Rousseau, Aristotle, and Contemplation

                                                   First, here's St. Peter's Island (the one in the distance).

Speaking about his reveries, floating around the lake, Rousseau writes:

“What do we enjoy in such a situation?  Nothing external to ourselves, nothing if not ourselves and our own existence.  As long as this state lasts, we are sufficient unto ourselves, like God.  The sentiment of existence, stripped of any other emotion, is in itself a precious sentiment of contentment and of peace which alone would suffice to make this existence dear and sweet to anyone able to spurn all the sensual and earthly impressions which incessantly come to distract us from it and to trouble its sweetness here-below” (Fifth Walk, 69).

As I read this passage from our reading, I wrote one word in the margins—Aristotle.  This seemed to me to be a really good articulation of what Aristotle means by contemplation.  He writes of man’s ability to perceive of his own existence, and he argues that this is pleasant.  Contemplation is the best way to achieve happiness, as it requires little, if any, external equipment, and it is the activity that makes us most like gods.  Contemplation is a divine activity for Aristotle, and it seems to be the same for Rousseau.

While we did not get a very descriptive idea of what the state of contemplation is like for Aristotle, Rousseau’s reveries seem to be like this.  He does distinguish, though, that he is not exactly thinking—it is more like he is daydreaming.  But within this, there is some understanding of one’s existence and place in the world.  There is a feeling of oneness, of being completely sufficient in one’s existence.  And like Aristotle, Rousseau compares this peaceful happiness to the cruder types of happiness found through “short moments of delirium and passion” (68).  If you read much Rousseau at all, you know he is critical of materialism and the ways in which the luxuries of society weaken men by making them less self-sufficient and thus less free. 

             

           Where it seems Aristotle and Rousseau differ in their conceptions of contemplation is in Rousseau’s insistence on solitude.  This is already questionable, to me, because he spends his time staying with a family, and interacting with them a great deal (working, dining, taking walks).  Rousseau goes alone to have his reveries, but he returns from them to speak with his friends.  Aristotle would argue that this is because people are social, and we need friends to help us to contemplate ourselves.  A happy person, Aristotle writes, requires friends.  This is problematic, because Rousseau seems to want to push the point that solitude in nature leads to these contemplative reveries. 

               What do you think?  Is solitude preferable for contemplation?  Are Rousseau’s reveries not as involved as Aristotle’s contemplation, and thus in less need of interaction with other people?  Would Rousseau have been so happy if he had been in solitude for those two months on St. Peter’s Island?