Rousseau and the Original Sin

Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia

Rousseau and the Original Sin Author(s): Jeremiah L. Alberg Reviewed work(s): Source: Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia, T. 57, Fasc. 4, O Mal e a(s) Teodiceia(s): Novos Aspectos Sapienciais (Oct. - Dec., 2001), pp. 773-790 Published by: Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40337657 . Accessed: 09/05/2012 14:21 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia.

http://www.jstor.org

R.P.F. 57-2001

Rousseauand theOriginalSin JeremiahL. Alberg* thatRousseau,withhistheory It is a commonplace ABSTRACT: goodnessofhuofthenatural sin.As is often thecase withcommonplaces, the thedoctrine manbeings, rejected oforiginal standsinneedofinvestigation. ThispaperwillseektoshowthatRoustherein truth contained more withthedogmastemmed seau'sdissatisfaction fromitslackofexplanatory power,than withthetheory thisrejection contradiction Further, ofnatural goodness. fromanysupposed telosofhuman thealternative ispartofa largerrejection ofthesupernatural beings. " Finally, totell thatRousseauproposes forthesinofAdamis a "fatalaccident.Rousseauattempts willchangethecourseof thestoryofthisaccidentin sucha waythatthenarrative itself thathavefollowed events upontheaccident. Key Words: Cassirer, E.; Dualism;Education;Entile;Envy;Evil;Language;Originalsin; Stateofnature. /.-/.;Society; Rousseau, Re SUMO:Hoje e urnlugarcomumafirmar que Rousseau,graqasa sua teoriaacerca da A verdade do pecado original. bondadenaturaldos sereshumanos, rejeitoua doutrina do presente necessitade ser investigada. contidaem lugares-comuns, contudo, Objectivo de Rousseaucomo dogmaacercado pecado atequepontoa insatisfacdo artigoe mostrar do quede umasupostacontradiqao maisda suafaltadepoderexplicativo original provinha Alemdisso,mostratambem ate que coma teoriada bondadenaturaldos sereshumanos. medida uma muito mais na em de em Rousseau essa ampla fazparte rejeigdo ponto rejeiqao de todoe qualquertelossobrenatural para os sereshumanos. que alargadaa afirmacdo o atequepontoa alternativa Mostra-se ainda,finalmente, porRousseautransforma proposta " narrar a historia desteacidente "acidente fatal e comoRousseautenta pecadodeAddonum. de porsi mesmaalteraro se revelacoma pretensao de talformaque a proprianarrativa se a esse acidente. dos acontecimentos que seguiu percurso Palavras-Chave: Cassirer,E.; Conflicto; Dualismo;Educacdo;Entile;Inveja; LinguaRousseau,/.-/.;Sociedade. gem;Mai; Pecadooriginal;

of Paris,ordered theninthof June1762 thehighcourt,theparlement itissuedtheorderfor thenovelEmileto be publiclyburned.In addition, Jeanofitsauthor, thearrest JacquesRousseau.On the28thofAugustthe de Beaumont,was of Paris,Christophe the letter of Archbishop condemnatory de de Mandement Paris, UArcheveque portantcondamMonseigneur published: nationd'un livrequi a pour titre"Emile",ou de VEducation, par Jean-Jacques

*

Sophia University (Tokyo,Japan). FacultyofHumanities, © Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia, 57 (2001), 773-790

774

Jeremiah L. Alb erg

Rousseau, citoyende Geneve} Later the book was also condemnedby the theological facultyof theSorbonne.2 The primaryreasonforthecondemnationof Rousseau and his book was thathe was judged in it to have denied thedogma of originalsin. The cleareststatementof thisdenial does not occur,as mightbe expected,in the "Professionof Faith of the Savoyard Vicar" norin thecontextof a discussionof infancy,butin Book II when thechild is alreadyat leasttwo yearsold. Rousseau writes: Let us set down as an incontestablemaxim thatthe firstmovementsof natureare always right.There is no originalperversityin the human heart.There is not a single vice to be foundin it of whichit cannotbe said how and whenceit entered.3

Accordinglythebook was viewed as a "harmfulteaching"whichled to "oppoof theChristianreligion." sitionto thenaturallaw and to thedestruction In morerecenttimesErnstCassireralso pointsto thisdenialas one of theepoch-makingtraitsof Rousseau's thought.In his The QuestionofJean-JacquesRousseau Cassirermakesplain thatthiswas notarcanetheologicaldebate,but in fact,an inescapable decision, vital to the historyof the world and to culturalhistory,was involved.What irrevocablyseparatedRousseau, despiteall his genuineand deep religiousemotion,fromall traditionalformsof faithwas the decisiveness with whichhe rejectedeverythoughtof theoriginalsin of man.4

This denial and its consequences forceus to face threequestions.First,why,in fact,did Rousseau feel thatit was necessaryto turnso decisivelyfromthe dogma of originsin? It would seem thatthisdogma would be attractiveto himin thatit is an attemptto explain the depravityof the human race withoutblamingGod and still respectinghumanfreedom.Second, in what preciselydid thisrejectionconsist? Is it a simpledenial of thedogma or is it morecomplicated?Third,withwhat did Rousseau intendto replace the dogma. For it is clear thatwhen the traditional A printedcopy of thisdocumentcan foundappendedto Rousseau's responsein thefollowing version:Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Citoyende Geneve,a Christophede Beaumont,Archeveque Paris, Due de S. Cloud, Pair de France, Commandeaude VOrdrede Saint Esprit, Proviseurde Sorbonne&c. Avec sa Lettreau Conseil de Geneve,A Amsterdam,Chez Marc-MichelRey,M.DCC.LXIQ. For backgroundon thecondemnationof Emile consultA. Ravier, U Educationde L'Homme Nouveau: Essai Historiqueet Critiquesur le Livrede VEmile de J.-J.Rousseau, (Issoudon: EditionsSpes, 1941). For a detailedaccount,in additionto Ravier,consultMaurice Cranston,The Noble Savage: Jean-JacquesRousseau 1754-1762 (Chicago: U. of Chicago P, 1991) pp. 344-362. All referencesto Rousseau will be given withthe volume numberin Roman numerals and thenpage numberto theOeuveres Completes,eds. Eb. Gagnebinand M. Raymond,Paris, Bibliothequede la Pleiade, EditionsGallimard,1959-. HereafterabreviatedOC. Wherepossible I will use the English translationsfromCollected Writingsof Rousseau, eds. Roger D. Mastersand Christopher Kelley, again withvolume and page numberprecededby the abbreviationCW. For Emile or On Education, however,I have used the Allan Bloom translation (Basic Books, 1979). The quotationhereis takenfromOE IV p. 322, Bloom, p. 92. 4 ErnstCassirer,The Question of Jean-Jacques Rousseau translatedand edited by Peter Gay (New Haven: Yale UP, 1954) p. 74. Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia, 57 (2001), 773-790

