Rousseau's Critique of Science by Jeff Black | Notes & Summary
Chapter 1
Science is one of the defining characteristics of modern society. What is unique about Rousseau's critique of science is that it proceeds within that other defining tradition of modernity, democracy/egalitarianism, and not outside of it (Heidegger, Nietzsche, Plato).
Four main questions investigated
Why do progress of the arts and sciences lead to moral corruption?
He criticizes their public dissemination.
Their public dissemination destroys the mores needed to form a healthy political community.
Important pg. 10, they give new avenues for pride to latch onto. Primarily this is an investigation between pride/vanity and reason.
His argument is against popular enlightenment on the ground of protecting popular mores.
What does FD tell us about Rousseau's system?
It is a system that 1. originates through introspection 2. established by analysis and synthesis (historical evidence is subordinated to 3. interpreted in accordance with evidence from non-historical sources.
Why is FD important to Rousseau's system
The role of FD in Rousseau's ouvre:
There are two ways to read Rousseau's ouvre. The first, prepatory way is analysis which is to read things in chronological order. The second, ultimate way is synthesis which is to read things in reverse chronological order.
Analysis begins from particulars and ends in abstract principles. Synthesis begins from principles and ends in particularity.
So the first discourse is about the particulars of political life (corruption through science of morals etc.) while Emile is about the principles.
FD is the beginning of analysis and end of synthesis: both the original intuition of the system and draws ultimate consequences for the happiness of mankind.
It implies the need for Rousseau's fundamental principle: the natural goodness of man.
What are the consequences for Rousseau's critique of science for us?
Rousseau is very pessimistic about the future because the inevitability of corruption.
But he holds out hope for future with moral purity and maybe covert scientific progress.
How this book is structured
Chapter 2: rhetoric of FD
Part 1: reading FD just on its own. This is the beginning of the analysis.
Chapter 3: corruption of mores
Chapter 4: account of spread of enlightenment and corruption of mores
Chapter 5: ignorance and virtue
Part 2: reading FD in context of other works. This is reading it as the end of the synthesis.
Chapter 6: what is meant by science and the natural goodness of man
Chapter 7: Virtue, vanity, and vice
Chapter 8: solution to moral corruption and the role that conscience plays in his thought
Chapter 9: situating Rousseau in history of political thought and draws general conclusions
Chapter 2
Rousseau separates his readers into three
The wise who he is writing to and will understand and maybe even appreciate his thoughts.
The unwise (aka "the people") who will be hostile to Rousseau and his project.
Philosophers / Academics who fashion themselves as free thinkers / truth seekers but in reality are determined by public opinion and/or waste their time in metaphysical subtleties.
The rest who do not hold intellectual cultivation to be a key virtue.
The people are subject to deception which makes them think the civilized to be barbaric and the barbaric to be civilized. (The nature of this deception is topic of chapter 3)
Rousseau is writing for the wise and not the people. However, he knows that his work will be read by the people and he has limited hopes that some may be turned wise by his work. So he employs a rhetorical strategy of 1. grounding his critique as an appeal to virtue 2. exaggerating his readers virtue (flattering them).
What's crucial is that Rousseau says he "never wants to speak" to the people and its only because his work will unavoidably be read by them that he employs this rhetorical strategy (pg. 26). The reason that the egalitarian Rousseau never wants to speak because he thinks the situation is largely helpless because people (see point above) are deceived.
Rousseau is motivated by recognition/reputation as well (pg.28) but not for the approval of his contemporaries but to establish a lasting recognition.
QUESTION: why does Rousseau think that wise writers will be recognized by history if he thinks that moral corruption is almost inevitable (ie. It will get worse and worse)?
ANS: perhaps its because there will always be a small group of the wise that will carry the torch?
QUESTION: why is Socrates a hero (pg. 32)? Surely he represents the most pernicious type of questioning that hurts the mores of a society?
