Introduction
Thomas Hobbes, Jean Jacques Rousseau and Rene Descartes are the three major philosophers of Modern Philosophy. These three introduced some points of view regarding the human nature and the society. They have established claims that tells what and how to act accordingly.
On this paper I will try to give the best elements of each philosopher with regards to human habitation that they believed is quite very true. After that,I will try also to prove that their claims are not to be accepted.
I will start this paper by introducing the lives of these Philosophers so that we might somehow understand why they have wrote such beliefs. These philosophers were also branded as Romanticists because of their day dreaming ans aspirations.
They have defied what seems to be the norms that were being accepted by the world then. But it actually help us to really evaluate our societies, our forms of governments, our economic strategies to make our country somehow different from others. In this paper, I will try clarify points that are really crucial in our experience of government forms and styles. I will try to look for the effects of the their philosophies that somehow changed the course of our life, culture and belief.
I think this is quite important and helpful for us to understand also the experiences of these philosophers for us to understand, like what I said earlier, where they are coming from, what might be their reasons why they have founded such beliefs that turned out to be believed by many.
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)
Thomas Hobbes was born at Westport, adjoining Malmesbury in Wiltshire, on April 5, 1588. His father was the vicar of a parish. His uncle, who was a tradesman and alderman of Malmesbury, provided for Hobbes’ education. When he was 14 years old he went to Magdalen Hall in Oxford to study, already an excellent student of Latin and Greek. He left Oxford in 1608, and became the private tutor for the eldest son of Lord Cavendish of Hardwick (later known as the Earl of Devonshire).
He traveled with his pupil in 1610 to France, Italy, and Germany. He then went to London to continue his studies, where he met other leading scholars like Francis Bacon, Herbert of Cherbury, and Ben Johnson.
Hobbes maintained his connection to the Cavendish family, however, in 1628 the Cavendish son died, and Hobbes had to find another pupil. In 1629 he left for the continent again for a two year journey with his new student. When he returned in 1631 he began to tutor the younger Cavendish son. It was around this time that Hobbes’ philosophy began to take form. His manuscript Short Tract on First Principles was most likely written in 1630. In this piece he uses the geometrical form, inspired by Euclid, to shape his argument.
From 1634 to 1637 Hobbes returned to the continent with the young Earl of Devonshire. In Paris he spent time with Mersenne and the scientific community that included Descartes and Gassendi. In Florence, he conversed with Galileo. When he returned to England he wrote Elements of law Natural and Politic, which outlined his new theory. The first thirteen chapters of this work was published in 1650 under the title Human Nature, and the rest of the work as a separate volume entitled De Corpore Politico. In 1640 he went to France to escape the civil war brewing in England. He would stay in France for the next eleven years, taking an appointment to teach mathematics to Charles, Prince of Wales, who came to Paris in 1646.
At this time Hobbes friend Mersenne was encouraging scholars to respond to Descates’ forthcoming treatise Meditationes de prima philosophia. In 1641 Hobbes sent his critique to Descartes in Holland, and they were published in Objectiones with the publication of the treatise. The two men continued their discourse, exchanging letters on the Dioptrique, which had been published in 1637. Hobbes disagreed with Descartes’ theory that the mind, independent from material reality, was the primal certainty. Hobbes instead used motion as the basis for his philosophy of nature, mind and society. His correspondence with Descartes led to a paper on his views on physics and a TractatusOpticus to works published by Mersenne.
By 1640 Hobbes had plans for his future philosophical work, expecting it to take shape in the form of three treatises. He planned to begin with matter, or body, then look at human nature, and then society. However, inspired by the political unrest in his home country, he began instead with the third treatise on society. De Civewas published in Paris in 1642. When the Commonwealth had reestablished a stable government in England, Hobbes published the same text in English under the title Philosophical Rudiments concerning Government and Society. The book was highly controversial, and criticized by both sides of the English civil war. He supported the king over parliament, but also denied the king his divine right. Oxford University dismissed faculty under the premise of being “Hobbits”. Hobbes also ventured controversial views on God and religion, and the Roman Catholic Church put his books on the Index. In England ther
In 1651 Hobbes returned to England, fearing that France was no longer a safe haven for the exiled English court. This same year saw the publication of Leviathan, Hobbes’ most influential work. In the introduction to the book Hobbes describes the state as an organism, showing how each part of the state functions similarly to parts of a human body. As the state is created by human beings, he first sets out to describe human nature. He advises that we may look into ourselves to see a picture of general humanity. He believes that all acts are ultimately self-serving, even when they seem benevolent, and that in a state of nature, prior to any formation of government, humans would behave completely selfishly. He remarks that all humans are essentially mentally and physically equal, and because of this, we are naturally prone to fight each other. He cites three natural reasons that humans fight: competition over material good, general distrust, and the glory of powerful positions. Hobbes comes to the conclusion that humanity’s natural condition is a state of perpetual war, constant fear, and lack of morality.
After returning to England in 1651, Hobbes had spent a couple of years in London, before retreating to the home of his former pupil the Earl of Devonshire. In 1654 Hobbes was surprised by an unauthorized publication of a tract entitled Of Liberty and Necessity, which he had written in response to an attack by the bishop Bramhall on Leviathan. Bramhall was enraged by Hobbes response, and Hobbes was prompted to write a further and more elaborate defense in The Questions concerning Liberty, Necessity, and Chance, which was published in 1656. In 1655 Hobbes published De Corpore, the first part of his philosophical system. This work looks at the logical, mathematical and physical principles that create the foundation of his philosophy. The second part of his system, De Homine, was published in 1656.
