Jean-Jacques Rousseau in A Discourse on the Arts and Sciences:
An ancient tradition passed out of Egypt into Greece, that some god, who was an enemy to the repose of mankind, was the inventor of the sciences. What must the Egyptians, among whom the sciences first arose, have thought of them? And they beheld, near at hand, the sources from which they sprang. In fact, whether we turn to the annals of the world, or eke out with philosophical investigations the uncertain chronicles of history, we shall not find for human knowledge an origin answering to the idea we are pleased to entertain of it at present. Astronomy was born of superstition, eloquence of ambition, hatred, falsehood, and flattery; geometry of avarice; physics of an idle curiosity; all, even moral philosophy, of human pride. Thus the arts and sciences owe their birth to our vices; we should be less doubtful of their advantages, if they had sprung from our virtues. (Rousseau, p 15)
The philosophies of Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes are not generally considered analogous. Rousseau is actually very hostile to Hobbes, calling him ‘pernicious’ in A Discourse on the Arts and Sciences:
…Paganism, though given over to all the extravagances of human reason, has left nothing to compare with the shameful monuments which have been prepared by the art of printing, during the reign of the gospel. The impious writings of Leucippus and Diagoras perished with their authors. The world, in their days, was ignorant of the art of immortalizing the errors and extravagances of the human mind. But thanks to the art of printing* and the use we make of it, the pernicious reflections of Hobbes and Spinoza will last forever. Go, famous writings, of which the ignorance and rusticity of our forefathers would have been incapable. Go to our descendants, along with those still more pernicious works which reek of the corrupted manners the present age! Let them together convey to posterity a faithful history of the progress and advantages of our arts and sciences. If they are read, they will not leave a doubt about the question we are now discussing, and unless mankind should then be still more foolish than we, they will lift up their hands to Heaven and exclaim in bitterness of heart: ‘Almighty God! Thou who holdest in Thy hand the minds of men, deliver us from the fatal arts and sciences of our forefathers; give us back the ignorance, innocence, and poverty, which alone can make us happy and are precious in Thy sight.’ (Rousseau, p 26-27)* If we consider the frightful disorder which printing has already caused in Europe, and judge of the future by the progress of its evils from day to day, it is easy to foresee that sovereigns will hereafter take as much pains to banish this dreadful art from their dominions, as they ever took to encourage it. The Sultan Achmet, yielding to the opportunities of certain pretenders to taste, consented to have a press erected at Constantinople; but it was hardly set to work before they were obliged to destroy it, and throw the plant into a well.
It is related that the Caliph Omar, being asked what should be done with the Library at Alexandria, answered in these words: ‘If the books in the library contain anything contrary to the Alcoran, they are evil and ought to be burnt; if they contain only what the Alcoran teaches, they are superflous.’ This reasoning has been cited by our men of letters as the height of absurdity; but if Gregory the Great had been in place of Omar and the Gospel in the place of the Alcoran, the library would still have been burnt, and it would have been perhaps the finest action of his life.
Rousseau, Jean-Jaques. The Social Contract and Discourses. Trans. G.D.H. Cole, Rev. J.H. Brumfitt and John C. Hall. London: Guernsey Press, 1973.
Thomas Hobbes, and later John Locke, are philosophers who established philosophical ideals that are the basis for Modern Western Civilization. Rousseau establishes a philosophical basis for Marxism.
The political Left often holds to the view of Rousseau, cited above. They eschew the advancement of science and of the arts. It is no wonder that in their pursuit to dominate academia, that the decline of education in the West has been a victim of the political Left.
btw, for a comedic romp on the confusion of liberalism and classic liberalism, listen to the Democrat line on CSPAN on most any morning.
Free Republic from the days when you clicked on a post and something intelligent was being discussed.
Bump for reading
Rousseau is recognized as an inspiration both of modern democracy and of modern totalitarianism. In general, he has been a pernicious influence. What we know of his biography gives us even less reason to trust him as a guide.
In his defense, though, he has attracted the attention of modern philosophers and thinkers because he really takes the difference between the modern and ancient worlds seriously. Straussians in particular, who despise modernity and the currents which grew out of Rousseau, still appreciate his engagement with ancient values and ideas.
What you see in Rousseau may be a desire to recreate the relations between man and the state that he presumed existed in antiquity. A dangerous project that should be rejected, but one that sheds much light on what we were and what we have become.
Locke is a valuable thinker. I've heard that much of what is valuable in him goes back to Aristotle and Aquinas. What is his own may be less valuable or more suspect. If Locke truly is the background of our thought it pays to understand his ideas, and also the criticisms made of them.
While much preferable to Rousseau, the criticism has been made that Locke underestimates important values like loyalty, and makes one type of person the measure of all individuals. Actually existing societies are held together by more complex ties and connections than Locke was willing to admit. Also, if we truly achieve freedom, we eventually come to appreciate it less or to apply the idea of liberation to areas where it doesn't apply. That's probably more a judgement against us than against Locke, but the Lockean moment may be hard to recapture once it passes.
Hume was a Tory and a good guide to politics, though his other philosophical ideas could be painful to those who are looking for certainty or purpose in the universe. While Hume was right about so much that he turned his hand to, one can hardly blame people for wanting more from the universe than the skeptical Hume provided.
In general, though, the level of these thinkers was much higher than what we have today. We are moderns, and certainly we can't deny or reject that now. But it would do us well to return to the early promise of modernity and study it to understand what may have gone wrong since then.
Anyway, thanks for a great set of quotes.
Locke wrote the "Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina" in 1669. It consisted of 120 separate provisions, the last of which provided that it could never be amended:
One hundred and twenty. These fundamental constitutions, in number a hundred and twenty, and every part thereof, shall be and remain the sacred and unalterable form and rule of government of Carolina forever.
And as if that wasn't enough, another provision sought to insure that no one would even prepare or read written discussions or descriptions of this permanent constitution:
Eighty. Since multiplicity of comments, as well as of laws, have great inconveniencies, and serve only to obscure and perplex, all manner of comments and expositions on any part of these fundamental constitutions, or on any part of the common or statute laws of Carolina, are absolutely prohibited.
Pretty ambitious document! I don't think it lasted for more than about 20 years, as I recall.