Chapter 3 Paragraphs 1 - 6 Moral Corruption
The first discourse attempts to answer two questions. The first question is the contingent one raise by Dijon about whether expansion of arts and sciences have contributed to moral decline. This is addressed in the first section where Rousseau traces the history of such a decline in Europe. But after that Rousseau is interested in answering the general form of that question. Whether this decline is inevitable and always paired.
Definitions
Moral purity
Original state
Orientation towards liberty
Rusticity and transparency
Love of virtue, patriotism, and piety
Yields strength of soul and happiness.
Moral corruption
Every change is corruption (pg. 46)
Characterized by politeness and deception
Undermines love of virtue
Yields weakness of soul
Enlightenment
Study of the world combined with the study of man
This second turn is the more important turn, without which, the first is worse than useless
Interesting, so enlightenment itself is not the issue
Study of man must rely/begin with self-knowledge
Question: what guardrails does Rousseau have to make sure that self-knowledge is generalized. Ie. He may be more motivated by esteem than others and over-exaggerated that.
Rousseau's understanding of history (pg.51)
Europe started off with barbarism, then shifted into genuine enlightenment that went from Egypt to Greece to Rome to Constantinople.
Enlightenment, very interestingly passes from the military losers to the victors. This implies that overly enlightened culture loses military vigor.
This chain has been broken in the 20th century when technology overcame will as the dominant force in warfare.
As enlightenment shifted east, Europe became barbaric again but in a worse state because they thought they had access to knowledge (Aristotle, scholastics). This state is worse than the original state not because they are more corrupt.
Rousseau's European Enlightenment is a restoration of the older knowledge. It is a positive because it was to teach the middle ages that they knew nothing.
Important (pg.52) Rousseau identifies sociability and not technology as the key "benefit" of arts and sciences.
Question: why is that? One explanation is that Rousseau did not see the tremendous impact of technology in his time. But maybe another one (in second discourse) is that he thinks technology often makes us worse off, his mentioning of diseases. So it's not a benefit.
Sociability is the most important because politics as well as arts and sciences all originate from the needs of humans.
Politics results from physical need.
Art and science results from mental need for esteem.
Art and science serves the need for the rulers because it makes subjects more petty and needy and dependent and thus easier to govern. It serves the need for the subjects because it gives them an avenue through which to win esteem.
The other (better) avenue to win esteem is virtue.
Art and science also are important to subjects because it makes subjects bear political life and even enjoyable. This is a thin and fragile happiness which isn' the real thing.
As a result art and science will be interpreted as positive developments by people it actually corrupts. we
Therefore the fundamnetal poltiical purpose of the arts and sciences is to decieve men about the despotic nature of political rule: that it benefits rulers more than people. This is where the egalitarian angle comes from. It's wool over the people's eyes. It's also deceptive because it gives people faux happiness, which is related to hypocrisy …
Moral corruption is tied to hypocrisy.
Moral corruption represents
People who adorn themselves in dress vs. rustic dress. Rousseau says that 1. it hampers one's strength 2. is usually made to hide some deformity.
People use fancy language
People are polite but still nasty
Even wisemen of the age who appear to love virtue, only do it because they love esteem. They are moderate because of their immoderate concern for esteem.
Important (pg.59) this dislike for hypocrisy is why Rousseau prefers the "generous" criminal to the weak hypocrite. The former has strength of soul intact.
Issue with hypocrisy is a fragmentation of the soul. A lack of unity. A division between seeming and being and a dependence on transient opinions.
IMPORTANT (pg.56) the issue is not dependent on opinions of others but the things which you are dependent on. The good man who loves virtue as well as the man devoted to science and the arts are both proud. They both seek esteem but for very different things.
This paragraph was to answer the more limited version of Dijon's question of whether there HAS been corruption through art and sciences, Rousseau will now show how this corruption is necessary. He needs to answer 1. how, if art and science deceive people into believing they are happy when they are not, he is able to see through this veil and 2. whether moral virtue is compatible with a society built on enlightenment principles.
Chapter 4 Paragraphs 16 - 20 History
This chapter will focus on how somatic happiness (rather than psychological happiness) is related to corruption through the arts and sciences: namely, how a people (and not just individuals) experience military defeat.