In 1667 Leviathan was mentioned in a bill passed in the Commons against blasphemous literature. Although the bill did not pass both houses, Hobbes was scared into studying the law of heresy, and wrote a short treatise arguing that there was no court that might judge him. He was forbidden to publish on the topic of religion. Many of his works were kept from publication, however a Latin translation of Leviathan was published in Amsterdam in 1668. Around this time he also wrote Dialogue between a Philosopher and a Student of the Common Laws of England. Among the titles that remained unpublished during his lifetime are the tract on Heresy, and Behemoth: the History of the Causes of the Civil Wars of England. He continued to write, and he wrote his autobiography, in Latin verse, when he was eighty-four years old. In his final years he completed Latin translations of the Iliad and the Odyssey, and in 1675 he left London for the last time to live with the Cavendish family in Derbyshire. Hobbes died at Hardwick on December 4, 1679.
The First Element:
“In the Leviathan, Hobbes writes that morality consists of Laws of Nature. These Laws, arrived at through social contract, are found out by reason and are aimed to preserve human life. Hobbes comes to his laws of nature deductively, still using a model of reasoning derived from geometry. From a set of five general principles, he derives 15 laws. The five general principles are (1) that human beings pursue only their own self-interest, (2) that all people are equal (3) the three natural causes of quarrel, (4) the natural condition of perpetual war, and (5) the motivation for peace. The first three Laws of Nature he derives from these principles describe the basic foundation for putting an end to the state of nature. The other twelve laws develop the first three further, and are more precise about what kind of contracts are necessaryto establish and preserve peace.”
We can say that Hobbes point view regarding human nature is quite harsh. I think he came up with these kind of opinion because he keeps on insisting that human persons tend to preserve himself, in that case he tends to become shrewed and will find a way how to keep his life safe. Hobbes is starting from a negative anthropology.
The Doctrine of the Social Contract, I think is not applicable at all times. It says that because man needs to preserve his own life,he needs to surrender his own rights to the leviathan,in that case, the Leviathan would assure his safety. But in today’s world,even though there is no Leviathan, man will not simply step on others rights. I think it’s a human instinct that people respect each others rights. For example you really want to urinate, and you are at the park. Many people are there. You will not simply go on with your plans because you are civilized and that you know that urinating in front of many people is quite a very shameful act. Leviathan here does not dictate to you that is wrong to do such, but it is your own reason that tells you not to commit it. Hence reasoning in the mind of Hobbes is quite different from the “reason” used by Kant. In fact, the “reasoning” used by Hobbes in the Leviathan is that which used in geometry.
I think we cannot simply used the reason that of geometry in the society because it has a lot of difference from the reasoning that we should apply in a state. Even if we say that man really wants to preserve his life, I think man cannot simply apply this kind of argument that Hobbes is suggesting. Hobbes is trying to convince people with his arguments based on his experience, that is quite subjective. There are different societies all around the world. And these societies also differs from one another. Therefore, Hobbes cannot simply universalized this doctrine of Social contract. I think in preserving peace, we need not to have a lot of hard to understand theories.
It is only common sense that dictates what to do. For example, you know that if I hurt somebody, then naturally, he will fight in return. Having known this kind of principle,you will not simply just do whatever you want to do. My main point here is that even though without knowing the principles of Leviathan, we would not simply do ridiculous things to the other members of the society, because it is reason that governs your act, and not simply and governmental body where one needs to surrender his own rights to have peace and avoid war.
The Second element:
Of Government
Hobbes saw the responsibility of governments to be the protection of people from their own selfishness, and he thought the best government would have the power of a sea monster, or leviathan. He saw the king as a necessary figure of leadership and authority. He felt that democracy would never work because people are only motivated by self-interest. He saw humanity as being motivated by a constant desire for power, and to give power to the individual would result in a war of every one against the other that would make life “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
What Hobbes is trying to point out here is that the Government will function as an arbiter between groups of people. His arguments seems to be right and acceptable. It is quite deceiving because of the beauty of its construction, But we should try to see it deeply and critically. His argument is insufficient. Like what I have said earlier, we need to bear in our mind that every society differs from one another.
The government cannot simply protect its people from their individual enemies. Granting. We say, that there are enforcement agencies in the society that the government has founded, but how can we be sure that it could perform its task well? For example in our very own country, the Philippines, what is the category of the crime rate in Manila alone? It is too high, thinking that Manila is the capital of this country. It does not guarantee that the Government can assure the safety of its citizens.
Another example is a penal community in Tarlac. This penal community is quite different from any penal community in the whole country, and in the whole world as well, I may say. When we think of Penal colonies, we automatically think that these communities are heavily guarded, high walls all around its premises and most of the time, the inmates do not have peace. Most of the time, they are always prepared for riots and escape from the bars. But this community is quite different because, literally there are no perimeter fences, the guards are not busy guarding the inmates. The inmates are busy in the fields, making souvenir stuffs and so on.