Rousseau and Original Sin

775

theproblemremains.How does one explainthedepravity of solutionis rejected, thesethree humanswithout simplyblamingGod or humannature?In answering questionsI wouldlike to developthefollowingthreetheses.1) ThatRousseau becauseitcontradicted rejectedthedogmaof originalsin,notin thefirstinstance becausehe feltthatthedogmaoforiginal ofnatural histheory goodness,butrather sindid notexplainwhatitsetoutto explain.In orderto explaintheoriginof evil ofnatural he was compelledto developthetheory goodness.2) WhileRousseau's for at first to leave some room discourseas a kind seem theological might rejection in facthis rejection is designedto completely of 'separatebutequal' explanation, thatRousseauproposesis that explanation displacethedogma.3) The alternative and thusevil is an accident.This maystrikesome as a theoriginof inequality at all,sinceaccidentsareprecisely those or as no explanation shallowexplanation moveon the thatwe cannotaccountforlogically.In factitis a brilliant happenings partof Rousseauwhichallowshimto tellthestoryof theaccidentin sucha way to changethecourseof eventsthathave thatthestoryitselfbecomesan attempt followedfromtheaccident.I will showthathis analysisof languagein theDisis essentialto hisprojectbecauselanguageis whatmakesthis courseon Inequality in thesensethatlanguageis whatmadetheoriginalaccident both storypossible, inthesensethatoneneeds what thestoryis aboutandsecondly that is and possible a languagetotellthestory. ReasonsfortheRejectionofOriginalSin universe" Rousseaurejectsthedogmaof originalsin becausehe saw "another ofillumination on theroadto Vincenman"in hisexperience andbecame"another He describes itso: ofthought. nes.Thisexperience openedupa spacefora newform O Sir, if I had ever been able to writea quarterof whatI saw and feltunderthattree, of the social systemseen, with how clearlyI would have made all the contradictions withwhat simI would have exposed all the abuses of our institutions, what strength plicityI would have demonstratedthatman is naturallygood and thatit is fromthese alone thatmen become wicked5. institutions

thatmanis bynature here.First, We see twobasicpositions good,and explicated in forevil.Bothoftheseweredenied,though bearsresponsibility secondthatsociety oforiginal sin.Rousseaudidnotsimply theories different ways,bythecontemporary toprovewhathehadintuited butattempted againstany relyonhis"enlightenment", him leads toseekanalternative. This held the that contrary. position versionoforigithattheProtestant theproblems to understand Itis notdifficult heldforthemanwhosenamehas benal sin,especiallyin itsstronger variants, to with"naturalgoodness".Originalsin was ofteninterpreted comesynonymous in and no the heart that there was meanthathumanswerecorrupted, goodness humanscould not recognizemoralgoodness.Rousseauargued,most therefore theSavoyardVicar,againstthisposition.The Savoyardpriest through explicitly 5

Lettresa Malesherbes,OC I, pp. 1135-1136, CW p. 575. Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia, 57 (2001), 773-790

776

Jeremiah L. Alberg

argues fora rejectionof the view thatdoes not allow forgoodness in the depthof thehumanheart. or of spirit If moralgoodnessis in conformity withournature, mancouldbe healthy well constituted onlyto theextentthathe is good.If it is notand manis naturally andgoodnessinhimis onlya wicked,hecannotceasetobe so without beingcorrupted, vicecontrary to nature. If he weremadeto do harmto hiskind,as a wolfis madeto as a pitying hisprey,a humanemanwouldbe an animalas depraved wolf, slaughter moralintheheartof andonlyvirtue wouldleaveus withremorse. ... Ifthereis nothing forheroicactions, theserapofadmiration man,whatis thesourceofthesetransports turesofloveforgreatsouls?6 Any doctrinethatentaileddenyingthathumanscould know rightfromwrong or held thatreason was so darkenedthatit could not liftitselfup to the smallest goodness was repugnantto Rousseau. Humans are able to recognize both virtue and depravityand thereforeare bound to take responsibility forthem,promoting virtueand correctingvice. The Catholicunderstanding of originalsin was no less problematicbutin a differentway. Rousseau respondedmost explicitlyto thisview in his Lettrea Christophe de Beaumontpublishedin March of 1763.7 We findthatRousseau's argumentsare of two types.First,he does not believe thatthe Augustinianinterpretationof Scriptureis theonlyone possible. oforiginalsin, tome,thatthisdoctrine First,itis farfrombeingthecase, according in whichis subjectto suchterrible is so explicitly andclearlycontained difficulties, theScriptures as ithaspleasedtheRhetorician toerect andourtheologians Augustine itthere.8 This argumentis ultimatelynot so importantforRousseau since he downplays thespecial statusof revelationanyway.As Cassirerputsit: No revelation can makereasonunnecessary or takeitsplace. For whenrevelation asksus to subordinate reasonto faith,itmustgiveus reasonsforthissubordination, andthusreinstate reasoninitsrights.9 So even ifthedoctrinecould be seen as clearlyderivedfromScripture,it would stillhave to prove its reasonableness.As regardsparticulardogmas,Rousseau was always a rationalist."Les plus grandes idees de la divinitenous viennentpar la raison seule." In thislightRousseau thenquestionsits reasonableness,and thisis the second more importanttypeof argument.He asks whetherit is reasonable to assume thatGodcreatedso manypureandinnocent soulsonlytojointhemwithculpablebodies through whichtheytakeon moralcorruption andafterwards arecondemned tohell without anyothercrimethanthisunionwhichis His work.10 6

Emile,OE IV p. 595-596,Bloomp. 287. Lettre a Beaumont, m:OC IV, pp.927-1007. Lettre a Beaumont, OC IV, pp.937-938.Translations aremyown,butpartsofthisletter aretranslated inAnnHartle,TheModernSelfinRousseau* s Confessions, (NotreDame:U of ND Press,1983)whichI haveconsulted. Cf.pg.42. 9 Ernst Princeton Cassirer, Rousseau,KantundGoethe,(Princeton: UP, 1945)p. 50. Revista Portuguesa deFilosofia, 57 (2001), 773-790