Ultimately the tie here is going to be shown to be weaker, and Rousseau is less concerned with this type of happiness than the previous. This is a rhetorical strategy to try and convince his popular readers who are more bent on traditional notions of "success".
Rousseau invites the comparison to Newton when he claims the relationship between moral corruption and enlightenment are constant like the moon and the tides (Newton was the first to observe this).
This implies that he thinks this holds universally like a natural law.Â
Specifically, just as gravity is the principle (unobservable outside its effects) on the moon and the tides, vanity (or amour propre more generally) is the principle of human nature that links moral corruption and enlightenment together.
This also means that he is imitating Newton when he attempts to not speculate on the nature of the unobservable force and merely to posit it.
History of conquest
Rousseau then goes on to list examples of empires that have been conquered because of too much enlightenment: Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Turks, and Chinese.
Chinese case is especially interesting (pg. 78)
Chinese regime at the time had been adopted by philosophers like Diderot and Voltaire as the exemplar of an enlightened state that held cultivation to the proper honor.
Rousseau's solution to a lot of the issues is going to rely on tying political power with erudition which is exactly what the Chinese state did.
Sparta's victory over Athens is an example: "in the long run true courage won out over resources." (Final Reply)
Important but this chain has been broken where democracies have repeatedly defeated more austere nations with less art and science. This has to do with the weaponization of knowledge since the 20th century. Best example here is how mathematical logic which even its creators thought was a completely useless discipline became the bedrock for computing and how physics paved the way for the Nuke. Forces us to realize how modern a phenomena that is. The alliance between power and intellect.
(pg. 86)Â But even in Rousseau's time he admits the European conquest of the Americas represents example of resources triumphing against virtue. So this is not a law of the universe (unlike the relationship of arts and sciences and psychological unhappiness). So the claim isn't that military victory always comes with lack of intellectual life but merely there is strong causal relationship. That holds causal relationship holds true, however, another causal relationship has just gotten a lot stronger
People who were morally pure and protected from "vain knowledge." Rousseau seperates these people into two groups:
The first group is people who have positive knowledge in addition to no vain knowledge
The second group are people (American natives is one example Rousseau gives) who are protected out of ignorance.
The status of Rousseau's claims and the role of historical evidence.
As the european conquest of americas example goes to show, or how large of a time gap there is between say introduction of imperial exams and the fall of China to the Mongols, and considering that most of Rousseau's theses are psychological, we must ask why he appeals to history? What is the role of history in his argumentation?
This is Rousseau's method by starting from historical facts and non-historical evidence (e.g. introspection) he reasons to first principles of human nature which then helps him come back to interpret the facts. This leads to a few very interesting implications:
He does not care if a fact is true in so far as it points to the right principle. It is acceptable to fabricate facts.
One historian who recognizes the relationship between enlightenment and corruption is sufficient evidence for his position whereas ten who do not is not sufficient evidence against because 1. the first historian would be speaking against his self interest 2. historians have tendency to read their own judgements into things (read their own principles into things) which may not be correct.
Accurate historical facts that contradict a principle you have certainty in can be explained by secondary causes e.g. European conquest of the americas.
We have an answer to the question how Rousseau was able to see through the link between apparent happiness and enlightenment: its because he had a superior principle that allowed him to interpret the facts in a better way. Clearly history is not conclusive in showing the necessary relationship between enlightenment and unhappiness so now we are going to examine this principle which enables Rousseau to draw the "necessary" conclusion.
There are two reasons why history is not the strongest way to argue for this conclusion. First, its because history mostly documents public phenomena (battles) but the more important one is the private phenomena (experiences/happiness). Second, because history is impotent without the underlying principles of causality that ties facts together.
Chapter 5 Paragraphs 26 - 35 Ignorance
This chapter focuses on Rousseau bringing in 3 historical personalities (and himself) sequentially to defend his position. Each of these people is going to be a manifestation of a certain positive form of ignorance.