It is quite surprisingly to know that when you ask the inmate on the the outside world they would reply to you that they do not want to go out because they have found peace all ready on that said colony. In this example we can prove that a Leviathan that was proposed by Thomas Hobbes is not needed there. It is in the mind of those inmates not to do something wrong because, maybe they have realized that is pleasing to live in a community where really peace is existing.
In the Leviathan that Hobbes is suggesting, the peace that it offers is quite not that strong because of its weak foundation. It simply wants gain artificial peace to avoid war. It is not acceptable to say that all people have a vain desire for power and positions in a certain state. Leviathan is not promising a long lasting peace at all. Rather, it only minimize the greed of those people who are cunning for power. In these argument,we can say simply that Hobbes has generalized all the societies, that without any exemptions, all need this Leviathan.
With regards to democracy, Hobbes is again wrong in saying that democracy cannot be helpful at all. He believes that people are motivated by selfish interests. We have proven that democracy is not a catastrophic tool in governing a society. During the 1960’s Communism, Socialism and other related totalitarian form of governments bloomed. Many European countries believed that Democracy is not a solution to alleviate poverty and keep peace and order in their respective societies. Of course, they have chose the wrong one. By the early 1990’s all those totalitarian form of governments eventually collapsed. The United States, the pioneer in Democracy proved to us that it is still the best form of government because it respects the will of the majority.
We understood democracy as the thethe government of the many. With these form of government we are assured that the voice of the majority will be respected by the government. For example, the right to suffrage. The official of the Government in the Democratic form of government are duly elected by its citizens. Officials were not simply endorsed the the head of the government. It helps in maintaining a good and harmonious relationship between the people and the government. In a democratic form of Government, the citizens have many choices, enabling them to have a good dispositions in making decisions.
On the other hand, the Leviathan, believes that a King is best fit to have the highest position in a Commonwealth. The King is the only one who can restore peace, impose justice, bring prosperity and so forth and so on. But on the other way around, we have found on our history that the King cannot simply fulfill all these beautiful promises that a government can bring to its members. Rather, we have found out the opposite. The King because he is a sole authority, can have the tendencies and the potentialities to be corrupt and can abuse many of his subjects. He can do whatever he wants because no one can resists on him. He will just say that he was Divinely ordained and that makes him as the only competent leader of the land. Not only the King but also his relatives can have all the abuses in the Kingdom. They can do whatever they want because they are the family of King. Justice, we can say is very impossible here. His family can accumulate many properties it wants as much as they want. With these,justice is impossible. On the contrary, peace will not be feasible. It will only lead to a revolt that will eventually ruin the whole society.
Even if King is good on warfare and he has many warriors, still, it cannot be a guarantee for him to remain in his throne on a long period of time. The people will find their way to oust the king. This kind of situation will continue to happen infinitely. If Hobbes will try to argue that only bad kings will do such and not the good kings, well we can answer him that because he believes that human persons are naturally bad and greedy, then, even if the chosen King is good, he will be eventually become bad.
Hobbes point of view regarding politics can mislead many politicians. They cannot notice its bad effects because they are being blinded by its empty promises. Upon using such doctrine,it will only leave a huge disaster on the whole society. Hobbes became very negative because of his experiences when he was still young and that even of his old age. He was overwhelmed by his situations during his lifetime. But he failed to recognize the other possibilities that might help him.
To wrap up his points of view regarding human nature, he is only, I will say is very exaggerated in making distinctions and comparisons of every forms of governments. He failed to recognized the other good things that every form of of governments entails. And the even the worse, he has lost the trust of his fellow citizens.
Hobbes confidence was lost because of his experiences. It became worse because he failed to reform what he needs to reform. Rather he only resorted to a more a big problem i.e. to propose a solution that will not actually help but will, on the other hand bring a much terrible burden on the previous problem. Tremendous fear took away all the brains of Thomas Hobbes. He just became a floater to make himself spared from the outrage of the government of his own time. He lacked the courage to reform on what he sees is wrong. His negative anthropology never helped any citizen of the Leviathan, instead of resolving problems, it turned the other way around.
René Descartes
René Descartes was a philosopher whose work, La géométrie, includes his application of algebra to geometry from which we now have Cartesian geometry.
Descartes was educated at the Jesuit college of La Flèche in Anjou. He entered the college at the age of eight years, just a few months after the opening of the college in January 1604. He studied there until 1612, studying classics, logic and traditional Aristotelian philosophy. He also learnt mathematics from the books of Clavius. While in the school his health was poor and he was granted permission to remain in bed until 11 o’clock in the morning, a custom he maintained until the year of his death.
School had made Descartes understand how little he knew, the only subject which was satisfactory in his eyes was mathematics. This idea became the foundation for his way of thinking, and was to form the basis for all his works.
Descartes spent a while in Paris, apparently keeping very much to himself, then he studied at the University of Poitiers. He received a law degree from Poitiers in 1616 then enlisted in the military school at Breda. In 1618 he started studying mathematics and mechanics under the Dutch scientist Isaac Beeckman, and began to seek a unified science of nature. After two years in Holland he travelled through Europe. Then in 1619 he joined the Bavarian army.
From 1620 to 1628 Descartes travelled through Europe, spending time in Bohemia (1620), Hungary (1621), Germany, Holland and France (1622-23). He spent time in 1623 in Paris where he made contact with Mersenne, an important contact which kept him in touch with the scientific world for many years. From Paris he travelled to Italy where he spent some time in Venice, then he returned to France again (1625).