111

of originalsin thatwould Rousseau reacts sharplyagainst any interpretation who condemnshumansforbeing exactlywhat he make God intoan unjusttyrant, made themto be. Ratherhe believes thatGod made humansgood and theopening sentenceof his novel Emile is perhapsthe most famousexpressionof thatbelief: "Tout est bien, sortantdes mains de l'auteur des choses: toutdegenereentredes mainsde rhomme."11 Rousseau's argumentsagainsttherationalityof originalsin flow out of his understandingof Christiansoteriology.For Rousseau eitherhumansare freedfrom originalsin by baptismor theyare not. If theyare freed,thenoriginalsin is completelyerased and theyreturnto thestateof Adam beforetheFall. Thus, the vices humanshave (at least in Christiancountrieswherebaptismis widespread)mustbe given anotherexplanation.They cannot stem fromoriginalsin. If, on the other hand, humans are not freedthroughbaptism,thenit is as if God, apartfromthe actual original sin, deliberatelymade humans weak and thenturnedaround and punished them for this weakness. In the end these are two main groundsupon which Rousseau objects to the dogma of originalsin. First,thatit makes God into who sets up trapsforhumansto fall into.Second, and moreimporan unfairtyrant, tantly,thedogma does not actuallyexplain what it sets out to. As Rousseau writes to theArchbishopof Paris: You say thatwe are sinnersbecause of the sin of our firstfather,butthenwhydid our firstfathersin? Why cannotthesame reason,by whichyou explainhis sin,be applied also to the sin of his descendentswithoutoriginal sin and why must we imputeto God an injustice,in thathe makes us guiltyand culpable by our birthwhile our first fathersinnedand is punishedas we are withoutthis?Originalsin explainseverything exceptitsprincipleand it is thisprinciplethatneeds to be explained.12

I will notrepeatherewhatI have develop in my otherwritingson thissubject, butsimplysummarizeby sayingthatI thinkthedogma of originalsin got cut loose In thisway it fromits mooringsin Christiansoteriologyduringthe 16thCentury.13 became the answerto a questionit was neverintendedfor.The dogma of original sin developed historicallyfromreflectionson what it meantto be saved by Jesus Christ,what the death and resurrectionof the God-humanmeant.The salvation offeredin Christwas greaterthanjust personal redemptionbut had historicaland even cosmological dimensions.Originalsin was the resultof thesekindsof reflections.By the 16thCenturyoriginalsin oftenfunctionedas a kind of startingpoint forreflectionson thehumancondition.Finally,it became a kindof catch-allexplanationforwhat ailed us. No matterwhat the problemwas, the cause was original sin, i.e. our fallen nature,our depravity.Sadly, that which explains everything

10Lettrea Beaumont,OC IV, p. 938

u£m/fe,OCIV,p.245. 12

Lettrea Beaumont,OC, IV, p. 939. See my VerloreneEinheit: Die buche nach einer philosophiscnenAlternativezu der PeterLang, 1996) pp. 31-43. vonRousseau bis Schelling,(Frankfurt: Erbsundenlehre Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia, 57 (2001 ), 773-790

778

Jeremiah L. Alberg

explains nothing.Rousseau had only to enunciatea Catholicprinciple,thathumans are made good to have thewalls come tumblingdown. Rousseau's theoryof naturalgoodness does not make it easier forRousseau to He has to deal withtheproblemof evil. In a certainsense itmakesit moredifficult. find an explanationfor the manifestevil withoutblaming the individual.He is lookingfortheprincipleor originof evil. He complainsto theBishop: According to you the cause of evil lies in the depraved humannatureand this very depravityis an evil whose cause mustbe looked for.We agree,I think,thebothof us, thathumanswere createdgood. You say, however,thathe is bad because he was bad; and I show how he became bad. Out of the two of us, who, in youropinion,ascends betterto theprinciple?14

This lack of explanatorypower means thatforRousseau thedogma of original sin has become an ideologythatlegitimatestheevil of thepresentsocial order.He hintsat thiswhen he blames the Jesuitsforthe factthathis book Emile was condemned.He writesin his Confessions:"I did notdoubtat all thatthisMandate was of theJesuits'making,and, even thoughtheywerethemselvesin misfortune at that In other time,in it I stillrecognizedtheirold maximof crushingtheunfortunate."15 words the condemnationis not an attemptto uphold the truth,but an attemptto defendan oppressivesocial order. One of thereasonsforgoing againstthe Catholic understanding of originalsin was because it seemed to imply thatthe evil to which humans were liable was somehow necessary,theresultof concupiscence.And thusthemoralas well as the physical evils of the world were to be stoicallyborn,withjustice coming in the next life. Rousseau opposes any positionthattriesto legitimatethe presentevil of society.In thissense he feelsthatthedoctrinedoes notpull back theveil and reveal thetruthof thesituation.As CassirerstatesforRousseau social evil could not be borne because it ought not to be borne; because it robs man not of his happiness but of his essence and his destiny.At thispoint no retreat,no pliancy or submissivenessis permitted.What Voltaire,D'Alembert,Diderot,regardedas mere defectsof society,as mere mistakesin organizationwhich mustbe graduallyeliminated,Rousseau saw ratheras the guiltof society,and withflamingwords,again and again, he reproachedsocietywiththisguiltand called foratonement.16

Althoughhe believed withpassion thathumanswere good, entireand whole bothin thebirthof thespecies and the birthof each individual,he refusedto blind himselfto thosestrangebutrecurrent eventsthatshow thatsomethingis drastically wrong.Certainlyhe acknowledgedthe progressof the artsand sciences. Science 14 Lettrea Beaumont,OC, IV, p. 940. Les Confessions:Autrestextsautobiographiques,OC I, Bibliothequede la Pleiade (Paris: Gallimard,1969), p. 606. EnglishtranslationCollected Writings of Rousseau, 5, The Confessions and Correspondence,includingthe Lettersto Malesherbes,trans.ChristopherKelly, ed. Christopher Kelly,RogerD. Masters,and PeterG. Stillman,(Hanover:Univ. Pressof New England,1995) p. 507. 10 Cassirer,p. 29. Revista Portuguesa deFilosofia, 57 (2001), 773-790