Ignorance of the wise
Socrates
Socrates is meant to show that in the individual, good morals and enlightenment can come together. That is to say, the wise man is both virtuous and enlightened. It's only the "people" who cannot be both.
QUESTION: Rousseau would go on and highly edit the translation of Plato's Apology from Diderot. The most interesting omission is Socrates going around town questioning people's mores and being executed for it. That is the bad Socrates?
The good Socrates is someone who admits he knows nothing. But at least compared to others who claim they know a lot he is honest in his self-assessment. Of course this type of ignorance of the wise is quite similar to enlightenment: knowing what one knows and what one doesn’t. Getting up to the boundary of knowledge.
Rousseau
Rousseau discusses how providence did not intend us to be knowledgeable (e.g. we are born in state of ignorance). The analogy he uses is of a mother taking away a dangerous weapon from a child. The implication being that in the hands of the people knowledge is dangerous, but a weapon could be suitable for the right type of person. Such is the case with knowledge, only the wise know how to wield it.
His lack of faith in the people: "some wise men, it is true, resisted the general torrent, and kept themselves from vice while dwelling with the Muses."
Ignorance of the heroic / Ignorance of the public
Cato the Elder
Cato was not given a speech like Socrates, nor did Rousseau fabricate a speech like for Fabritius. Because Cato loathed philosophy. Cato is the archetype of the hero, someone whose concern is for the public good and thus finds the philosopher as useless and overly idle.
Cato is a lot closer to the accuser of Socrates than Socrates, so why does Rousseau suggest that he continues in the same lineage? It's because both of them protect healthy mores. Socrates does so (at least the cleaned up version of Socrates) because he keeps philosophy to himself. Whereas the hero is a role model for it.
But Cato is nowhere as virtuous as Socrates. The hero is not virtuous like the wiseman. The hero is concerned for his own glory that is what leads to his contribution to the society.
Fabricius
Fabricius was born in Rome's heyday and Rousseau resurrects him during Rome's decadence and gives him a speech for him to critique society. He focuses on the decadence of Rome.
His advice is to return to ways of conquest. This advice is meant to show that Fabricius is less wise than the wiseman Rousseau/Socrates because he fails to realize that it was not the absence of conquest but the history of conquest that lead to this decadence in the first place.
These heroes are ignorant in a very different way that the wiseman is. They believe in falsehoods, their beliefs aren’t grounded in reason but they genuinely believe truths that are helpful for the community or to sustain good mores (occasionally like Fabricius they aren't helpful).
Ignorance of the savage
No one is brought up here partially because you couldn't formulate a speech for this type of ignorance. The person who exemplifies this is the American native who doesn’t even have the words for the vices of Europe.
There are two bad states
Ignorance of the criminal
This is the state of europe after enlightenment came and then went. Remember, the original state is always pure. Enlightenment corrupts, and then when enlightenment leaves you are left with criminal ignorance.
False claims to knowledge
This is really what all the three good states of ignorance are rallying against. Ie. The type of knowledge they do not have is false belief in hurtful mores.
What really separates the good from the bad states isn't knowledge/ignorance. Ignorance of the criminal is ignorance and bad. Ignorance of the wise is (basically) knowledge and yet good. The splitting line between them really is whether they challenge healthy mores or not. The wise do not challenge it. The heroes uphold it. The savage isn't even aware of alternatives. The criminal does not adhere to good mores and is ignorant like the savage (not-noble-savage). And people who have false claims of knowledge actively destroy good mores.
Rousseau must believe then that good mores, sound political principles are accessible to a small elect, to a few wisemen, but not society as a whole. That seems quite a reasonable view. That's why enlightenment and virtue are possible in the individual but not in society and why a philosopher ought to keep his activities private.
There's no issue with genuine knowledge. The issue is that he does not believe a society can have that on mass. American media landscape would be good example.
Summary of part 1 of this book (chapters 3-5):
Covers both the somatic and psychological damage inflicted by enlightenment.
Discusses the pathways
Gives historical examples of failed empires due to enlightenment.