By 1628 Descartes tired of the continual travelling and decided to settle down. He gave much thought to choosing a country suited to his nature and chose Holland. It was a good decision which he did not seem to regret over the next twenty years.
Soon after he settled in Holland Descartes began work on his first major treatise on physics, Le Monde, ouTraité de la Lumière. This work was near completion when news that Galileo was condemned to house arrest reached him. He, perhaps wisely, decided not to risk publication and the work was published, only in part, after his death. He explained later his change of direction saying:-
… in order to express my judgement more freely, without being called upon to assent to, or to refute the opinions of the learned, I resolved to leave all this world to them and to speak solely of what would happen in a new world, if God were now to create … and allow her to act in accordance with the laws He had established.
The work describes what Descartes considers is a more satisfactory means of acquiring knowledge than that presented by Aristotle‘s logic. Only mathematics, Descartes feels, is certain, so all must be based on mathematics.
Descartes was educated at the Jesuit college of La Flèche in Anjou. He entered the college at the age of eight years, just a few months after the opening of the college in January 1604. He studied there until 1612, studying classics, logic and traditional Aristotelian philosophy. He also learnt mathematics from the books of Clavius. While in the school his health was poor and he was granted permission to remain in bed until 11 o’clock in the morning, a custom he maintained until the year of his death.
School had made Descartes understand how little he knew, the only subject which was satisfactory in his eyes was mathematics. This idea became the foundation for his way of thinking, and was to form the basis for all his works.
Descartes spent a while in Paris, apparently keeping very much to himself, then he studied at the University of Poitiers. He received a law degree from Poitiers in 1616 then enlisted in the military school at Breda. In 1618 he started studying mathematics and mechanics under the Dutch scientist Isaac Beeckman, and began to seek a unified science of nature. After two years in Holland he travelled through Europe. Then in 1619 he joined the Bavarian army.
The work describes what Descartes considers is a more satisfactory means of acquiring knowledge than that presented by Aristotle‘s logic. Only mathematics, Descartes feels, is certain, so all must be based on mathematics.
In 1649, Queen Christina of Sweden persuaded Descartes to come to Stockholm. On February 11, 1650, after only a few months in that cold climate, he died of pneumonia.
The first Element
The Methodic Doubt
“If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.”
This very statement of Rene Descartes somehow can enlighten our minds that this person is actually trying to manipulate our ideas. What he is saying does not lead us in the search for truth. I think it is a bit hard to use his technique because you will be quite prejudice in what you are doing. Descartes is only telling us not to trust anyone because he has this belief that maybe there is an evil genius that is controlling his mind. But I think this ground of Descartes is simply absurd. I cannot understand why he have to believe on such absurdity. But Descartes would say that he is not just doubting for the sake of Doubt, but he says that he is doubting in order for him to produce something.
Descartes noted that the testimony of the senses with respect to any particular judgment about the external world may turn out to be mistaken. (Meditations,I) Things are not always just as they seem at first glance (or at first hearing, etc.) to be. But then, Descartes argues, it is prudent never wholly to trust in the truth of what we perceive. I think in our ordinary lives, we cannot simply follow this belief oddescartes because how can we say that what we are percieving is not true at all? For example, i am typing this document, I can see the computer, the keyboard, the monitor, the CPU, the printer and so on. I will not just simply state that these things that I can see are all illusions.
Certainly, Descartes committed a large scale error here. To say that things do not exists needs a more clear evidences or proofs to say that something really existsr not. Let us go back to his argument that he is only controlling by an evil genius. How can he prove that such an evil exists? The burden will get heavier and heavier because this time, it is beyond our senses. Maybe we would say that he is just imagining such existence, but again, he will devoid himself on his point of view.
I think that the unforgivebable mistake of descartes is to doubt even our own fundamental process of reasoning. This is quite hard to comprehend because it will lead you to too much deception and and confusion. For example, in Mathematics, there are certain processes, steps that guides us how to solve mathematical problems. Answering for example the sum of 2 and 3, we already know what process are going to do. Our reason would tell us that to get the sum of two and three, we need to use the operation of addition. Basically after infering such, we can surely get the solution. On this given example, let us try to put ourselves in this situation. What if we doubt that to get the sum of two and three, we do not need the operation of addition, but instead, we must use multiplication? This will ceratinly produce a large scale problem in the state.
Descartes would probably tell us that he is actually making sure that each answer must be properly have undergone certain processes to ensure its validity and veracity. But, the problem is that because descartes became to extreme on this matter, the problem became not easy to bear. Doubting our own fundamental processes will never help at all. I got the point of Descartes, but I think we must not follow it to the fullest because a great danger awaits us. To doubt everything is unimaginable. The absurdity will just flourish, and the solution that Descartes had been longing for will not come into reality because instead of using only our fundamental sense processes, we resort to doubting everything that will eventually will to lead to doubting even our own existence. This I think is the worst absurdity.
