The Central Methodological Difficulty That Rousseau Is Faced With - Essay Example

Discuss Rousseau and either Tolstoy or Sartre The central methodological difficulty that Rousseau is faced with in pursuing a science of mankind isone of the impossibility of bridging the schism that stands at the very origin of society. How can Rousseau, sat in his study in the eighteenth century and therefore highly embroiled in society, have a clear picture of an "original" or "natural" man without recourse to social categories How can he look back and truly understand a state that, in creating the possibility of looking back, of study and of philosophical inquiry, has ceased to exist In the current state of artificiality how can anyone see the reality that pre-dated it What further complicates the situation is the possibility that this 'originary' or 'natural' state "never did exist" (Rousseau, 7). Furthermore, and particularly problematic for any attempts to create a politics or an ethics from what Rousseau says it "probably never will exist" again (7). As such, Rousseau does not suggest he can give an authoritative answer to the origin of man (and the inequalities between man and man) but only attempt to throw a little light on the matter, and form the question in the correct way. The two basic kinds of inequality that Rousseau delineates are, firstly, natural and physical inequalities that are "established by nature" (11) and are not in any way socially constructed and, secondly, moral and political kinds of inequality, or those inequalities that are dependent upon social convention. The first kind of inequality - natural inequalities - are not treated by Rousseau, mainly because their origins do not need to be studied intensively (it is somewhat of a tautology to say that natural inequalities come about due to nature) and secondly because they are inequalities that are ingrained in man and therefore cannot be changed. The more socially significant are moral and political inequalities, or the artificial inequalities that are created not by things that adhere to the character of stature of an individual, but are created because of the interaction of individuals. These inequalities are more significant in the study of society (for society is made up precisely of these artificial inequalities) and more interesting politically, because they are the kinds of inequalities that can be subverted and overturned. Rousseau will also spend a good deal of time arguing against the connection between the two, i.e. a simplistic view that those who are naturally stronger become societally stronger, mainly, one feels, because of Rousseau's insistence on the primary of nature. He makes the distinction, and wishes to keep it clearly demarcated, so that he can argue for the supremacy of all things natural. In Rousseau's view there are far more advantages to being human in his "state of nature". His definition of the "state of nature" (20) is the time when there were no social connections between man and man (and therefore no laws, morality, social structures, etc). He locates the "state of nature" at a time when the only thing that distinguished man from "brutes" was a matter of species rather than a qualitative difference in their way of life. Also, man made, used and ate precisely enough for his own wants - their was no division of labor or property, which are the marks of social living. "Savages", or natural man, were much stronger than their social counterparts, and were more aware of the world around them. Because they did not have tools, shelters or artificial means of warmth then their bodies were hardened against the elements. Equally, though it might be considered a disadvantage not to have the medicines that modernity has created, Rousseau believes that this has not made a qualitative difference to health or life expectancy - any advances in medicine have been necessary only because of the degrading effects of modern living. Perhaps more debatable is the contention that in the sphere of feelings and emotions natural man was at an advantage. This requires Rousseau to make compassion a savage (or irrational) emotion, whilst making self-regard a rational and societal one; the savages therefore show compassion, but the violence beget of self-interest only comes with society. Equally, though natural man knows sex, they do not know the more civilized 'love' (which is a "factitious feeling" (32)), and it is love which creates the attendant feelings of jealousy and the violence that follows that emotion. Central to the creation of society (and particularly all of society's negative aspects) is, according to Rousseau, the notion of property. The origin of property was in land, of plot of land tilled by the same person of a considerable amount of time was considered to be belonging to them. This led to the creation of shelters that belonged to particular people, which in turn (when a man, woman and children they produced lived under the same roof) created families. Such homes, according to Rousseau, functioned as "a little society" (p.45) and increased the desire for property. For, once a social relation had begun (that is, labor was divided between the husband - who would hunt - and the wife - who would mind the hut and the children) there was more leisure time, in which more material goods could be made. This leisure, according to Rousseau, was truly the basis of man's fall, because it fostered the psychological needs associated with the gathering of material goods, of which, Rousseau says: "Men would have been unhappy at the loss of them, though the possession did not make them happy" (46). Politically, the outline of social relations that we know now are based on the desire for property - including the rule of law and governments. These minature societies grew and those who could gather the most property became the most powerful (and became kings and queens or the aristocracy). They used this new-found power to institute laws that would safeguard their property from attack. From these measures of control are born modern society and modern tyrannies that have been associated with it. The natural conclusion from the above would be to advocate the abolition of society altogether, and the return to the woods from whence man came to live in the more innocent state. However, this is not the conclusion that Rousseau can arrive at, although he explicitly states that it is a conclusion that many would draw. Instead he seems to suggest that, if he thought it possible to give up the new desires and institutions that have been created then that would be the best way to live. However, he himself knows that he cannot give up the desires that society has created in him (including the desire, exhibited in the discourse, to learn more about man and society), and suggests that it would, society being what it is, be an act of cowardice to do so. As it is, he says he will remain as he is, respecting the bonds of his community, living within the seriously compromised society, but doing his best to dilute the worst of its consequences. He will remind rulers of their duties, and hold in contempt the terrible effects society creates. This might seem a contradictory, even hypocritical position for Rousseau to take given what he has said in the preceding discourse. However, I think it is the only principled stand he can make. To, individually, return to the "state of nature" as well as being impossible (we have been created