It was Rousseau’s first discourse community essay example published philosophical work, and it was the first expression of his influential views about nature vs. This work is considered one of his most important works. Has the restoration of the sciences and arts contributed to the purification of morals?
According to Rousseau, “Within an instant of reading this , I saw another universe and became another man. Rousseau found the idea to which he would passionately dedicate the rest of his intellectual life: the destructive influence of civilization on human beings. Rousseau went on to win first prize in the conteand—in an otherwise mundane career as composer and playwright, among other things—he had newfound fame as a philosopher. Rousseau “authored a scathing attack on scientific progressan attack whose principles he never disavowed, and whose particulars he repeated, to some extent, in each of his subsequent writings. Rousseau’s account about his initial encounter with the question has become well known.
Academy of Dijon, he felt a sudden and overwhelming inspiration “that man is naturally good, and that it is from these institutions alone that men become wicked”. The character explains that Rousseau was showing the “great principle that nature made man happy and good, but that society depraves him and makes him miserable. His goal is to rectify the error of our judgements in order to delay the progress of our vices, and to show us that where we seek glory and renown, we in fact find only error and miseries”. Although he returns to the problem of materialism throughout his life, Rousseau does not ever discuss it at any length. He chooses to write from the perspective of the ordinary course of things, and philosophical materialism breaks with the ordinary course of things.
It is what he early called one of those metaphysical subtleties that do not directly affect the happiness of mankind”. We are deceived by the appearance of right. Rousseau anticipated that his response would cause “a universal outcry against me”, but held that “a few sensible men” would appreciate his position. He holds that this will be because he has dismissed the concerns of “men born to be in bondage to the opinions of the society in which they live in. In this he includes “wits” and “those who follow fashion”. Oddly Rousseau, who claims to be motivated by the idea of bringing forth something to promote the happiness of mankind, sets most of humanity as his adversaries. Scholar Jack Black points out that this is because Rousseau wants his work to outlive him.
Rousseau holds that if he wrote things that were popular with the fashionable and trendy, his work would fade with the passing of fashion, “To live beyond one’s century, then, one must appeal to principles that are more lasting and to readers who are less thoughtless. Rousseau’s argument was controversial, and drew a great number of responses. Rousseau as ‘one of the strongest proofs of human stupidity. Rousseau himself answered five of his critics in the two years or so after he won the prize. Inequality, luxury, and the political life are identified as especially harmful. Rousseau’s own assessment of the essay was ambiguous.