Descartes raises even more comprehensive doubts by inviting us to consider a radical hypothesis derived from one of our most treasured traditional beliefs. What if (as religion teaches) there is an omnipotent god, but that deity devotes its full attention to deceiving me? (Meditations I) The problem here is not merely that I might be forced by god to believe what something which is in fact false. Descartes means to raise the far more devastating possibility that whenever I believe anything, even if it has always been true up until now, a truly omnipotent deceiver could at that very moment choose to change the world so as to render my belief false. On this supposition, it seems possible to doubt the truth of absolutely anything I might come to believe. Although the hypothesis of a deceiving god best serves the logical structure of the Meditations as a whole, Descartes offered two alternative versions of the hypothetical doubt for the benefit of those who might take offense at even a counter-factual suggestion of impiety. It may seem more palatable to the devout to consider the possibility that I systematically deceive myself or that there is some evil demon who perpetually tortures me with my own error. The point in each case is that it is possible for every belief I entertain to be false.
Using this quotation, we can already see that Descartes’s problem is really becoming ver incomprehensible. Descartes as well know is shall we say, somehow a religious Philosopher. He even proved that God exists, and why in this statement that Descartes eventually turned out to be to beleiving the diety that decieves? When he says that there might be a deceiving diety that even what we beleive is true up to now, will be changed by that omnipotent being and suddenly, all that we believe will will be turned on the other way around? By using our common sense, we cannot simply accept that kind of argument because when a being who is omnipotent cannot do such a thing it will contradict his own essence. The level of doubting that Descartes has is, I think not feasible at all. Even if we use the two alternatives that Descartes offered, then eventually with the kind of the mind that he has, then eventually fall on the belief that is false. Certainty is impossible for Descartes because he is always engaging himsely on the vicious cycle of doubting everything. His famous statement Cogito ego sum, which he believe is the only solution against skepticism is indeed false. How can he say that he is sure that he is actually existing while he in fact doubt everything. In that statement, he committed a total mistake. If he believes that everything is not true or existent, then it will follow that there is not exemptions on such belief. I think Descartes is only manipulating us with his dialectic skills. Even though it may appear that he is really proving that any existence is impossible, still we can see, the problems and the loopholes of his philosophy. He says that, In order to doubt the veracity of such fundamental beliefs, I must extend the method of doubting even more hyperbolically. This I think would be too much. It can no longer produce something. Everything is doubting. Descartes satisfaction is not possible. He will just continue to do such an absurd kind of inference and perception.
The Second Element:
Descartes as the Therapist of the Mind.
Descartes as we all know is a great Mathematician. He is fond of algebra, calculus and other branches of Mathematics. Aside from that, Descates is also as we all know a Philosopher. As a philosopher and Mathematician, Descartes, I think confused his ideas from one point to another.
Descartes beleived that we as human persons must not have any hard time in Mathematics, for him Mathemetics is easy and full of fun. The he formulated something that will eventually help man to become good in Math. Descartes, first and foremost beleived that we are ppor in math because our minds became fragmented and worse polluted because we have so many bad informations that we pluged into our brains. For him, those bad informations are garbages that maikng our minds poor and not anti-Math.
Now, this Philosopher is proposing something that will heal and strengthen our minds. This is why he is called the therapist of the mind. According to him, in order for us to have a good delight in math, we must first and foremost free our selves from all the distructions and informations that we are acquiring from our society. This, he says are the pollutants that are killing our brain cells, thus making our minds have a harder time in comprehending and grasping mathematical equations and problems. The theraputic process will start cleaning our minds if we are already freed from these various pollutants.
Descartes again became so paranoid with regards to this problem. The problem with him is that, he is imposing a certain school to everyone that he is expecting that all men will eventually must and are mandated to do. This again, will cause a huge problem because you cannot please everybody to be good in that subject matter.
For example, in the Philippine, 70-90% of the students find Mathematics a very terrible and horrible subject. I, for example hate this subject because I really do not comprehend Math that fast. As I see numbers and all those symbols, I am really trembling. Math simpli is not my forte.
Descartes generalized everything. He categorized persons who are good and not good in this subject. He forgot to realize and understand that there are many other subjects such arts that are already existing on that time. His belief made a terrible judgement to the society. He believed that in order to became great, one must simply be good in math. But of course that is very absurd. Another example, there are maby great people who lived in his time that were not good in math, but excell on the other branches of learning. How about the painters, are they good in Math? He generalized everything.
Another problem with descartes is that he deduces everything in Mathematics. He even beleived that our minds are actually building blocks of ideas in mathematics, therefore, if you are not dood in math, it only means that aside from having a small brain, it also follow that when someone is really noty good in math, then he does not have brain at all?
Certainly, Descartes interests on mathematics created a huge problem. He wants to use a therapy in order for the citizens to be good in math and eventually become good citizens of the state. But he cannot just impose such in all the memebers of the society. Math is not only subject that will make the world go round.
Philosophy cannot simply be equated on Mathematics. Philosophy as well know has many branches. Then if we just equate everything to Math, i think it would be unfair. The solution that Descartes is impossing is really insufficient. Maybe his therapy is very sufficient in the field of Mathematics alone and other realted sciences, but I don’t think so in the field of Philosophy.
Indeed there is great chasm between math athothe sciences. We cannot simply accept what Descartes is propossing because it cannot solve the problems in our ordinary lives, especially when it come to practical reasoning. Math as we all know is also a basic part of our daily lives, but does not entail that it will help us understand all things.
Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)“Citizen Rousseau of Geneva”, writer, musician and political theorist, penned the well-known Social Contract in 1762. While his controversial writings contributed to the Romantic Movement and allegedly inspired the French Revolution, he emerged from fairly humble beginnings.
