In Rousseau's book Emile, He talks about many ideas that he believes in but the one idea that I would like to touch on is on p.345.
He says, "To that end, the first use of my riches would be to purchase leisure and freedom, to which I would add health, if it were for sale. But since it is purchased only with temperance and since there is no true pleasure in life without health. I would be temperate out of sensuality".
This quote struck me as odd because we have been studying so many different philosophers over the semester and for the most part each philosopher has generally said to do what is right in human nature. That could be by helping out in the common good or just being a good person who do a lot of reflection as Aristotle believed in. Rousseau is the first to say that a person should think about themselves first. I guess Rousseau is trying to bring up the subject of self-interests. By looking at the things he would buy with his riches, it is understandable that he desires those things. Every human being desires to have leisure. What person would not mind relaxing at home reading a novel they like instead of going to work that day. I am pretty sure that most humans would pick the first choice over the second choice.
The idea of freedom is a very radical idea at this time in history. Most of the European nations at this time were controlled by some sort of monarchy so to think of being free is very unusual. Rousseau is probably one of the first people to speak of freedom for everyone. Just mentioning that a person is not happy with the monarchy in Europe could get you killed. Rousseau was a person who was way ahead of his time and was writing for the future generations.
Lastly his idea about purchasing health if you could was an idea that was ahead of its time. This period was the time when major plagues were breaking out in Europe and if people had a standard health care then there might have been a chance to prevent this illnesses.
The main question I am asking when it comes to this quote is do you think that Rousseau's ideas about freedom and health was a radical idea at this time or was he paving the way for future societies to live by?
The thought of simply buying good health would have been radical to readers. I imagine that even high quality medicine would have been hazardous to human health. Doctors often had a difficult time diagnosing diseases and relied on sparse knowledge to concoct catch-call remedies (purging, bloodletting, etc.). Would they literally be buying good health or pay for access to medicine that wouldn’t kill or disfigure them? Health was also tied to the type of lifestyle people led. I believe Rousseau may have gotten an agreeing nod from doctors who believed in the leisurely lifestyle being the key to good health. However, I wonder if Rousseau believes some people should be barred from being able to afford health and freedom (if that makes sense)?
ReplyDelete