Invokes these figures to defend his position.
Two great issues
History does not always line up to rousseau's predictions
His claim is we can't interpret history without deeper fundamental principles
So we are going to move to part 2 and examine art and science in themselves.
Chapter 6 Paragraphs 36 - 38 Science
This second part is to argue for the necessity of the link between moral corruption and enlightenment. Before it was to draw historical inductions.
Rousseau compares himself to Prometheus in, like his telling of Socrates, a retelling of the Prometheus story. The main difference in this retelling is that Prometheus (Rousseau) is discerning about who to give fire (science) to. This is supposed to show that science in the right hands can be beneficial.
The origin of the arts and sciences is perverse. Rousseau ties all of the sciences with a manifestation of pride and desire to dominate/control:
Astronomy to control the stars
Eloquence to control others
Geometry to control land
Physics to control others by winning respect through reputation of intelligence
This raises a serious challenge for Rousseau because 1. to show that the origin of something is perverse is not to show it is bad (genetic fallacy) 2. to show that the vices give rise to enlightenment also implies that enlightenment necessarily did not cause them and were proceeded by them.
Rousseau next turns to the "objects" of the arts and sciences which are also perverse.
The object of art is luxury
The object of jurisprudence is injustice
The object of history are tyrants
By object, Rousseau really means subject matter. The reading is that these things can (maybe are likely to) to be conjoined with these bad things but they don’t have to be and can even bring about the good.
After we examine the origins and objects/effects we examine science itself. Paragraph 38 is a critique of the method of science.
There are many ways to generate falsehoods but limited ways to generate truths.
Rousseau is between Socrates (claiming no knowledge) and total certainty. He believes he can arrive at hypothetical truths … truths that are the best we can do so far given his criterion.
Question: for Rousseau truth and falsehoods are sentiments so the pursuit of truth can never be passionless. The question then is what are the right passions to sustain a pursuit of truth. The answer is sincerity whereas you do not want to be motivated by vanity. What does he mean that they are sentiments (pg.156)?
The reason that the pursuit of truth is dangerous is that not only can you mire yourself in unhelpful falsehoods but even when you arrive at partial truths (the example he gives are doctors who discover the likely failings of the human body but not their cures) and not the full truth it will weaken your soul.
 The optimistic implication is that the full truth always is good. The example he gives is the wiseman who knows not only the likely failing so the human body but also the necessity of degeneration and so does not hold false hope for cures. This relates to Rousseau's natural goodness/providence thesis that, at bottom, the universe is good so it would make sense that either full knowledge of it or complete ignorance and just following nature would both lead to good states. It's the intermediate states that are bad.
The citizen and the hero might know about the disease but they would disdain it/belittle it (maybe think of it as less likely/bad as it really is?) and this ignorance protects them.
IMPORTANT So Rousseau clearly draws out truth from utility (is this where Nietzsche got his "value of truth" question?). And he says because of this we need a "criterion" to judge the value of truth. Black tries a few potential criterion and find them unsatisfactory so he leaves it as an open question.
Rousseau actually wanted to go beyond Newton because not only did he posit a hidden cause, vanity, behind phenomena, he also wanted to inquire about its nature and power.
Chapter 7 Paragraphs 39 - 54 Vanity
This chapter is to deal with the actual underlying principle which generates the issues of corruption from enlightenment: vanity. This chapter concludes the ideas pursued by the first discourse since it gives the underlying principle behind the historic inductions but the next chapter gives suggestions of how to retard this corruption.
Pride and vanity are both concerns of opinions of others and both are about wanting to be esteemed as higher than others. In Project for Constitution for Corsica, Rousseau claims that "the opinion that puts a great value on frivolous objects produces vanity" while "the one that falls upon objects great and beautiful by themselves produces pride."
What differs of the objects of vanity and the objects of pride is 1. whether the objects are "estimable" in themselves meaning whether they are based on standards that transcends the opinions of others and NOT on 2. whether the objects are "true."