Jean Jacques Rousseau was born in Geneva, Switzerland, 28 June, 1712, the second son of Isaac Rousseau, descendant of French Huguenots, and Susanne Bernard (who died a week after he was born). Young Jean’s Calvinist father went into exile when he was charged with poaching and tried to slash his accuser.
Sent by his maternal uncle to a parsonage for basic religious schooling, Rousseau endured the severe straits of harsh discipline that would later form his basis of hatred towards authority. With school finished he attempted a few unsuccessful apprenticeships. The practically orphaned Rousseau (who felt he was responsible for his mother’s death) spent much of his spare time alone exploring his first love, nature, which he escaped to in life as a vagabond in 1728. His wanderings led him out of Geneva to Sardinia then France, where he met Madame de Warens, who for the next ten years provided for him an education and much needed moral support and maternal love. At this time Rousseau converted to Catholicism.
1742 and living in Paris, Rousseau hoped to establish himself in a musical career, unsuccessfully proposing a new system of music to the Academy of Sciences. He published musical theory and wrote for the opera, attracted the attentions of King and court, but ended up concentrating on the development of his political theories towards social reform. He also met Therese le Vasseur who became his mistress with whom he had five children. They married near the end of his life.
It was not until 1750 that he won his first prize for an essay A Discourse on the Sciences and the Arts, its basis being that man (from his naive state of goodness) had become corrupted by society and civilization’s progress. In 1755 he published his Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, stating that original man was preferable while isolated from the corruption of social institutions; that vices develop out of a society where man starts to compare himself to others and becomes prideful. Catholic theologians concurred that humanity had not sufficiently advanced, yet disagreed that man was innately good. Rousseau eloquently expressed the problems of `law and order’ with greater clarity than most other of his contemporaries like Diderot and Voltaire, whom he eventually parted ways with, but he was heavily criticised for his condemnations as well. He reconverted to Calvinism around this time, causing some conjecture as to his mental health, which however was a legitimate concern for the rest of his life.
Rousseau wrote The New Eloise (1761) next, which escaped censor and was one of the most widely read works of the Romanticism period. He published Èmile in 1762, his `heretical’ education reform treatise. His next and most controversial work, The Social Contract (1762) while starting with the opening line “Man was born free, but he is everywhere in chains.” suggested that there was still hope for mankind’s future, that he is essentially good, a `noble savage’, if only he realised the importance of a state of nature and worked to disarm the constraints of society. The publication of these two works caused uproar among French Catholics and Calvinist censors who were deeply offended and publicly burnt the books. Orders for his arrest were issued. Enduring this persecution but becoming paranoid and insecure, Rousseau lived in exile in Prussia and later England, to live with Scottish philosopher David Hume for a period of time. He returned to France under a false name after accusing Hume of disloyalty.
Rousseau continued to work in secret on his Confessions (1764 – 1778), inspired by St. Augustine’s Confessions as well as the Essays of Montaigne. His last opus proves to be a progressively more and more disquieting assay of self-justification, Rousseau seeming to need to plead his case for posterity, confess his sins. The lyrical Reveries of a Solitary Walker (1782), marks a period of inner peace for Rousseau in his declining years. On 2 July, 1778, while staying with the Marquis de Giradin in Ermenonville, just north of Paris, Rousseau, after taking one of his routine morning walks communing with nature, died of apparent apoplexy (or brain hemorrhage as it’s now known). He is buried in The Pantheon in Paris alongside Victor Hugo, Francois Marie Arouet, Voltaire and Emile Zola. As he says at the start of his Confessions, comparing himself to other men, “If I am not better, at least I am different.” His writings to this day are still well-known and widely available.
The First Element:
“The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying, ‘this is mine’, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not anyone have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: ‘Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.”
I shall focus on my first element on Rousseau the inequality of property. On the statement that I quoted from the Discourse on the Origin of inequality, Rousseau is discussing that the Inequality in property arises because of the rise of the society. I shall try lambaste this idea of Rousseau by citing some good examples.
For him, when men started to established the society, men became greedy. He wanted to have all the necessary possessions that he can have in order for it to be owned by him. Thus inequality arises. At first instance, we can say that he has a point, yes, it sounds logical and good, but the problem is that it was generalized and Romanticized by him. He believe that man is much good when he is living of himself, he can be able to live out his essence in this kind of situation.
He is wrong, indeed to say such word. I do believe that no man is an island. It is very hard to live alone in a society, by which he believe that is so cruel. Two weeks ago, we had experienced a terrible calamity. Metropolitan Manila and the other nearby provinces were greatly hit by this typhoon named Ondoy. A lot of properties have been damaged and lives were also claimed by this typhoon. During the storm, The Mass media worked had to posed some warnings, clamor for help, and updating the situation of the whereabouts of the typhoon. After the floods, a lot of help out poured on the evacuations centers. Many were being rescued from their homes that were submerged by the floods. Many still did not make it. The Government eventually deployed all the troops to help the victims of the flood. After all the help were being given to the people, many were still demanding the non Governmental Organizations and the Government that the help they are receiving are still insufficient.
