What could I possibly say about Rousseau to keep on trying to give all the
glory to the creator Jesus Christ? There is no way I could do anything decent
without starting to discuss his anthropological perspective. Rousseau manages
to narrate a state of nature in which men are really independent and isolated
from one another, men who at first only encountered each other to satisfy their
natural instinct of reproduction so that then they could have a good nap with
their chests all filled up with pride. So then you know how it goes, two make
three and there it is, a new amazingly loud and perseverant crying hungry
mouthed baby. This creates cooperation from within the also new borne family
structure derived from the natural state of compassion, and the development of
language, love, social interaction, private property, vanity and envy.
As from my point of view the establishment of the social contract itself
could be the key point into trying to shake Rousseau's philosophy, which seems
to have found its may point, that men are good and that society corrupts them,
before its construction; As if building a bridge in between to cliffs starting
from the middle. However, I do find marvelous how he managed to narrate a state
of affairs in which nobody did question if men where actually compassionate in
their natural state, and I can not imagine a different kind of approach that
could have destroyed monarchy, which was clearly not the way to go.
But, a question remains in my head: How can one argue that a change in a
system is needed when the system itself, no matter the kind, will end up
corrupting its naturally good people? I think it has a really bold move and that
the possible negative and positive repercussions where not seriously waged.
What if men where not actually good in the state of nature? Who can actually
say something away from speculations regarding this point? As I say I cannot
imagine another way to have accomplished to change that incredibly poor low
social mobility system without attacking the anthropological paradigm that
reigned, however I do not see clear evidence rather than an amazingly well
written cause-effect speculation fantasy.
Moreover, what could be the actual impact of giving a moral value judgment
to men that are not possibly going to be involved in a state of affairs
confined outside a social contract? As for my point of view that could have
been left alone and if Rousseau was aiming for political development he should
have state from within the political paradox. But what’s done its done. I think
I do not have to dwell to much into how the fact that men think they are
naturally good has given them the greatest weapon that has ever existed, a
self-excuse from anything, a "peacefully" internal way out of
anywhere. Adolf Eichman would have probably sincerely think, ""I’m
good, I was just following orders."" Or some heroine junky in E-side
Vancouver, ""I’m good, always been, my instincts to, is just the
system who f***ed up my family"" This anthropological perspective
gives us the chance to easily wash our hands up and blame others, who will also
blame others. Consequently, I just fell confortable in saying thanks to
Rousseau for having us delivered us from monarchy to democracy, but that this
system could work much better if embracing the fact the we are not as good as
we think and that we could use the help of a much greater one, ready to help us
fight the best fight against mediocrity and "positive" self-denial: El Rey Jesús.
No comments:
Post a Comment