by the society we live in, we are subject to the desires it has created in us. Not only that, but to live outside of society whilst society continues would be to turn ones back on the terrible violence that will continue to be committed. Before his death, Ivan Ilyich was an upstanding member of the community and, after being a long standing public prosecutor, had risen to an important position in the justice ministry. His life had been, in Tolstoy's words, "simple and most ordinary and therefore most terrible" (Tolstoy, 371). The kind of life that Tolstoy considers normal seems to be one of social climbing in an idealistic vacuum. Ivan Ilyich likes his position as magistrate, mainly because it gives him power over other people. He uses his position to make contacts and to move up the social ladder, one of the happiest moments of his life is when he realizes a friend has been promoted in the justice ministry because he can secure a position. He is a man constantly preoccupied by what people think of him, and the idea that as a public prosecutor he was passed over for promotion was extremely galling. He often lived above his means, precisely so as to create the impression of his own richesse. This concern for public opinion extends to his love life. As a younger man he has various liaisons, but all of which were considered morally blameless as it was conducted "among people of the best society" (373). He married his wife because she was well connected. He had few hobbies outside of his work, and all of these were, once more, for the purpose of cementing his place in society. He played bridge and gave dinner parties which, Tolstoy notes, were the same as every other dinner party given by men like him. The new furnishings he had put into his house were, likewise, the same as all other furnishings chosen by "people of moderate means who want to appear rich" (383). Ivan Ilyich's life is very much presented as empty, self-serving and, more than anything, totally wedded to the notion of keeping up his own social standing. When Ivan Illych becomes ill there are various responses to his illness. His wife's reaction to his increasing illness is that, firstly, she seems to consider that it is as though it is his fault. She blames him for the inconvenience his illness causes to her. She begins precisely as she will go on after Ivan Ilych's death, in which she seems less concerned with mourning his death than procuring for herself extra money from the government over and above the amount put aside for his pension. This self-serving response continues even in regards to Ivan Ilych's doctors who, when he goes to visit them, are more concerned with the way Ivan Ilych sees them (and what power they can wield over him) than helping him with his illness. Ivan Ilych merely wants to know whether his condition means life or death, but they do not give him a straight answer, being too busy covering their own backs. He recognizes in their behavior precisely the way he used to act whilst he was on the bench, trying to create an impression of omnipotence, whilst protecting himself if he got something wrong. The reaction of his colleagues is similarly self-serving, it is quite clear that when they help him pick up his cards at bridge, or express concern for his health, they are only thinking of whether they will be promoted to his position after his death. There is a feeling that everyone (apart from Ivan Ilych's youngest child and his servant Gerasim) is concerned less for him and more for what his death will mean for them. They, like Ivan Ilych before he became ill, do not consider that they themselves will one day die, they avoid any feeling that Ivan Ilych is a precursor of their own fate. Gerasim, Ivan Ilych's peasant servant, is one of the only people who Ivan will allow near him in his final days, and the only person who does not create him to become depressed. He was "fresh" and "stout" and was "always cheerful and bright" (399). The sole function he seems to perform for Ivan Ilych is to lift his legs as he sits on the sofa. He does this for hours without complaint and without becoming in anyway resentful of what Ivan Ilych is asking to do for him. It is telling, I think, that Gerasim is from the peasant class, and is compared to Ivan Ilych's younger son. Both are the only people to give an honest reaction to his dying. He is easily compared to a man in the "state of nature" that Rousseau discussed in his discourse - he is able to feel pure, simple compassion, without any of the accompanying egotism, or self-serving thoughts. He equally falls into the stereotype, re-inforced by both Tolstoy and Rousseau of the noble savage, or the simple peasant. Tolstoy uses someone further down the social ladder to represent someone who has moved less far away from a primal state of innocence, and has not yet (like a child) picked up society's falseness any hypocricy. Ivan Ilych goes through a number of stages in his response to his impending death. The first (a belief only encouraged by his doctors' inability to give him a correct diagnosis) is disbelief. He never really believed that he could die. As a you man he had learned the syllogism that ends, "therefore Caius is mortal' (396), but he had never believed that the fate Caius - representing man in general - could be applied to him. He considered himself special, something extraordinary. As we have already seen, Tolstoy characterizes him as someone far from extraordinary. After disbelief, and the knowledge that he is to die comes to be accepted, Ivan Ilych begins to hate all examples of health and vitality that he sees around him: he cannot stand to see his wife, his daughter or her fianc. What is more, and what marks these members of his family our from Gerasim and his youngest son, is that he cannot bear what he has come to see as there hypocrisy and their falseness. When they come to his room to comfort him he sees that they do it merely out of a societally imposed sense of duty; as the incident in which they are about to set out for the theater demonstrates, they would much prefer to be living their own lives. He hates them because they see his death as no more than an inconvenience. More than anything Ivan Ilych wants comforting - in the way a small child might be comforted. This is the type of comfort he receives from Gerasim, who is not convened for himself (he will not go to bed though he might want to), but stays with Ivan Ilych because he is ill and needs someone to stay. In the final stages of the illness, in which he screams as much from mental as from physical anguish, he cannot come to terms for the reason for his death or the absence of the God he calls too. He is stuck with a dilemma, he thinks that his death must be punishment for the way he has lived his life, and yet he cannot accept that he has lived anything other than a good life. Finally, just a few hours before he dies, he sees precisely the quality of his own life, and feels sorry for his wife and his children because they are still embroiled in the pettiness of life. The key to his reconciliation with death is the understanding that he must act for others rather than himself. He dies in "the light" (418), and dies happy. References Rousseau, J.J. Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. London: Dover Publications, 2004. Leo Tolstoy : The Death of Ivan Ilyich in The Oxford Library of Short Novels, ed. John Wain London, Guild Publishing, 1990. pp. 361-419. Read More