...all the subsequent progress has been in appearance so many steps toward the perfection of the individual, and in fact toward the decay of the species. (pg. 65)
Emerging society gave way to the most horrible state of war; since the human race, vilified and desolated, was no longer able to retrace its steps or give up the unfortunate acquisitions it had made, and since it labored only toward its shame by abusing the faculties that honor it, it brought itself to the brink of its ruin. Horrified by the newness of the ill, both the poor man and the rich man hope to flee from wealth, hating what they once had prayed for. (pg. 68)
Savage man and civilized man differ so greatly in the depths of their hearts and in their inclinations, that what constitutes the supreme happiness of the one would reduce theo ther to despair. (pg. 80)
...it (inequality) derives its force and growth form the development of our faculties and the progress of the human mind... (pg. 81)
Sorry for the mass of quotations, but I think that they collectively drive home what I understood to be Rousseau's point. Yes, the human race has endured a "fall" from a most ideal condition to one of vice and folly. This fall was in the form of progress, however, and thus must be to some advantage. Rousseau emphasizes the stark contrast between savage and civilized man. The condition that he details throughout the discourse is not only unattainable, but also unsuitable for modern humans. Is it then worth lamenting? I think that his discourse is just that; a discussion of the simultaneous fall and rise of the human race over time. Inequality is an inevitable effect of progress "that reigns among all civilized people" (pg. 81). Why dwell on what cannot be fixed? (Or, does anyone think that it can be fixed??)
No comments:
Post a Comment