What the Heck is Rousseau Talking About?

In his First Discourse (published in 1750), he sets up his criticism on modernity saying that before Arts came into our life, we did not, or did we have need for, act in pretext in social interactions amongst ourselves. That Arts and Science has made us feel ashamed of our faults and ‘deformities’ whereas in the state of nature, even though our morals were rustic they were natural, and thus more preferable. He further argues that Arts has made us act in a certain manner such as politely, and established customs and no one dares to go against it. He then goes to claim that our natural inclination to suspicions, fears, hatred and betrayal are now concealed in the veil called politeness. I will in this essay argue why I think Rousseau makes no sense, even to his own standard, and clarify problems in his reasoning as well as demonstrating the flaws in the arguments and supporting my claim by using Rousseau’s own examples.

Rousseau, who received a reward for this First Discourse, tells us that Arts and Science has done nothing but evil in an essay comprised of two parts. The first part tells us how Arts and Science corrupted us and in the second part he claims  to explain what results this much-supposed scientific progress would bring us in the end. I will directly start with the Part I and then go into discussing Part II. The numbers in the brackets correspond to the numbers in the text.

In Part I, he says that if it had not been for Arts and Science humans would have spared a good many vices [12], and because of Arts and Science we act in pretence, always being polite to one another, with which we conceal our true feelings towards them. Is this true, though? First of all, we are not given any accounts of what he means by Arts and Sciences are, for he seems to have a quite broad definition of them that it is hard to see what counts as science and what does not. For he later claims in the Part II that medicine is good, but is medicine not a result of arts and science? Is it not arts of medical exercises that provides treatment for illness? Is it not science of medical theory that restores our health? But for the moment, let us grant him the vague notion of Arts and Science, and proceed. His claim seems to be that because our being polite is not in our nature and it is a veil put on by the social norm, it is unnatural and we must dismiss it for the betterment of our own sake. What I would like to ask, M. J.J. Rousseau, is that Does the veil do harm to any of us all? And even if it did, would it not do much more harm if we acted the otherwise? Is he saying that disorder is preferable to social disguise? He seems to despise so much of what science has told men that he goes so far as saying, ‘Men are perverse; they would be worse still if they had had the misfortune of being born learned.’ [34] What does he mean by that? And he still admires Descartes and Newton as well as modern medicine.

However, it is in the relations between Part I of his text and Part II that I find even more strikingly discombobulating in a way any arguments shouldn’t. Amongst several objections I am able to find, I shall choose two of them, which seem to have an obvious internal contradiction yet the arguer seems to be incapable of recognizing it. Let me now paraphraseor even quote what he says in his text below so that we can see clearly how his arguments go from one place to another without any tangible connections.

The first objection I have is concerning vice. Here are some of the things he says:

“Astronomy was born of superstition; Eloquence of ambition, hatred, flatterly, lying; Geometry of greed; Physics of a vain curiosity; all of them, even Ethics, of human pride. The Sciences and the Arts thus owe their birth to our vices; we should be less in doubt regarding their advantages if they owed it to our virtues.” [36]

“Before Art had fashioned our manners and taught our passions to speak in ready-made terms, our morals were rustic but natural; and differences in conduct conveyed differences of character at first glance. Human nature was, at bottom, no better; but men found their security in how easily they saw through one another, and this advantage, to the value of which we are no longer sensible, spared them a god many vices.” [12]

He the says we have History because there are tyrants and wars; we have Jurisprudence because of men’s injustices, and we have Art because we have luxury to waste our time. But we do not need all those things if we just consulted our duties and nature’s needs, and had only time for the Fatherland, for the unfortunate, and for his friends. Here he says, “Are we then destined to die tied to the edge of the well into which truth has withdrawn?  This reflection alone should be convincing enough for us to refrain from seriously trying to educate ourselves by studying Philosophy.” [37]

Now, what I would like to ask M. Rousseau is that is he saying that arts, history and laws are unwanted had we acted as nature intended us to act, that is, supposing that we received Fire from Prometheus? Is he saying that, even though before science we were no better and our morals rusty, it is still to be preferred to being educated and behaving politely one another? Is he saying that Ethics, Physics and all the other sciences are mere manifestation of our vices? But if they were, would that not conform to the view that we were vicious in the beginning even before our acquisition of all these sciences? I would very much like to know the answers to these questions.