What can Rousseau say about this example? Certainly he will find out something in order for him to escape from this problem. I will try to cite the account of Genesis telling that God himself was not convinced that Adam will be living alone by himself. He decided to create Eve out of his rib. When Eve and Adam had relations, they had their first son, and so forth and so on. Thus in this small basic family, a community was already been established. We are certain that Eve and Adam, Cain and Abel wanted to grab lands for their own good. Well, of course, we knew that Cain murdered his own brother because he was jealous, but not in terms of property.
Seldom do we here that men would probably choose to live alone. I will give again a good example. Filipinos are known to be friendly. They always wanted to have a companion whatever they are doing, most of the time, Experience wise, when I wanted to go from one place to another, I cannot gone alone. I always wanted to have my friend, or my friends with me. I cannot go on not having my companions. In the seminary, I think in all the seminaries in the world, in their aspect of formation, Community life is always present. In my experience, this aspect of formation is the hardest one, because I need to go along with my brothers. Though it’s hard, I have realized after staying for a long time here, that indeed, the community is a support system for every seminarian and priest. It is a reinforcement that will strengthen and nourish the vocation of the members of the seminary community.
Here, I cannot understand why Rousseau has this hard time to go along with the society that he is a member. Going back to nature he says is the best and only solution for men to live happily. In the first example that I have given, I think it is very hard to survive living alone. With all the floods, the winds, hunger and the danger of death, one cannot simply live alone. To live alone is impossible, because man is not capable of producing everything. He too is very dependent on nature. Even if the nature can provide everything, he cannot be happy and capable in living his life out to the fullest. In a construction firm, there are engineers, architects, masons, laborers that are working each other in order to be able to build a strong and high edifice. Yes, the architects and the engineers are the brains of the firm, but the question is, can they become effective if the laborers and the other craftsmen were absent? We cannot simply accept the fact, that in spite of the rationality of man, his intelligence, he can live on his one. This cannot be. Man by nature needs society.
In the motion picture “Cast Away” I have seen the difficulty of living alone in an island for years. That’s why the tendency of Tom Hunks is to create a partner of out of a ball named Wilson. Wilson became his best buddy. Maybe we can say that it is absurd, but in that situation we can say that Tom Hunks can never be blamed.
In the documentary entitled “The Last Journey of Ninoy”, I have seen all the difficulties of Ninoy when he was arrested during the Martial Rule of Marcos. He said that he was brought by armed men to Laur, a camp found in the midst of Sierra Madre. He said that there were times that was being left alone by his captors. He said that he even say the Rosary, all its mysteries in order for him to do something. He felt that he was going to become crazy because it is really hard. His tendency is to make himself tired in order for him to sleep and forget even for a moment the loneliness of being alone. He defined what it really means to be in the Solitary confinement.
Well Rousseau would believe that the society can only spoil her members. He believed that by creating a covenant with members, the inequality in property arises. Yes I do believe that it is possible, but I think we cannot simply generalized it. I think it depends on the government that a group of man has. It is also depends on the capabilities of each person. Rousseau has a negative anthropology towards man, I shall say because if he is in the community, in the society, greediness arises. I think the case is similar even if he is alone (basing on his definition of man and society because man, even thought lives alone ha s a tendency to grab all the properties, the wealth of the land and the seas around him. In either case, man is always greedy.
Man alone cannot make everything. It is absurd to believe that he can be happy anytime when he is alone. The problem of Rousseau is very vast that he even blamed the society for experiencing such difficulties. Of course, it is impossible to have a perfect society. A Utopia is impossible to have.
Solitude cannot promise to gain all the happiness that man seems to be always in searched to. It depends on him how to gain this. I think, it is more possible for him to attain such, if he is living with the other members of the community. Life in solitude is boring and senseless because man as a rational being cannot exercise his reasoning and thinking capability. It is insufficient to say that man who has been living in a jungle can adapt to his environment. But still man is still vulnerable to the attacks of savage beasts.
To conclude this element, we can say that Rousseau has very different meaning of Inequality, I mean he is much focusing on the state and condition of its members. No matter what we do, inequality always arises because men differs in their capabilities, strengths, intelligence and fort and so on. The inequality in properties cannot be simply blamed on the society. What if Rousseau is living at the pedestal his society, what might he think, can he changed his post?
Like what I have said before, man cannot simply live alone. It is impossible to be happy and to gain all its attributes by his own. Jean Paul Sartre would even criticize him in terms of what he called as the “Bad Faith”. According to this principle man is not doing good if he insists to blame others for his own fall. He must simply go beyond his existence and not seek for excuses that are not acceptable.
The Second Element:
The Democracy as a bad form of government.
According to Jean Jacques Rousseau, Democracy is a bad form of government because not everybody is in control but because democracy only produces inequality to all the members of the society. Rousseau believes instead in authoritarianism. For him it is good because it can control the members of the state. And if it is the case, the greed of the people will be controlled and thus inequality will be avoided.
Of course this is quite not acceptable because it does not follow that if there is an authoritarian form of government, we can eventually say that the greed of the People will be diminished. We have seen in our history many cases of this form of Governments. In the European countries, most especially, we have seen that they turned out to this ruling not because they wanted to alleviate poverty, but because they, the leaders of the state wanted to become rich. They only used some illusions to make it palatable to the people, but in fact, it only blinded the. In an authoritarian form of government, prosperity is not possible. It is not possible to attain such aspiration because the government simply controls everything. Yes, we can say that there is equality in the former Soviet Union, the Red China and other communist countries before, because the governments of such countries says that in their country, all have the same number of clothes, all have the same amount of income, all have the same houses. But the inequality that was being talked about was not addressed on its proper context. Maybe we can say that there is equality there, but we failed to evaluate the ruling class.