So love of virtue, piety, and patriotism are objects of pride because they have a standard beyond opinion of others whereas admiration of talents / general opinion plunges people into frivolous and changing pursuits.
IMPORTANT even healthy life is not free from pride, inequality and competition. The virtuous man feels proud when he looks down upon the vicious whereas the philosopher/artist feels vain when he looks upon the uneducated. It's not the form of their life that is different but the object of which it is directed to.
Here is the causal sequence:
We begin with pride (healthy pride) which creates inequality (because it seeks it out)
Because this drive for difference/distinction is always at the core of social life, this is why moral corruption is inevitable.
Inequality often begets wealth which causes idleness and luxury
Idleness gives rise to the sciences and luxury gives rise to the arts
Their influence causes the corruption of taste, the decline of courage and of military virtue, and deepening of inequality.
Pride becomes vanity with this development.
So this is why mores are corrupted in proportion to the progress of the sciences and the arts, its not that they are the only cause to corruption but that they are important cause. He is not showing that enlightenment is necessary or sufficient for this corruption. But he is showing the numerous similarities between these corruptions and the structure of arts/science.
Here are all the nasty effects of the arts and sciences. Note, this is not a genealogical, causal order but an order of increasing severity of effect as well as circle of influence (self-harm to other-harm).
Idleness / Mis-use of Time
Idleness is not tranquility, which is inactivity from the fulfilment of one's desire. Idleness is activity that is not directed at the improvement of the group. Rousseau suggests that one should never be idle as long as the world has problems. Ie. The whole world is one's responsibility so leisure/idleness never makes sense. (tranquility is impossible too then?)
The arts and science are both produced by idleness (you need to be above subsistence to do them) and science produces more idleness (nothing useful).
IMPORTANT Rousseau issue is that they don't produce anything useful. This must be seriously challenged today. Science at least might be the most useful thing for societal progress.
I think Rousseau would have a good pushback here which is the outcome of technology is not always positive.
There is a worse version then just being useless where philosophers are actively hostile to the opinions of the group.
Luxury
Luxury is a precondition for arts and sciences and it is further produced by the arts.
Luxury is a moral phenomena (unlike wealth which is a physical phenomena) and its about the attitudes of what people think are important to life. It creates weakness amongst a people.
Rousseau lays out a choice between a brilliant or a durable/virtuous empire.
Example: I do think this is right. The poor dress of tech elite. It shows where your priorities are. People have misconception that capitalists are hedonists but they are a lot more like monastics.
Taste
Corruption of taste is also more influenced by arts than by science.
IMPORTANT Learned men in Rousseau's time have abdicated their responsibility as taste makers and given up the reigns to young (frivolous) and women (weak). Pg. 181
Rousseau would go on to undertake women's education because he believe that women are the "governors" of a state (also brought up in dedication in SD). Even though, or perhaps because men are the doers who make history and men care a great deal about attracting women, what women praise/desire will be what the men will do. Weird route to feminism: because males are the dominant doers, the taste of women matter more than that of men.
Example: Quebec's founding
IMPORTANT for Rosseau the two primary paths of authors in such a world with bad taste is to produce trivial, fashionable work (like that of Voltaire) or die in poverty and oblivion.
QUESTION: Rousseau suggests he is "living for another century" pg.181. How does the do this? Especially the oblivion part? Is it by desiring a different form of historical recognition rather than contemporary recognition? But he did desire contemporary recognition. Furthermore, shouldn't we expect mores to get worse as history develops?
IMPORTANT what's interesting is that the desire to seek distinction makes philosophy rebel against public opinion and art adhere to public opinion. The reason is because a corrupt public will be interested in moral opinions for their novelty and art for conforming to existing standards.
Courage
Rousseau sees the cultivation of the mind as being encouraged in his day in lieu of cultivation of the body. While this doesn’t interfere with one-off courageous acts, it does interfere with "true courage" the ability to endure difficult physical tasks. That is what he sees as crucial to military victory.
Its not that modern soldiers themselves are dedicated to the arts and sciences but its that they see examples around them of doing so.