Gladly, M. Rousseau has, after digressive trains of thoughts, offered us an answer to all this in the very first sentence, starting in the section [40]. Apparently, he himself is aware that he does not seem to be saying anything productive or solid – because I don’t even know where he is going with this – and here he phrases his answer: “What am I saying; Idle? Would to God they indeed were!”

Yea, I got that part a long ago, pal. What I want to know is what he is suggesting instead of having arts and sciences. Especially if we were no better before the acquisition of sciences. And he says, idle; but what does it do? He criticizes the accomplishments of sciences (though admires Descartes and Newton and conceive them as “genius”, having criticized earlier that “constantly one follows customs, never one’s own genius.”), and tells us we’d better idle. If those accomplishments were nothing but sham, or rather waste of our time, would idling be a better way to spend our time?

The second part I object is concerning peace and stability. Here are some of the things he says:

If we had not the Arts and the Science, “morals would be the healthier and society more peaceful.” [40]

Because with science and art we follow our customs blindly and masks ourselves with deceitful politeness, there would be “no more sincere friendship; no more real esteem; no more well-founded trust. Suspicions, offenses, fears, coolness, reserve, hatred, betrayal, will constantly hide beneath this even and deceitful veil of politeness.” [14]

“But the Sciences the Arts, and dialectics once again prevailed; Rome filled up with philosophers and orators; military discipline came to be neglected, agriculture despised; Sects joined, and the Fatherland forgotten.” [31]

In Rome, before men studied sciences and arts, one would see “a spectacle which neither your riches nor all your arts shall ever succeed in exhibiting; the finest spectacle ever to appear under heaven, the Assembly of two hundred virtuous men, worthy of commanding in Rome and of governing the earth.”

These phrases all say that there was glory before science, and we have softened ourselves because of the sciences and the arts, as he explicitly says, “Let [children] learn what they ought to do when they are men, and not what they ought to forget.” [51] Meaning that rather than studying Latin or Greek that no one even speaks, we must dedicate ourselves to military discipline. That he means this is obvious from a number of sentences; “the Italian Princes and Nobility amused themselves more trying to become vigorous and warlike.” [47] and “The Romans admitted that military virtue died out among them in proportion as they began to be knowledgeable about Paintings, Etchings, Goldsmiths’ vessels, and to cultivate fine arts.” [48]

He also talks about how Roman Empire (who knew wealth and virtues) was sacked by the Goths and Franks who had nothing but wild tempers and poverty. Another instance where one can see how fine arts destroyed military virtues is seen when the Goths vanquished Rome, for they did not burn libraries so as to keep their enemy amused and distract from military exercises. [47]

But is this not the very art of warfare? Is this not political-science, per se? Machiavelli and Hobbes both agree that we should keep people happy with commodious living; with mindless-fluffy stuff, to keep the citizen body inactive so as to stabilize the society. The Romans and the Greeks too agreed on that as bread and circuses were to be maintained.

So once again, what the heck is Rousseau talking about? He says the science and the arts are corruptive to us, when in fact he praises warfare military (strategy). He encourages us to maintain the Fatherland, when in fact he believes in establishing a peaceful community by getting rid of arts and sciences. He says sciences are manifestations of our vices and they make us blind only to follow our custom and not our genius, when he praises scientists like Newton and Descartes as exemplars who were genius. And the arts and the sciences made us vicious, when in act those vices were, he says, already present in us even before our acquisition of them.