(H1) After
reading today’s assignment in The History of Western Philosophy, I had a very
negative view of Rousseau. Shortly after that however I read The Philosophy of
Walking assignment, giving me two completely different images of Rousseau.
Russel makes the statement that Hitler is a consequence of the philosophy and
writings of Rousseau, a harsher statement arguably could not be made. To say
that Rousseau’s philosophy were clear in Hitler seems, to me, a bit extreme.
Rousseau’s
Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, may
be an extremely pessimistic view of on the effect of science and the arts, but
I do not find it to be so far from the truth. Another point where I find
Rousseau more hopeful and truthful then other philosophers is his point of man
in the state of nature. Russel says that according to Rousseau, so long as man
is not hungry, he is at peace with all of the creatures of nature. This
statement carries over to the ideas presented in the Discourse on the Origin of
Inequality. If it were not for man being hungry for status through the arts, sciences,
and other socio-economic ideas, then mankind could maybe coexist peacefully and
without war and the causing of other suffering.
In
conclusion, while Rousseau may not have been the best friend to have, and he
may have been subject to mania, but this does not diminish the brilliance nor
the truth of his writings. Russel is a wonderful writer and probably the best
source of Philosophical history, but sometimes his prejudices can cloud the
judgement of the reader.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.