Well, that's certainly an understatement! Certainly the "English" who objected would include Edmund Burke (who you seem to cite in support of your own view, which is mystifying to me); and Jonathan Swift — among others. Rousseau didn't "allegedly" idealize the "natural man." He actually did so.
Trouble there is Reality trumps ideological idealizations every time.
In Monsieur Rousseau's book, man is born a "noble savage." Which strikes some sensibilities as being an outright oxymoron on logical grounds. But he never explains this "term of art." He cites no empirical evidence in support of it (though he had several millennia of human experience and history to draw from, had he chosen to do so); no fuller definition is forthcoming. This term of art stands as simply an unsupported allegation, which we are instructed to uncritically accept. But it is interesting to note that where such "allegations" loaded into the base of abstract systems have actually been tried in human history, all have failed — to the misery of untold numbers of human beings.
Obviously, there must be some deeper truth in Nature than man as the Noble Savage. Or man as the center of moral order in the universe. But that's the very truth that neither Rousseau — and one sadly suspects, nor dear kosta — refuses to accept.
If man is the center of order in the universe, then it should be perfectly legitimate to accept that 28 million Frenchmen — of virtually uncountable degrees of intelligence, culture, and condition — can make a "representative form of government," a social contract. And thereby establish a workable "democracy."
But this overlooks the problem of: How do you get 28 million Frenchmen to agree about what should be in that social contract? Are you going to poll them? (Oh, isn't that what an election is all about?) The peasant wants to fill his belly, and his family's bellies, and hopefully get some security WRT property into his insecure position in society. The merchant or banker is looking after his mercantile or banking interests. The lawyer, the dignity of his profession, on which his personal revenues depend. The guildsman, the rights and privileges of his trade. The sick, the "right" to be healed. The hungry, the right to be fed. Etc., etc.
Dear kosta, earlier you wrote: "Morality is part of society and society is man-made. Reason is capacity humans are born with."
Well we know that morality is necessarily "part of society." [Let alone that "part" business for now; to me fidelity to the moral law is the whole of a just, free, good society — and I do believe the historical record is on my side here.] If morality is man-made — if it is something that is to be determined by 28 million Frenchmen — then how can we even call it "morality?" You can't base the moral law on the shifting sands of human self-interest and cupidity.
As usual, betty boop, I am at a complete loss as to what you are talking about, and why do you have to distort everything I say? To wit:
(1) I did not say "English;" I said "English side," the Anglophone critics of his.
(2) Exactly where do I "seem to cite" Edmund Burke and why is this "mystifying" to you?
Rousseau didn't "allegedly" idealize the "natural man." He actually did so.
He did?
In Monsieur Rousseau's book, man is born a "noble savage." Which strikes some sensibilities as being an outright oxymoron on logical grounds.
Funny, such a term was never used in France. And sauvage doesn't mean "savage."
He cites no empirical evidence in support of it (though he had several millennia of human experience and history to draw from, had he chosen to do so)
I don't think in his days they really knew much about the pre-societal man. What "empirical" evidence did the English side have about the pre-societal man?
But it is interesting to note that where such "allegations" loaded into the base of abstract systems have actually been tried in human history, all have failed — to the misery of untold numbers of human beings.
What "allegations"? That man has an innate sense of justice?
Obviously, there must be some deeper truth in Nature than man as the Noble Savage.
Oh yeah? You have "empirical" evidence for that?
Or man as the center of moral order in the universe
Now we are really reaching...
But that's the very truth that neither Rousseau — and one sadly suspects, nor dear kosta — refuses to accept.
I can't speak for Rousseau, but why should I accept it?
If man is the center of order in the universe, then it should be perfectly legitimate to accept that 28 million Frenchmen — of virtually uncountable degrees of intelligence, culture, and condition — can make a "representative form of government," a social contract. And thereby establish a workable "democracy."
Wow. What does workable "democracy" (I guess there is some doubt in your mind as to what that really is) be in any way connected with man possibly being "in the center of order in the universes"?
But this overlooks the problem of: How do you get 28 million Frenchmen to agree about what should be in that social contract? Are you going to poll them? (Oh, isn't that what an election is all about?)
I don't know, how did American Founding Fathers draw up a social contract? It sure wasn't through election. It was more like four-five people who commanded respect among the Founders who drew up a document and got a blessing from the rich and the educated who could afford to sit and ponder cosmic mysteries of mankind and be away from the affairs of their estates.
You can't base the moral law on the shifting sands of human self-interest and cupidity.
But we do.
Thank you for your beautiful essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!