779

and he benefited fromit.Technicalartshad reducedthe was meansforprogress thebenefit ofexperiencing the20thCenburdenofdailyliving.Butevenwithout as muchevil withit as good.There brought turyRousseauknewthattechnology witha resounding was something wrong.He wontheacademicprizeforanswering theprogress in theartsand scienceshad improved "No", thequestionof whether He answeredthattheartsandsciencesarebornof vice, themoralsof humankind. buthe did notanswerin theFirstDiscoursewhatthesourceof theseviceswere. He simplysaysthatartsandsciencedepravemorals,whileviceitselfleads,inturn, toescapefromthiscircle. totheartsandsciences.Rousseaudoesnotattempt The NatureoftheRejection lies notso muchin therejecButas Cassirerpointsout,Rousseau'sgreatness forwhichthedogmawas one solutofacetheproblem, tionitselfas intheattempt to humannatureif it is free tion,squarely."How can evil and guiltbe attributed Thisis thequestion frombothin itsoriginalstate,ifitknowsno radicaldepravity? Indeeditis muchmoreaccircledeveranew"17. aroundwhichRousseau'sthought curateto speakin themannerof R. Spaemannof Rousseau's"secularmetamorIt was Rousseau'sunwillingthansimplerejection.18 phosisoforiginalsin",rather answersin responseto theproblemof thedenessto acceptanyof thestandard so creative. ofhumansthatmadehisthinking pravity thatwe needan explanation of the the conviction on is founded Thisthinking causesof theproblemin orderto finda propersolutionto it.Rousseau'sstarting witha He saw theevil of thissituation humancondition. pointwas theconcrete is no He fatuous been matched. seldom has that optimist. clarity But forman in Society.. .it is firstof all a questionof providingforthenecessary,and thenforthe superfluous;nextcome delights,thenimmensewealth,and thensubjects, and thenSlaves; he does not have a momentof respite.What is most singularis that the less naturaland urgentthe needs, the more the passions augment,and, what is afterhavingswallowed worse,thepowerto satisfythem;so thatafterlong prosperity, up manytreasuresand desolated many men,my Hero will end by ruiningeverything untilhe is the sole masterof the Universe.Such in briefis themoralpicture,if not of humanlife,at leastof thesecretpretensionsof theHeartof everyCivilized man.19

thatled Rousseauto rejectoriginal No, it was notan optimistic temperament andhadtheeyestosee it. humandepravity sin.Rousseauhadexperienced is drivenbyan attempt Putanother way,I thinkthatall ofRousseau'sthinking that to alternative a to provide comprehensive Christianity, givenhis perception not offer solubut also did the did not not any explain problem, Christianity only 17 Cassirer,p. 30. Robert Spaemann, ,,Uber eimge Schwiengkeitenmit der Erbsiindenlehre, in: Zur Erbsiindenlehre: zu einerbrennendenFrage, (Freiburg1991), p. 54. Stellungnahmen 19 Discourse on theOriginofInequalityin OE m, p. 203, CW HI, p. 75-76. All parenthetically insertednumbersreferto thistext. Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia, 57 (2001), 773-790

780

Jeremiah L. Alberg

tion. The firstsystematicattemptat thisis his Discours sur L'Origine et les Fondemensde Ulnequalite Parmi Les Hommes (1755). He says thathis goal in thisis to "penetrate,throughour frivolousdemonstrations of good will, whatgoes on at thebottomof our Hearts"and to "reflecton whatthestateof thingsmustbe where all men are forcedto flatterand destroyone another"(p. 75) 'To penetrate"and "to reflect"meantthatRousseau could not be contentwiththe vision he experienced on the road to Vincennes.Ratherhe was compelled to methodologicallyworkout thatvision We can say thatthereis evidencethatRousseau saw himselfas offering an "alternativeaccount" to the Genesis story.I wish to quote here at lengthStarobinski since he gives such an excellentexpressionto what Rousseau is about in the Second Discourse: [The Second Discourse] is conceived as a revelationto the human;it is a thoroughly religiouswork,butof a veryparticularkind,a substituteforsacred history.Rousseau has rewritten Genesis as a workof philosophy,completewithGardenof Eden, original sin, and the confusionof tongues.This is a secularized,"demystified"versionof the origins of mankind,which repeats the Scripturethat it replaces with another tongue. . . .Christiantheology,thoughnot presentexplicitly,shapes the structureof Rousseau's argument.20

It is an alternativethatdoes not enjoy the other'srevelationalstatus.Rousseau wants to explore the same groundthatis explored in the firstthreechaptersof Genesis, but not underthe same groundrules. He makes quite explicithis methodological presuppositionswhen he statesthathis investigationis notintohistorical truths. The Researcheswhichcan be undertaken concerningthisSubjectmustnotbe takenfor historicaltruths, butonlyforhypothetical and conditionalreasoningsbettersuitedto clarifytheNatureof thingsthanto show theirgenuineorigin,like thoseourPhysicistsmake theformation oftheWorld(p. 19) everyday concerning

He compareshis activityto thatof naturalscientistswho formhypothesesconforit clarifieshow cerningtheformationof theearth.The comparisonis important Rousseau envisionedhis task. Justas the naturalscientistin the timeof Rousseau proposed to explain the formationof the world withoutreferenceto creationaccount of Genesis, so Rousseau wished to explore the originof evil withoutreference to originalsin. He beginsthen,notby a simplerejectionof thedogma,butby laying aside the whole universeof discourse, by "settingaside all the facts" in whichthisdogma foundits meaning.It is Scripturethatmakes clear thatthesituationof Adam was not thesame as Rousseau's naturalman. It makes clear thatthe state of naturenever existed,that"the firstMan, having received enlightenment and preceptsdirectlyfromGod, was nothimselfin thatstate;.. ."(p. 19). Therefore, says Rousseau, "Let us beginby settingall thefactsaside, fortheydo notaffectthe question" (p. 19). It is religionthatteaches thatGod took man out of the stateof 20 JeanStarobinski,Jean-JacquesRousseau: Transparencyand Obstruction, trans.Arthur Goldhammer,(Chicago: U of Chicago Press, 1988), p. 290. Revista Portuguesa deFilosofia, 57 (2001), 773-790


781

natureimmediately, just as it teachesthathe made theworld,butit does notforbid from forming "conjectures,drawnsolely fromthe natureof man and philosophers the Beings surrounding him,about what the humanRace mighthave become if it had remainedabandonedto itself (p. 19) any morethanit forbidsphysicistsfrom forminghypotheses. Rousseau repeatsand emphasizesthismethodologicalmove of his again at the beginningof the FirstPartof the Second Discourse, and thenagain at its end. He statesthathe will begin,"withouthavingrecourseto the supernatural knowledge" giftshe could have (p. 20). Instead,he will stripthisbeing "of all the supernatural received" so thathe can considerhim "as he musthave come fromthe hands of Nature"(p. 20).21Finallyhe statesas a conclusionto theentireSecond Discourse. I have triedto set forththe originand progressof inequality,the establishmentand abuse of politicalSocieties,insofaras thesethingscan be deduced fromtheNatureof man by lightof reason alone, and independentlyof the sacred Dogmas whichgive to theSanctionof Divine Right(p.67). Sovereignauthority

