| This study prepares the way for a fresh consideration of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's view of philosophy and its proper relation to civil society. That philosophy in the traditional or classical sense could be man's natural end cannot possibly be Rousseau's conclusion, it has been suggested by others, because of Rousseau's strict adherence to the method of modern science. The application of that method, the argument goes, results in the depiction in the Second Discourse of nascent man, from whom all recognizably human qualities are stripped, including speech and reason. It is impossible subsequently to establish the claim that through the use of his reason man could fulfill himself or reach his natural end.; My study challenges this widely held view. Rousseau admits the state of nature is "hypothetical," and it can be rendered factual only by the evidence connecting isolated, nascent man to social, modern man. On close inspection it becomes manifest that Rousseau deliberately fails to provide this evidence. If nascent man is the conclusion of the scientific method applied to the study of man, Rousseau indicates that a strict adherence to the scientific method fails to grasp what is essentially human, our freedom and self-consciousness, which, he asserts, cannot be explained by physics.; I subsequently explore Rousseau's concept of the expansiveness of the self, or the desire for well-being. I show that this expansiveness works to unfold all of the human faculties, including reason, and it cannot be developed equally well in a multitude of different ways. Through an examination of the Dialogues, Emile, and selected other writings I argue that the self naturally seeks to attach itself to what it perceives to be well-ordered, beautiful, and permanent. What is created by man is generally not well-ordered, but what comes from nature is well-ordered. Therefore, to distinguish between reality and appearance, nature and convention, is to express at the level of intelligence the natural desire to expand the self. Philosophy is the highest expression of the permanent, natural drive of the self, or of the human essence.; But genuine philosophy depends upon capacities of mind that are not distributed equally among men; in the Second Discourse they are listed among the "natural inequalities." Pseudo-philosophers are dangerous because their vanity causes them to attack the healthy opinions in their political community. Therefore it is more dangerous for humanity for writers to cultivate philosophy among their readers, as Plato did, (because to do so invariably produces pseudo-philosophers and sophists) than it is to depict all philosophers as useless and wicked. But Rousseau is a philosopher, and his writings are meant to be useful. His writings are examples of how philosophers must direct men to their happiness by giving to them the opinions they need in order to live happily. In the words of Clifford Orwin, Rousseau is "more elitist" than Plato because "the defense of ignorance must rest with an avant-garde of philosophers" who rule indirectly.1 It might be said that Rousseau's project of publicly discrediting classical philosophy as man's natural end has been largely successful, but it is highly questionable whether political life is the better for that success.; 1Clifford Orwin, "Rousseau's Socratism," The Journal of Politics 60, no.1 (February 1998): 174. |
