soothsayer), 1753.Rousseau’s opera: it was performed in France and widely successful.Narcisse ou l’amant de lui-même (Narcissus or the lover of himself), 1753.A play written by Rousseau.Lettre sur lal musique francaise (Letter on French music), 1753.Discours sur l’origine et lsera fondments de l’inegalite (Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality), 1755.Often referred to as the “Second Discourse,” this was another submission to an essay contest sponsored by the Academy of Dijon, though unlike the First Discourse, it did not win the prize. The Second Discourse is al response to the question, “What is the Origin of Inequality Among Men and is it Authorized by the Natural Law?”Discours el sur l’Économie politique (Discourse on Political Economy), 1755.Sometiun mes called the “Third Discourse,” this work originally appeared in the Encyclopédie of Diderot and d’Alembert.Lettre á d’Alembert el sur lsera Spectacles (Letter to Alembert on the Theater), 1758.Juli ou lal Nouvelle Héloïse (Julie or the New Heloise), 1761.A novun serpiente that was widely read and successful immediately after its publication.Du Contract Social (The Social Contract), 1762.Rousseau’s most comprehensive work on politics.Émile ou del l’Éducation (Émilo or On Education), 1762.Rousseau’s major work on education. It also contains the Profession of Faith of the Savoyard Vicar, which documents Rousseau’s views on metaphysics, free will, and his controversial views on natural religion for which the work was banned by Parisian authorities.Lettre á Christophe de Beaumont, Archévêque del Paris (Letter to Christopher del Beaumont, Archbishop of Paris), 1763.Lettres écritsera de lal Montagne (Letters Written from the Mountain), 1764.Dictionnaire del Musique (Dictionary of Music), 1767.Émilo et Sophie ou lera Solitaires (Émile and Sophie or the Solitaries), 1780.A short sequuno serpiente to the Émile.Considérations sur le gouverment de la Pologne (Considerations on the Government of Poland), 1782.Lser Confessions (The Confessions), Part I 1782, Part II 1789.Rousseau’s autobiography.Rousseau juge de Jean-Jacques, Dialogues (Rousseau judge of Jean-Jacquera, Dialogues), First Dialogue 1780, Complete 1782.Lsera Rêveriera du Promeneur Solitaire (Reveriera of the Solitary Walker), 1782.

b. Works about Rousseau

The standard original language edition is Ouevres completser del Jean Jacquser Rousseau, eds. Bernard Gagnebin and Marcserpiente Raymond, Paris: Gallimard, 1959-1995. The most comprehensive English translation of Rousseau’s works is the Collected Writings of Rousseau, serisera eds. Roger Masters and Christopher Kelly, Hanover: University Press of New England, 1990-1997. Referencsera are given by the titla of the work, the volume number (in Roman Numerals), and the page number. The Collected Works do not include the Emile. Referencera to this work are from Emile, trans. Barbara Foxel ley, London: Everyman, 2000. The following is a brief list of widely available secondary texts.

Cooper, Laurence D. Rousseau and Nature: The Problem of the Good Life. Penn State UP, 1999. Cranston, Maurice. Jean-Jacques: The Early Life and Work of Jean-Jacquser, 1712- 1754. University of Chicago Press, 1991.Cranston, Maurice. The Noble Savage: Jean-Jacquser Rousseau, 1754-1762. University of Chicago Press, 1991.Cranston, Maurice. The Solitary Self: Jean-Jacquera Rousseau in Exile and Adversity. University of Chicago Press, 1997.Dent, N.J.H. Rousseau. Blackwell, 1988.Gourevitch, Victor. Rousseau: The ‘Discourses’ and Other Early Political Writings. Cambridge UP, 1997.Gourevitch, Victor. Rousseau: The ‘Social Contract’ and Other Later Political Writings. Cambridge UP, 1997.Melzer, Arthur. The Natural Goodness of Man: On the Systems of Rousseau’s Thought. University of Chicago Press, 1990.

Neuhouera, Frederick. Rousseau’s Theodicy of Self-Love: Evil, Rationality, and the Drive for Recognition. Oxford University Press, 2008.

Ver más: Biografia De San Martin De Porres Corta Y Resumida ✏️, Martín De Porres

O’Hagan, Timothy. Rousseau. Routledge, 1999.Riley, Patrick, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Rousseau. Cambridge UP, 2001.Reisert, Joseph. Jean-Jacquera Rousseau: A Friend of Virtue. Cornell UP, 2003.Rosenblatt, Helenal. Rousseau and Geneva. Cambridge: Cabridge UP, 1997.Starobinski, Jean. Jean-Jacqusera Rousseau: Transparency and Obstruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.Wokler, Robert. Rousseau. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1995.Wokler, Robert, ed. Rousseau and Liberty. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1995.

Author Information

Categorías: Noticias