Rousseau has set aside theChristianworld-view.He hopes to bringphilosophy fullyintothe worldof science. It was thisway of thinkingwhichled Kant to name Rousseau theNewtonof themoraluniverse. Newton was the firstto see order and regularityjoined with great simplicity But since wherebeforehim therewas only disorderand badly matchedmultiplicity. Newtonthecometstravelin geometricpaths. Rousseau was the firstto discover under the multiplicityof formstaken on by humans theirdeeply hidden nature and the concealed laws by which providence would be justifiedthroughhis observations.Before this the objection of Alphonsus and Manes was valid. AfterNewton and Rousseau God is justifiedand fromnow on Pope's theoremis true.22

While Rousseau does not directlyargue againstoriginalsin in theSecond Diskindof investigation, he is course, and insteadclaims to be conductinga different in factseekingto offera viable substitute. While he cannotaccept the dogma of originalsin, Rousseau's startingpointis the realityof humanevil. "Men are wicked; sad and continualexperiencespares theneed forproof.However,man is naturallygood; I believe I have demonstrated whichsocietyinduces and makes it profitableforone to it (p. 74). The artificiality, what one actually is, lies at the root of the problem.The from different appear causes of depravityare many,theyinclude all the advances made, all the knowlthatmake thehuman edge acquired,all thechangesfromhis primitiveconstitution can reduced Rousseau to a single this be on others Still, 74). by many (p dependent linearprocess. He does not say thatthereis nothingto be admiredin his society, butwhathe does insistupon is thatthepricepaid for"progress"be reckoned.Soci21 One can see herean influenceof Bellarmine'sand Saurez's naturapura on Rousseau's aboutI'hommenature.Both are logical possibilitiesthatare used as a kindof 'thought thinking experiment'. 22 ImmanuelKant,Kant's handschriftlicher Nachlafi,Bd. VH, AA, Bd. XX, S. 58-59.

REVISTAPORTUGUESA DE FlLOSOFIA, 57 (2001), 773-790

782

Jeremiah L. Alb erg

- the ety"necessarily bringsmento hateeachother"(p. 74). Thisupsidedownness verythingthatshouldallowpeopleto livetogether actuallymakesitimpossible is thephenomenon he investigates. Everyreversedrealityis laid bare.Humans ofothersbecausethereis moneyto be made.The wants rejoicein thecatastrophes directedtowardmeresuperfluities of passions.The less becomesthe strongest itbecomes.All thisis to usefultheartis forthecommongood,themorelucrative theexplanation reversed.Rousseau,then,is a realist be explainedand through who could neversay: "Toutest bien".On theother aboutthepresentsituation an optimist aboutwhatcanbe done. hand,he remains Rousseau'sAlternative: Consistency Whenwe turnfromRousseau'sreasonsforrejecting orlayingasidethedogma at the of originalsinand ask whathispositionactuallywas,we maybe surprised If whatwe meanbyan alternaof answersthatconfront us in hiswritings. variety tiveto originalsin is whatRousseauheldto be theultimate sourceof ourpresent fromsocietyto reflection to thelack of breastplight,thenit could be anything -feeding.23 doesRousseau's However,ifwe changethequestionandask in whatprecisely fromat least alternative accountconsist,we finda unityof thought thatstretches theSecondDiscourseto theLetteran Beaumont,Rousseauhimselfassertsthe ofthisunityinhisletter existence toBeaumont whenhe writes: 23 Society is themostwell-knownanswer,althoughbecomingsociable would be phrasing itmorecorrectly.As H. Meier has pointedout in his "Introduction" to thecriticaleditionof the Second Discourse, Rousseau uses theadjectiveexactlythreetimesin thetext.He says thatin becomingsociable humansbecome "slaves" (p. 24), theybecome "evil" (p. 42) and theybegin to live in theopinionsof others(p. 60). See his J.-JRousseau Diskursuberdie Ungleichheit / Discours sur Vinegalite3rded. (Paderborn:Schoningh,1993) p. LXXI. Rousseau also facould also be mouslycalls thehumanwho reflects"a depravedanimal" (p. 138). Perfectibility considereda source of the problem.Rousseau says: "It would be sad forus to be forcedto agree thatthisdistinctiveand almostunlimitedfacultyis the sourceof all man's misfortunes; thatitis thisfacultywhich,by dintof time,drawshimoutof thatoriginalconditionin whichhe would pass tranquiland innocentdays; thatit is thisfacultywhich,bringingto flowerover the centurieshis enlightenment and his errors,his vices and his virtues,in thelongrunmakes him thetyrantof himselfand of Nature.It would be horribleto be obliged to praiseas a beneficent of thebanksof theOrinocotheuse of those beingtheone who firstsuggestedto theinhabitant Pieces of wood whichhe bindson thetemplesof his Children,and whichassurethemat least apartof theirimbecilityand originalhappiness."We shouldnotbe fooledby therhetorical"It would be sad.." it is, accordingto Rousseau, in factsad and thushe labels his own systemas "sad" (cf. Preface to a Second Letterto Bordes, CW p. 183). As regardsbreast-feeding: "Do you wish to bringeveryoneback to his firstduties?Begin withmothers.You will be surprised followssuccessivelyfromthisfirstdepravity. The by thechangesyou will produce.Everything whole moral orderdegenerates;... But let mothersdeign to nursetheirchildren,moralswill reformthemselves,nature's sentimentswill be awakened in every heart,the state will be back together"(Entile,p. 46). repeopled.This firstpoint,thispointalone, will bringeverything Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia, 57 (2001), 773-790

Rousseau

and Original

Sin

783

These books [Rousseau has just mentionedthe Second Discourse, his Letter to M.D'Alemberton the Theatre,and his novel The New Heloise], whichyou have presumably read, since you judge them,breathethe same principles[as contained in Emile]; thesame way of thinkingis notany moredisguised.24

to thehuRousseauclaimsto haveshownthevicesthatothershaveattributed source.He has shownthe manheart,are notnaturalto man,buthavea different theirgenealogy".25 It is in whichtheyareborn,andso to saytheirwritten "manner thisgenealogythatI wish to describehere.Rousseau's proposalcan be summanner:1) The humanindividual is bestunderstood from marizedin thefollowing aidedbycircumstances, drivesthisdualisofdualism.2) Perfectibility, theviewpoint a goldenage andfinally thestateof nature, threestages,namely, ticbeingthrough ofperfectibility intosociety. 3) Thefaculty dependsina crucialwayuponlanguage. The NaturalGoodnessofMan: Dualism ofevilis explainedbyRousseauin termsofa dualism.As he sucTheproblem "Besidesitappearsthatthecoexistence of Lettrea Beaumont: it in his cinctly put universe of the and to resolve the constitution better twoprinciples many explains without whichcan be solvedonlywithgreatdifficulty it,as, forexamdifficulties, makeup thehumanperTwo substances theoriginofevil."26 ple,thatconcerning rootedin a cosmologicaldualismthat son. These two substancesare ultimately stemsfromDescartes. Besides it is certainthatwe have the idea of two distinctsubstances,namely spirit and matter,the one which thinksand the otherwhich is extended.And these two ideas can easily be conceived theone withouttheother.27