Moral Qualities
Corollary of the above. Modern education fails to teach the right virtues of soul (not just of body). Gives example of good and bad Persian education.
Good education is about giving exemplars not about studying/debating what virtue is.
Inequality
Rousseau primarily has inequality of esteem rather than inequality of material in mind here.
Since he believes that inequality is always present since pride is always present its more about the changing hierarchy of what inequality matters (from virtue to frivolous talents) that he finds problematic.
In such a world, people who seek glory will pursue frivolous talents.
Chapter 8 Paragraphs 55-61 Conscience
This chapter is about what is to be done about this moral corruption
Revolution
The only thing that could cure this moral corruption would be a great revolution that would be "blameworthy" to hope for.
Question: why? Is it because the cost or the likelihood of ending in a worse state? Another reason could be from
In the Observations it is crystal clear he does not advocate burning books because that would just leave Europe in criminal ignorance (barbarism). Maybe that's an example of ending up in a worse state?
IMPORTANT: in this sense Rousseau is explicitly a anti-revolutionary thinker. Someone opposed to revolutions. Which is interesting given his important role in the French revolution.
Palliative Remedies for already corrupt society
Academies
He is disingenuous in his praise of academies that sovereigns have imitated providence in building academies that benefit both science and the people in it. This is clearly wrong as his critique of philosophers goes to show.
The real reason he pushes academies is for people who are thoroughly corrupted. Mostly as a way to distract and quarantine. The idea is that by putting away all the philosophers in one place it protects the remaining uncorrupted citizens. And by giving art and science (think theatre in a bad state) it at least distracts people from doing worse crimes.
Esotericism
While he is not a fan of esotericism he is even more worried about bad ideas spreading and corrupting the people. He advises esotericism for the "bad" philosophers but remains silent on what those with genuinely moralizing teachings like Montaigne or Socrates should do.
Printing
He blames printing for doing the opposite of what esotericism does: which is to make bad writing permanently available all the time.
He also blames printing for the wars caused by the protestant reformation. He believes that for the virtuous the bible/quoran is enough. This can be generalized that it causes sectarian divides in a community.
But in a bad state, Rousseau does not advise burning the printing press because 1. even if it has a destabilizing quality it also stabilizes the state by weakening people and making them easier to control 2. like the academies, it gives corrupt people a place to direct their energies 3. it allows Rousseau's work to also be permanent, to be a permanent counterpoint to the bad books. This is why Rousseau believed that there could be a future society with uncorrupt morals influenced by Rousseau and why he wanted to live past this century (other than recognitive concerns).
This last point is key because it serves as a necessary counterpoint. It shows that Rousseau is willing to engage in a medium he thinks is ultimately corrupting (just like my relationship with social media).
Preventative Remedies for uncorrupted society
Academies and printing
These should be banned / severely curtailed.
Esotericism
Still practiced as above
Aligning enlightenment with political power (bribing the intellectual class) this is the key preventative measures.
This is Rousseau's key move to have his cake (progress in arts) and eat it too (morally pure society). He wants to show how this blocking off of natural channels of study does not prevent intellectual greats like Newton and Bacon from forming. He calls them preceptors of the human race but these are not the virtuous wisemen these are extremely talented philosophers who are after glory/recognition and so need societal direction to be channeled positively.
The first thing that he says is that these people require no live teachers and teachers will likely limit their development by circumscribing them. But they will require teachers and these teachers are merely the other preceptors. That is to say they will spend their time reading the greats. But how will this be done if the printing press is banned?
He believes this small group will select themselves so its up to society/monarch to identify them when they emerge but not to cultivate them. Essentially, Rousseau himself is a good example here who was mostly self-educated and independent throughout his career. He underwent many troubles but emerged as a great mind.
This is the key: (pg. 235) these people need to be given proper "upside" to their talents.
"The Prince of Eloquence was Consul of Rome, and the greatest, perhaps, of Philosophers Chancellor of England. If the one had held only a chair in some University and the other obtained only a modest pension from an Academy, can it be believed, I say, that their work would not have reflected their status."
