Peoples, know once and for all that nature wanted to keep you from being harmed by knowledge just as a mother wrests a dangerous weapon from her child's hands; that all the secrets she hides from you are so many evils from which she protects you, and that the difficulty you find in educating yourselves is not the least of her benefits. Men are perverse; they would be even worse if they had the misfortune to be born learned.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, First Discourse, page 47
This particular passage, one of the only parts in which Rousseau mentions "nature," is shocking because of its characterization not only of nature but also of knowledge and of humans. In much of what we have read, we have been lead to see knowledge as a way to nature, especially according to Aristotle and Bacon. But here, humans are not the empowered agents looking down at nature and deciding to study it; instead, nature herself is looking down at us as mere children and is saying "I must warn you of that knowledge-seeking activity you feel so compelled to do." While there is no sense that nature herself can indeed stop us from studying and wasting our time doing so, there is the sense that nature knows what is best for us and that, whether we follow her advice or not, we will live by her rules and suffer if we disobey.
Besides uniquely characterizing nature--as a consciousness that cannot make us obey but knows the rules we should obey nonetheless--this passage also gives new meaning to knowledge. Instead of being a means by which to explore and come to know nature herself, it actually obstructs us from doing that which nature encourages--cultivate virtue. So science, in a sense, redirects our mentalities and our lives in a direction that is not meant for our intellect to take us. This intellectual ability should instead seek out strength and courage and virtue, etc.
Lastly, Rousseau rather blatantly asserts that humans are "perverse," suggesting that knowledge (and the Enlightenment) pursued on its own without any attention to virtue is 1) difficult to achieve for the very good reason that it is unnatural and 2) extremely dangerous once accomplished. Knowledge does not help to cultivate virtue, as Aristotle fervently believes, but instead distracts from it and leaves it uncultivated.
If people are "perverse" as Rousseau believes, how does knowledge accentuate that perversion? While it seems to be a good point that humans naturally have a difficult time acquiring true knowledge, isn't it a similar point to say that humans often have difficulty acquiring "virtue" as well? What's the difference?
I like this post a lot! This reminded me of something I was thinking about our discussion in class on Friday. It was mentioned that Rousseau dislikes studying advanced sciences that we cannot understand (or, most people cannot, yet everyone's goal is to obtain that knowledge). It leads people to act like they know things without truly knowing them. In this sense, it is more the pursuit of knowledge, I think, than actual knowledge that accentuates the "perverse" parts of us. This made me think that Rousseau is discounting the common people as unintelligent (which may or may not be true), but if he does this, he needs to be consistent. If they are incapable of understanding the sciences they study, shouldn't they also be incapable of truly understanding virtue? It seems that sciences can be proved or disproved with objective truths, but virtue is messier, and thus even more difficult to "truly" understand. I find myself leaning on Bacon a little, thinking that first we must study what we can scientifically prove, and only then will we be remotely prepared to begin considering the moral sciences.
ReplyDeleteI think that you chose an excellent passage as I think that it easily sums up Rousseau's argument on the dangers of the enlightenment and the development of society. I too think that Rousseau makes a strange argument when he states that it is nature is the force judging mankind for its activities. While I understand the appeal of living in Rousseau's defined "natural" world, I still think that Rousseau does not take give the proper credit to the advantages knowledge gives to mankind. I, too, find myself looking back at Bacon's argument on the accumulation on knowledge and see that it provides many benefits for society and I would like to argue that morality and virtue is not necessarily taken away when more knowledge is accumulated. The development of language and communication, which I would argue at one point was knowledge being accumulated, has led to the development of governments and religions which outline certain morals and standards for mankind to live by.
ReplyDeleteYou picked a very interesting passage out of Rousseau's First Discourse. I find it incredibly odd that Rousseau criticizes the Enlightenment for its use of reason to pursue knowledge that he claims is beyond our epistemic access; but then goes and asserts that nature is some sort of supreme agency that has set out a place and set rules for humanity in the universe, which seems to be the type of lofty claims that Rousseau is undoubtedly against. I also find that Rousseau makes the mistake of thinking that we can have morality without the ability to decide between theories/models of all kinds. Rousseau is well intended in his urges to have us value virtue and morality more but he fails to see that without reason and knowledge and an understanding of arguments we can't decide whether an utilitarian, Kantain, or any other ethical system is the one we should use and why.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that Rousseau's claims are somewhat contradicting. It is his ability to pursue knowledge that enables him to think in a more analytical and critical way about humanity's role in the universe. To a certain degree, Rousseau's claims are realistic; nature is the force judging mankind for its activities. The earth responds to our actions and we are forced to adjust accordingly. But our need for innovation and pursuit of progress are what enable us to develop methods to preserve and conserve the environment while maintaining our growing population size.
Delete