headintwodifferent direcIn thehumanpersonthesensibleandthereasonable tions.The sensibleheadstowardthegood of thebodyand thereasonabletoward thegoodofthesoul.Thus,thedualismthatRousseauproposesis nota dualismof of lightanda principle goodversusevil.It is notas thoughtherewerea principle withoneanother. therearetwodifferent ofdarkness. Rather, goodswhichconflict formthisdualism thisifwe recallthedramatic understand Perhapswe can better receivesin thenovelJulia.For Julieit is notherdutytowardsherFatherwhich withherlove towardsSt. Preux.Ratherit is havingto choosebetween conflicts twolovesthatrendsherheart.In thesamewaywe do nothavea goodanda bad in and often thisformof dualism,buttwogoodsthatlead us in twoverydifferent, directions. conflicting,

24 Lettrea 25 Lettrea 26 Lettrea Ll Lettrea

Beaumont,OC Beaumont,OC Beaumont,OC Beaumont,OC

IV, p. 933. IV, p. 936. IV, p. 956-957. IV, p. 955. Revista Portuguesa deFilosofia, 57 (2001), 773-790

784

JeremiahL. Alberg FirstStage

of Rousseauclaimsthat"thePhilosophers whohaveexaminedthefoundations butnoneof ofgoingbackto thestateofNature, societyhaveall feltthenecessity an actof abstracting themhas reachedit" (p. 18). Rousseauwillreachit through thatcouldpossiblybe tracedbackto societyortohumansociabilfromeverything ity.The 'natural'is no longerthattowardswhicha beingstrivesin orderto fulfill its 'nature',ratherit is "onlythatwhichcan be developedfromthecapacitiesof eachindividual".28 WhenRousseauthinks he findsinthenatural manan unalthisthought through ienatedbeingwho is also a dumbanimal.Rousseauadmitsthatthehumanas an animalis "lessstrong butatthesametimehehas thansome,lessagilethanothers" at one's disposal,of altheadvantageof "constantly all of one's strength having for and of so to speak,enoneself, event, waysbeingready any alwayscarrying tirelywithone" (p. 21). Humansaregood,then,notin thesensethattheyhavea are good in so faras they butin thesensethatall creatures destiny, supernatural is to do. The use of theword"programmed" carryoutwhattheyareprogrammed notaccidental. thehumanone,as "onlyan Rousseauviewsall animals,including machine"(p. 25). As suchhe standsindifferently beforemoralgoodand ingenious evil.In thefirststatemanknowsonlyhimself andtherefore doesnotsee hiswellas either with the of others.Accorto or well-being -being opposed conforming he does not hate or love. dingly A dualisticanimalcouldsimplyremainina sortofbalancedstate,neverchanginteract and ing.Rousseauhas to accountfortwothings:1) howthetwoprinciples in what this Rousseau the interinteraction accounts for 2) way producesprogress. actioninthefollowing owesmuchtothe way.On theonehand,the"understanding on and the hand the are much tothe other indebted 27), passions"(p. passions very The passionsimprovereasonfor"we seek to knowonlybecause understanding. we desireto havepleasure(p. 27). Primitive humansdesireand fearand thatis in enoughto getthemto beginto reason.But thepassionsthemselves "originate ourwants"and theirprogress forwe cannotdesire dependsuponourknowledge, or fearanything unlesswe have an idea of it or from"thesimpleimpulsion of nature"(p. 27). Naturalmanat thispointhas onlythelatterkindof impulses, but he has thepotential fortheformer. The passionsdevelopin sucha waythatthey inducehumanstolookformore.How doesthishappen? Rousseauneedsto findan elementthatis, at one andthesametime,rootedin thepassionsand yetdevelopstheintellect to thepointthattheintellect in turn to exercise a influence on the This cannot be element begins (pernicious) passions. inborn or else God would be and it to be needs simply ultimately responsible yet universal in orderto accountforthehumancondition. Rousseaufindsthiselement inlanguage. 28Robert ohneVaterland, (Munchen, Spaemann, 1980)p.67. Burger Revista Portuguesa deFilosofia, 57 (2001), 773-790


785

For Rousseau language is rootedin thepassions. Accordingto his Essay on the Origin of Language thatoriginis the expressionof passions.29At the same time language plays a crucial role in thought.According to Rousseau "general ideas come intotheMind only withtheaid of words,and theunderstanding graspsthem only throughpropositions"(p. 32). All general ideas are purelyintellectualand theydependupon language. But languagetoo has itshistory.It cannotexplainitself.For thisRousseau has to which"withtheaid of circumstances develops all postulatea facultyof perfectibility theothers".At the same timethisfacultyitselfis dependentupon thepossession of here.We are in the generalideas and thuslanguage.We need notsee a contradiction kindof circlecharacterizedby thewhatis knownas 'feed-back',i.e. theresultsof the processeffecttheprocess itself.The facultyof perfectionis theultimate"source of because it draws him out of that"originalcondition"and in all man's misfortunes" the long run "makes him a tyrantof himselfand Nature"(p. 26). But thiskind of would not be possible withoutthe "Logic of Discourse" (p. 33), in "perfectibility" whichthethingspokenof no longerresemblesanyexistingthing. Rousseau considers first"the obstacles to the Origin of Languages" (p.) The mainobstacle is thatone has to assume preciselywhatRousseau himselfhas called intoquestion,"namely,a kind of societyalreadyestablishedamong the inventors of language" (p. 29). Rousseau cannot imagine how language became necessary. His imaginationstops,whichis whathappenswhenone does nothave thewordsto help extendit. He says "forsince Men had no communicationamong themselves nor any need of it, one can conceive neitherthe necessityof thisinventionnor its possibilitywere it not indispensable.Rousseau simply supposes "this firstdifficulty conquered" and then assumes the necessity.Then he asks how languages could be establishedgiventhattheyare necessary.Here theproblemis therelationship betweenspeech and thought.One would need to know how to speak in order to be able to thinkwell enoughor deeplyenoughto inventlanguage.But if language is notyetinvented.. . At least threetimesRousseau makes clear thathe is caughtin a circle. I think thatthis is one of the more importantaspects of the Second Discourse because it teaches us how to read it. The originof our situationis never simple or singular. The origin thatRousseau seeks is what lies at the end of the investigation.His investigationwill close a circle but it will not simplyrepeatwhathas gone before. There will be a difference.We have to presumethe originin orderto be able to speak about it. Still,thispresumptiondoes not undermineour taskor our talk.We do notget involvedin a vicious circlebecause our talkcan influencethestory. 29