"The rich and the learned serve only to corrupt each other mutually. If the rich were more learned or the learned richer, the latter would not be such cowardly flatterers and the former would like base flattery less, and they would all be better off. That is what can be seen from the small number of those who have the good fortune to be learned and rich at the same time." - Observations
Rousseau thinks that vice is a consequence of powerlessness and insecurity and so that learned men should have open to them the highest offices.
Rousseau does believe that many philosophers benefit from being ostracized like Rousseau who hasn't been tempted with high office and was able to come up with his insights in seclusion.
What is true about both of these claims is that we need to think about the intellectuals like a class much like the capital owners are a class. It is quite striking how the fields with least prestige/upward mobility in society are the ones who are most critical of it. Economics for example is the least critical of contemporary society of the humanities (engineering is not critical at all). There are multiple reasons for this, but promise of worldly power is certainly one of them.
Rousseau suggest that the most learned men be advisors to kings and emperors. The curious question then is why does he dislike the Chinese case. And I think the answer is that it was too meritocratic. Imperial examinations were available to all and as a result encouraged everyone to pursue study and erudition. IMPORTANT, in this view the ideal setup would be closer to the origin of the imperial examinations where you had to be elected by an aristocrat to compete in the imperial exams. To make the competition limited to a small private group.
By confining an intellectual elite practicing science and art privately with the ruling class Rousseau thinks that we can both have scientific progress, military advantage while also protecting the people from moral corruption.
What he imagines is a society with an Athenian ruling class and a spartan civilian class. There are so many difficulties here, not the least of which being that historically they hated each other and fought terrible battles.
Rousseau provides the mechanism for how unlearned people abide by virtue: conscience. Essentially a Smithian impartial spectator that provides amour propre.
Chapter 9 Conclusion
To review the four questions that motivated this book.
How scientific progress contributes to moral corruption
Humans have needs of the body (gave rise to political states) and needs of the soul (the need for esteem).
Initially pride/esteem was directed at stable basis, virtues. With development of civilization (inequality, reason, etc.), pride became directed at unstable basis of virtues: talents.
Pride becomes vanity and these talents are either useless or mostly harmful to society, virtue became lost. Vanity and reason enter into a death spiral.
This is the psychological consequence ^ but there is also a somatic consequence that does not always hold and that is how brilliant civilizations are conquered by austere ones.
Rousseau's method
His method is one that begins with introspection and historical insights and using analysis to arrive at fundamental principles which he then uses to interpret those insights.
FD place in Rousseau's system
It is his originating insight (that we are deceived about the criterion of right).
It is also his concluding synthesis about the inevitability of moral corruption and the fact that it (bar revolution) cannot be reversed.
What motivates most of the striking claims is his central insight on the natural goodness of man. That is the trunk which all the branches of the tree point to.
Consequences of Rousseau's critique of science for future happiness
See prescriptions in last chapter TLDR there's very little one can do to stop this natural decline.
Therefore perhaps what Rousseau is really aiming for is simply "to destroy that magical illusion which gives us a stupid admiration for the instruments of our misfortunes."
Rousseau's place in political philosophy
There are distinctively modern elements (like the preference for democratic republics, rejection of Aristotelean teleology in favor of naturalistic view).
But there are untimely elements like his preference for the ancients, suggestion for esotericism, etc.
Best way to think of him perhaps is like Nietzsche, who is post-modern. Interesting, the idea here is that post-modern is not progressive but reactionary from the modern perspective.
Is Rousseau right?
Author thinks Rousseau is wrong about the somatic consequences of art and science: world is more peaceful, scientific progress is not useless, science has made military strong.
IMPORTANT: but keep in mind this is not Rousseau's central argument at all, outward success. He would perhaps say "I see that one always speaks to me about success and greatness. I was talking about mores and virtue" (pg. 272).
There author treats it as valid and open question. I think Rousseau is more right then wrong about the effects of popular enlightenment.