It is impossible to have an equality with a authoritarian form of government simply because the leaders only deceives the people. Rousseau is right in telling that with this kind of government, the leaders can control the people. Yes in terms of attaining things based on their capability. In this kind of government, people are working not for the sake of the country and their benefits but for the reigning regime. It seems that there is inequality, but if we try to sink in, we can see the bad aspects of it. The authority imposes rules that actually suppresses all the rights of the people. In this kind of government they force the members of the state for long periods of time. Not only that, they were also abused because of the kind of the work that are doing are inhumane. If we try analyze all these sorts of things, we can ask this question, “where is equality there?” The inequality the arises in each country must be evaluated not in the system of thinking of Rousseau. It only leads to a much greater problem.
Meanwhile, Rousseau, does not believe in the Totalitarian form of Government. For him, the totalitarian form of government only abuses each individual because the leaders only sit on their tables while the citizens work for them. Yes he is correct in saying and believing that the Totalitarian form of government only abuses the members of the state, but it is absurd that he did not recognized its similarity with that of the authoritarian form of government. Why is it that Rousseau did not see their resemblance?
On our political science class, we can see that the authoritarian form of government is under or the same that of the totalitarian form of government. Isn’t absurd? Both are abusive to the citizens of the state. They only promote a system of government that would benefit .1% of the population in a certain country. We have seen many Dictators of the World history, such our own Ferdinand Edralin Marcos who chose to put the country under the state of Martial Law. According to him, in order for the Philippines to regain its peace and order and the restoration of the economy, he needed to impose Martial Law, otherwise, when people who are always going in streets to demonstrate their protests would simply put chaos to the whole country. Of course, that decision is really terrible because it only worsened the condition of the country. The promise of Marcos to bring back the glory of the Philippines did not come into reality because the abuses of his government over turned its ambitions. Many were killed and many were lost. The Rich families were being forced to gave up their properties to the government and many were forced to leave the country. Marcos indeed succeed in stopping all the protests in the streets. Meanwhile, all the sequestered properties were not even benefited the country, but instead Marcos, for him not be noticed as a thief, did not put all those properties in his name, but instead it were transferred to his cronies. In other words, few were given the chance to be rich and enjoy the the fruits of their toil. Again where is inequality here?
Now let us go to democracy. Let us try to evaluate Rousseau’s point upon telling that the Democratic form of government is quite abusive for the welfare of every individual. As I have said earlier, Rousseau believe that the wherever and whenever there is democracy, eventually, inequality would arise because there is no one to control over the people who want to grab all the properties that they want to have as their own possessions. But Rousseau failed to see and recognized that the problem does not rely on Democracy. It is not because that the authoritarian form of government can control the people that equality can be achieved but it actually depends on the needs and dispositions of its members. I think it is not wrong to have many possessions, as long as it is not being robbed to the other members of the society. It is not bad to be wealthy if you have been toiled for almost all your life. I think it is quite fair to have all those riches because you have worked for it. The problem will arise if you are going richer and richer by the toils of others. I think that is inequality.
Rousseau’s point of view must be clarified and classified, otherwise we will fall on the wrong notion that Democracy is not good. Yes there is no perfect society, but we as men, as classified as thinking animals are very capable to make things happen, if only we will use it on correct way. We cannot simply blame the wealthy people as the source of our poverty, rather we must also try to evaluate ourselves what are we really doing to alleviate what we have in the present moment.
Inequality will not be irradiated if there are people who are really greedy wanting all the riches in his surroundings plus the people who do not work for their own satisfaction. But we have to further see and go beyond our shells to fight such an inequality. Authoritarianism is not the key to progress. Democracy may be. But the abolition of inequality still depends on us.
My Generalization:
We have seen in my paper the different elements that these three Philosophers namely: Jen Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes and Rene Descartes that seems to be true, pleasing and perfect. They have, in a way made our minds bubble and think that their philosophies are quite really reliable and alluring. But I have tried to expound my grounds against their points of view. In the paper we have seen the constant battle of man to the achievement of his happiness. These three tried to have all the necessary moves to prove that their points are really good for the society and to its members, particularly. I have also indicated their lives and works so that, like what I said in the introduction, to understand why they have done such works, in fairness to them.
After evaluating their experiences and their lives we have came up to the conclusion that: 1. We should not start our work with a negative anthropology, because we are human beings are capable of thinking and reasoning. 2. It is improper to blame the society as the source of corruption. 3. Living alone is not possible, we are social beings in nature and 4. Daydreaming cannot be just imposed to the whole society and claim at as the sole truth that than can bring happiness to everyone. By studying these three philosophers, I would say that I have a clear view now why many philosophers tried everything to make and have good views on the society and nature of man.
Bibiliography:
- A Discourse on the origin of inequality
- Flight to objectivity by Susan Bordo
- Faking It by Samantha Frost
- http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/96mar/descartes.html
- http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/96mar/hobbes.html
- http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/96mar/rousseau.html
By: Romeo Q. Locson Jr. | Barangay Secretary to the Sangguniang Brgy. of Camachile