Cf. In particularChapterII of the Essay on the Originof Language entitled"That the FirstInventionof Speech Derives notfromNeeds but fromthePassions". One needs to exerbetweenthe"inventionof cise cautionhere,forit seems to me thatRousseau is distinguishing speech" and theoriginof language.Both are rootedin thepassions,butthelatteris no longer rootedin the"firstneeds" butratherin "otherneeds". Revista Portuguesa deFilosofia, 57 (2001), 773-790 9

786

Jeremiah L. Alberg

Rousseauemphasizestheroleofdiscoursein allowinghumanstoconceiveabhow selfto progressin thinking and evenin imagining. This highlights stractly, thetextis at thispoint.He couldnotwritetheSecondDiscoursewith-referential in outdiscourseandyethe wantstoexplainintheoriginsofwhathe haspresumed In orderto getstarted. Thus,Rousseauhas to beginto tellthestoryoftheorigins. ifnotlogical.Rousseaucannot thisway,whatwas accidental becomesmeaningful He canpresume how words and themselves become sentences meaningful. explain it.He canencourage it.Butall thistoopresumes otherstoinvestigate language. SecondStage In thesecondstatehumansbeginto eye each other.Theyenterintorelationshipswitheach otherand withthings.Theylearnto cooperate.In thebeginning thisis stillthecooperation ofhigher primates. Theydiscovercases whereitpaysto a commongoal and also whento be on workwithothersin orderto accomplish of interests thanconguardagainstothers.But"so longas thereis less opposition manis essentially Rousseau is that coursebetweeninterests good."30 explicit these associationsdo notneeda fullydevelopedhumanlanguage,rather theyhavean The dialectic of and reasonfuels "inarticulate universal language"(p. 45). passion encounReason to find solutions to the that humans is progress. problems applied ter,andthis,in turn, developsthehumans'capacities.The cloudon thehorizonof theraceappearedwhenhumanshadenoughleisuretomake"commodities", things thathad notbeen necessarybeforebutweremerelyconvenient. Rousseaucalls thesecommodities, "thefirst sourceofevils" yoke"andsaysthattheyare"thefirst butbe(p. 46.). Theseare such,notbecausetheywereevil in and of themselves, cause theylosttheirpowerto pleasein theverypossessionof them.Thusbegins thedialecticof theconveniences, whichweremeantto freehumans, butbecome insteadthe'chainsthatbind'himsincehecanno longerdo without them. It is atthispointinhisanalysisthatRousseauagainbringslanguageanditsdeintothediscussion.His explanation of itsdevelopment is fantastic, but velopment thepointis thatthebridgethathe needsfroma primitive ruraltribeto thesociety thatis evilis full-blown humanspeech(cf.p. 46-47).Withitsintroduction Rousseausays:"Everything to its 47). begins change appearance" (p. Withtheadventof languageandreason,whichit makespossible,camecomPrimitives couldholdintheirmindsqualitiesandrelations andweighone parisons. the other. against The one who sang or danced the best,thehandsomest,the strongest,themostadroit, or the most eloquent became the most highlyconsidered;and thatwas the firststep toward inequalityand, at the same time,toward vice. From these firstpreferences were born on the one hand vanityand contempt,on the othershame and envy; and the fermentation caused by these new leavens eventuallyproduced compoundsfatal to happinessand innocence(p. 47).

30 Lettrea Beaumont,OC IV, p. 936-937. Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia, 57 (2001), 773-790


787

Rousseau holds thatspiritualmovementssuch as vanityand envy are of great importancebut thattheirbeginningswere innocuous. It is this way thathe can explain the evil withouthaving to admitto any kindof 'originalsin'. These emotions are dependentupon language, but language can be used to explain this dependence.Even withthese problemswe are just now enteringthe Golden Age or the rousseau-ian equivalent of the Garden of Eden. Rousseau summarizesthis second statein thesewords: Thus althoughmen had come to have less enduranceand althoughnaturalpityhad althisperiodof thedevelopmentof humanfaculties, readyundergonesome alternation, maintaininga golden mean betweenthe indolenceof theprimitivestateand thepetumusthave been the happiestand most durableeplant activityof our amour-propre, och (p. 48).

This Golden Age is importantmethodologicallyfor Rousseau because it emphasizes the fact thatfor him progressdoes not simplymean decline. One can, througha properbalance of the available forces minimizeevil and promotethe good aspectsof a change.31 As long as man was satisfiedwitha simplelifethatrequiredonly theprimitive cooperationof animal-likebeings,man was happy. But when it became possible forappearance to be separatedfromreality,all was lost. Rousseau's biblical allusion makesclear thathe is givinghis versionof theFall. As long as theyapplied themselvesonly to tasksthata single personcould do and to arts thatdid not require the cooperationof several hands, they lived free,healthy, good, and happy insofaras theycould be accordingto theirNature,and theycontinued to enjoy among themselvesthe sweetnessof independentintercourse.But from the momentone man needed thehelp of another,as soon as theyobservedthatit was usefulfora single person to have provisionsfortwo, equalitydisappeared,property was introduced,labor became necessary;and vast forestswere changed into smiling Fields whichhad to be wateredwiththe sweat of men,and in whichslaveryand miserywere soon seen to germinateand growwiththecrops (p. 49).

