Ramen

OK, I've just read about this philosopher in a philosophy overview book. I read a little of his writings in the link provided below and I disagree with some of the specifics, but there might be something to ponder in the general idea he presented.

Rousseau believed that human nature is inherently good, but that society makes people corrupt. In order to fit into society, you have to deny your natural desires, and this makes people deceitful and greedy. In civilization, everyone has to go around disguising their feelings and desires in order to be liked by those with more power.

According to Rousseau, the only individual in a civilized society who is truly free is the king, because the king is the only one who isn't trying to get in good with someone above him. In Rousseau's words, " Man is born free but is everywhere in chains."

Rousseau viewed civilization as bad, but he idealized Indians and others that he saw as "uncivilized," by describing them as noble savages. The noble savage exemplifies the natural virtue of humanity corrupted by civilization. Such a being is free and honest because he doesn't try to fool people into liking him the way civilized people do.

Click here for a link to some of his writings.

Any thoughts?

Entropic_Gnosis

I remember studying him in reference to the french revolution especially when the reign of terror started. The jacobians used his concept of the "general will" as an excuse for the exicutions as they were "forceing them to be free"

Kim o' the Concrete Jungle

I've always disagreed with Rousseau's philosophy. I particularly disagree with the notion of the "noble savage", because I don't believe that Rousseau's noble savage ever existed in human history. Human beings are social animals. We live in communities. I suspect that we've always lived in communities, even before there was any such thing as Homo Sapiens. Chimpanzees -- our closest living primate relatives -- are also social animals that live communities remarkably similar to our own. So it seems clear that our common ancestor must also have been a social animal, even before the homonids split away from the apes.

Rousseau is in error when he talks about human beings in an uncivilized state. There is not now, nor has there ever been any such thing. It is useless to speculate about such an uncivilized human being, because whatever else you could say about him, he wouldn't be human in any way that we would recognize.

There are the seeds of some good ideas in his work -- the notion of a "social contract", and the fact that he was prepared to defy the Christian doctrine of original sin -- but as Entropic implies, there were a lot of bad things that came out of his philosophy. So I find it most difficult to be sympathetic towards him.

Ramen

Kim,

So you're saying that Rousseau wasn't speaking of peoples who live in tribes as his "noble savages", such as Native Americans? If we we're to psychologically evaluate people living primitively in tribes and people living in modern society, which group would have a higher percentage of people suffering from depression? You don't have to go too far on this board to read some post about someone who's depressed. How much anti-depressant drugs are prescribed every year just in the US? Perhaps Rousseau just thought that people could more easily "live in the moment" in a primitive tribe, than in modern society.

Pig

Kim o' the Concrete Jungle

No, I don't think Rousseau's "noble savage" is a realistic reflection of tribal culture. He idealized the "savage" as a kind of ultimate individualist, freed of all the obligations and ties of society. That's not like any tribal society that I know of (and I live in a country where first contact was still being made with tribal people's right up until the nineteen sixties).

The irony of it is that Rousseau was probably much freer than the tribal peoples he so admired. But at least his ideas had the effect that tribal peoples around the world were no longer regarded as animals.

As for the psychological analysis of tribal people, it's been done before now -- especially in the highlands of Papua New Guinea, not a million miles away from where I'm sitting. Your average New Guinea highlander lives in a perpetual state of anxiety and fear that he might die at any second. If he should fall ill, well, there aren't many hospitals up there in the mountains. And he must be constantly stay alert for any attack from a neighboring tribe.

I'd say living with the very real possibility of being hacked to death by your neighbor might just possibly be a legitimate cause for concern. And I don't see many people volunteering to dispense valium up there in the mountains.

I wonder what anyone in the third world -- tribal or otherwise -- would make of the concept of a depressed American housewife?

Amos

In my opnion the "noble savage" Rousseau was looking for is the refined 'man as the animal man' who managed to place his social human identity subservient to his redeemed non-social animal identity. This means that Jesus Christ was his ideal image of a "noble savage." My reason for this is that Christ was the animal man identity of Joseph to whom the subjugated Joseph identity was added.

I think he was wrong to suggest that tribal Indians are a noble savage because to be tribal is also to be social. The noble savage is a reflection of our state of mind rather than our status in society. In this sense society does not have to be complex to make us feel insecure but our inability to remain true to ourselves is what makes us feel insecure. Did he not use Emile to show how we must first try to understand ourselves before we can remain true to ourselves?

Ramen

Thanks for the feedback, folks. Think I'll go with the consensus on Rousseau.

I've been looking into Zen and Buddhism for the last few years and I thought that I needed a little break, at least a different perspective. A complement, a contrast or at least something to cleanse my Zen palette.

Any reccomendations of other philosophers would be appreciated.

PIG

Entropic_Gnosis

Amos is right about the "nobel savage" its an ideal not an actuallity. An example of one is to be found in Aldus Huxley's Brave New World in the character of John.

Now as to philosophers:

Although i do not agree with him, Nietzsche can be interesting to read. Im fond of Sartre myself and David Hume as well. Kant is very dry reading so i dont recomend him for casual reading (had to read him in a class . . .oog) his points are thought provoking sometimes but oh the writing . . . . . . .:banghead:

Ramen

Entropic_Gnosis,

I was actually thinking about looking into Nietzsche. Thanks for the recommendations.

PIG

Amos

Interesting and if I remember correctly Rousseau also put a disclaimer in there someplace that he was pointing towards the reality and not actually present it. His idea with Emile, and the later Montessori model, was to surpress or delay rational awakening and allow the inner child to present itself more fully to the ego identity so that a greater harmony would exist within the mind of the child. This knowledge would increase our self assurance.

Buddha would say that it is a reality.