The downfallwas not immediate,any more thanthe Golden Age had been a staticstate.Humans were not,like Adam and Eve, exiled fromtheGardenof Eden. Rather,it was a momentof passing balance as the human race moved along its course. Somethingwas lost,but it was verymuch like humaninnocence- as long as we enjoyed it, we enjoyed it unaware,and we only became aware of it in its loss. We lost peace and innocenceforeverbeforewe had appreciatedtheirdelights.Untelt by the stupid men of earliesttimes,lost to the enlightenedmen of later times,the happy life of the golden age was always a stateforeignto the humanrace, eitherbe31

Cf. Steven Johnston, EncounteringTragedy:Rousseau and the Project of Democratic criticizesRousseau forthisconception,thatis, for Order,(Ithaca: CornellUP, 1999). Johnston notacceptingfullythattryingto bringaboutpublicgood necessarilyentailsbringingaboutevil too. While thereare manyfinepointsin thisrecentstudyof Rousseau's thought,all too often Robertsanalysis depends upon the imputationof ignoranceto Rousseau about the deeper implicationsof his own thought.I remainskepticalaboutthisimputation. Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia, 57 (2001), 773-790

788

Jeremiah L. Alberg cause it went unrecognizedwhen humans could have enjoyed it or because it had been lost it when humanscould have knownit.32

We recognizeheretraitsof whathas rightly beencalledRousseau'sromanticism.He sensesdeeplytheloss notof whatwas,butwhatwas not.At theendof thenovelEmilehe saystotherealists: The golden age is treatedas a chimera,and it will always be one foranyone whose heartand tastehave been spoiled. It is noteven truethatpeople regretthegolden age, since those regretsare always hollow. What, then,would be requiredto give a new birth?One single butimpossiblething:to love it.33

ThirdStage from Whatwas thedownfall?Rousseausaysthatwe can onlyhavedeparted the"happiest andmostdurableepoch",fromthe"bestforman""bysomefatalacwhich.. .oughtnevertohavehappened" cident, (p. 48). in thegoldenage,thehumanracecontinued to progress. Insteadof remaining butcrucialto Rousseaudoes notdetailtheprocess.He paintswithbroadstrokes, thisprocessis the"progress oflanguages"(p. 51). Thismakesitfirst possibleand thennecessaryforhumansat least appearto be buildingupon "mind,beauty, or skill,upon meritor talents", becausetheseare thethingsthatnow strength, At thispoint,"itwas necessary "attract consideration". to appearto be otherthan whatone in factwas" (p. 51). Humanscouldappearas theirideas,whicharesupportedbylanguage,toldthemtheyshouldappear. To be and to seem became two altogetherdifferent things;and fromthisdistinction came conspicuous ostentation,deceptive cunningand all the vices thatfollow from them(p. 51).

Withthisdistinction a stateofwar.Thosewhofirst toward beginsa fatalprogress the land find in I willnotenter themselves battle with thestronger. occupy perpetual intothesocialcontract whichattempts toresolvethisstateofaffairs. I wouldliketo a speechandthespeechis a lie (cf.53-54).In emphasizethatitis effected through thisway"natural freedom" is killed(p. 54) without beingreplacedbycivicfreedom. Rousseauis convincedthattheproblemis the"universal desireforreputation, honorsandpreferences" forceoftheworld. (p. 63). Thisis thedriving It excites and multipliesour passions, and, by creatinguniversalcompetitionand rivalry,or ratherenmity,among men, occasions numberlessfailures,successes, and disturbancesof all kinds by makingso many aspirantsrun the same course. I could show thatit is to thisdesireof being talkedabout,and thisunremitting rage of distinguishingourselves,thatwe owe the best and the worstthingswe possess, both our virtuesand our vices, our science and our errors,our conquerorsand our philosophers;thatis to say, a greatmanybad things,and a veryfew good ones.

32 FromtheGeneva Manuscript,OC m, p. 283, CW IV, p 77. " Entile,OE IV, p. 859; Bloom, p. 474. Revista Portuguesa deFilosofia, 57 (2001), 773-790


789

and theextreme Whatthisdriveleadsto is the"laststageof inequality, point whichcloses theCircleand touchesthepointfromwhichwe started"(p. 65). An extreme Rousseau'simagehereis instructive. pointis usually'theendof the to thestarting is brought line',buthereit marksa return point."Hereeverything and consequently to a new stateof Nature, backto thesole law of thestronger, fromtheone withwhichwe beganin thatone was theStateofnaturein different and thislastis thefruitof an excessof corruption" itspurity, (p. 65). So it is a And yetthedifference is small:"thereis so littledifferwitha difference. return thesetwostates.. .(p. 65). encebetween is vast.It is thedifference betweensensingone's exisAndyetthedifference Andthedifference is in language.Fora savagethewords tenceandbeingnothing. Theopinions bearno meaning. Theyareineffect nothing. 'power'and'reputation' the his beingin has of othersare equallywithoutvalue,nothing. Thus, savage founded on comparison arenothing to Thewordsthatpointtoa difference himself. whicharenothing, his constitute him.Butforthesocialpersonthesecomparisons, in a radicallydifferent of thesavageis structured verybeing.The consciousness andalienbetweenintegration wayfromthepersonof society.It is thedifference thewholeproblem ation.Rousseausummarizes bysaying: Such is, in fact,the genuine cause of all these differences:the Savage lives within himself;the sociable man always outside of himself,knows how to live only in the opinionof others;and it is, so to speak, fromtheirjudgmentalone thathe draws the of his own existence(p. 66). sentiment

The humanbeingof modernsocietyrelieson theviewsof othersto tellhim ofhis His consciousness whohe is,butknowsthenthathe is no longersovereign. and this fails beof to the is reduced existence judgment others, ultimately very to be whathe knowshe is not.PatrickColemansummarizes causehe can pretend of theway in whichRousseauhas madeto our understanding thecontribution whichlanguagestructures reality. The originalityof Rousseau's analysis [in the Second Discourse] lay in the way he notonly in thecourse of humanhistory,but how inequalityfunctioned, demonstrated in thegenesis of the conceptualvocabularythatmade social communicationpossible and in turncould justifysocial inequality.34

Conclusion humans'supernatural desofChristianity to thetraditional teaching According revealedan 'origin' of Christsimultaneously tiny,as revealedin theresurrection thatwas a 'fall'fromtheoriginal origin.Iflanguageprecededthisfall,as thescripof thenthislanguagewas thelanguagebywhichthethings turalaccountsuggests, in theoriginalorigin, was doneeffortlessly God werenamedjustly.Suchnaming, an alternative thelaborofthecross.Rousseaupresents nowonlypossiblethrough 34

PatrickColeman, Rousseau's Political Imagination:Rule and Representationin the 'Lettrea d'Alembert(Droz, Geneva, 1984). Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia, 57 (2001), 773-790

790

Jeremiah L. Alberg

accountwheretheoriginaloriginis a stateof solitudewithoutlanguage.The emerand reconstruction gence of language and sociabilityrequirea thoroughdestruction of the human.If the scholasticstaughtthatgrace and thus salvationdoes not destroynaturebutratherpresupposesand perfectsit,Rousseau representstheposition of destruction and replacement.

Revista Portuguesa de FiLOSOFiAy 57 (2001), 773-790

Rousseau and the Original Sin

Recommend Documents