Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
Deckard;114484 wrote:Interesting, in the Rousseau's Discourse on Arts and Sciences, he paints Socrates as a sort of noble savage. Socrates walking around questioning the civilized and thereby revealing how little their arts and sciences were really worth.
Here's a weird quote that may reveal more about Rousseau's personality than Socrates' or France's.
And here is the only mention of inequality in the Discourse of arts and Sciences.
The man is pointing out what should be obvious to any reader in anthropology, and it is that the economy of our age, of money is entirely dis-similar to the economy of honor, which is still at work in the world...
Aristuppus said as much of Socrates in his day..You must understand that primitive peoples are ethical, and it is from such people and their behavior that we have the word...Socrates was trying to form a new ethic based upon reason, which may someday yet give us world government, but in his day was proof that gentile institutions were dying with nothing to replace them...Equality essential to democracy was made superfluous by enequal wealth... And it is unequal wealth that destroys all primitive societies because it makes people jealous of what they have and have not, and so destroys unity...
Quote:
Is there any truth to such a statement?
(Keep in mind these ideas are developed further and in different directions in the Discourse on Inequality which I have not commented on here.)
Of course not. To think that people are equal in either talent or virtue is a fantasy only someone like Rousseau could come up with. No one believes that is true. Or even has any truth in it.
Sometimes Ken, your ego truly amazes me? NO ONE, huh?
William
Of course not. Even children know that some people are stronger than others. Some are more intelligent than others. Some are nicer than others. Some are richer than others. Some know more than others. Who doesn't know that? What has that to do with me or my ego?
William;114614 wrote:
Ken, the ego sucks, big time. I had one once and ditched that bastard and it was then I started observing others and came to realize how so very important they were in my life and what my life represented and learned to be so grateful from what I was learning from them and thanked them for it and both benefitted from that.
William
You mean you don't believe what some people are more intelligent, taller, stronger, know more, are nicer, think more clearly, etc. than others? Of course, I don't merely mean that some people have all these talents and virtues, and others have none of them, although there are cases in which that is true too. My ego has nothing to do with it. I did not claim I was one of the talented and virtuous people. How did I pop up here? I am just pointing to an obvious truth. I am just the messenger of tiding. Your attitude toward the tidings is up to you.
kennethamy;114254 wrote:
some people are more intelligent, taller, stronger, know more, are nicer, think more clearly, etc. than others
This is true. People are not equal in this sense. The question is do any of these various unequal talents, qualities, abilities etc entitle their possesors to unequal shares of the resources, opportunities and benefits of society? And also how does this relate to Rousseau's state of nature (or Hobbes' or Lockes' or whoever else came up with a version of the state of nature. Are there any other important versions of the state of nature that should be mentioned?)
kennethamy;114616 wrote:
This is true. People are not equal in this sense. The question is do any of these various unequal talents, qualities, abilities etc entitle their possesors to unequal shares of the resources, opportunities and benefits of society? And also how does this relate to Rousseau's state of nature (or Hobbes' or Lockes' or whoever else came up with a version of the state of nature. Are there any other important versions of the state of nature that should be mentioned?)
The question is do any of these various unequal talents, qualities, abilities etc entitle their possesors to unequal shares of the resources, opportunities and benefits of society?
I did not say so. And no one accused me of it. What I was accused of was saying that people have; various unequal talents, qualities, abilities. Apparently, my ego caused me to say such a thing. Does yours cause you to say such a thing? (My arguing such a thing would commit the naturalistic fallacy).
Nature treats everyone as equal. The differences, as it appears, is transitory. To believe that forms, concepts and possessions are attributes of qualities, abilities and talents and thus invoking or justifying the principle of distinction is an anthropic blunder caused by psychological factors bearing upon a mind, and can be sourced to societal preferences and hierarchical structures.
Inequality is superficial, created by the mind and confined to the mind.
I did not say so. And no one accused me of it. What I was accused of was saying that people have; various unequal talents, qualities, abilities. Apparently, my ego caused me to say such a thing. Does yours cause you to say such a thing? (My arguing such a thing would commit the naturalistic fallacy).
Personally, I don't think you've said anything egotistical in stating that people are not equal in talents qualities abilities etc. I was agreeing with you. People are not equal in this sense. This is a tough fact for some people to accept but I, for one, am able to accept it.
I was attempting to move on to the question of what these inequalities should mean for the organization of society which I think is the real question even for Rousseau.
Individuals have unequal talents, abilities, qualities
I am asking if this fact should have any bearing on the manner in which the resources and benefits of society are distributed. Or should instead, the resources and benefits be distributed equally. Or perhaps by some other criteria such as need as in "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"
Yes, that is a good question. John Rawls, who was (and maybe is) the most influential philosopher of politics and society in the 20th century, argued that if neither virtues or talents are up to the person, they should not be counted in distributing the world's goods. I don't think much of this argument.
It would seem to me that Rosseau would naturally be claimed by the social democrat side of politics - would he not?
Surely it is important that people are treated equally by the law, and provided with equal opportunity in terms of education and employment. This does not neessarily presume that people are all the same or have all the samec qualities, talents or abilities; but regardless they should be afforded equality by the state. In practise, in many societies, including the US, there are enormous disparities in social equity caused by the fact that your access to education, legal representation, or medical treatement is determined in a large part by your income. (The latter of these is what the Health Bill is attempting to address although I don't want to divert the thread into current politics, as it is being discussed elsewhere.)
It seems to me that a lot of conservatives believe that wealth is an indication of merit, while poverty signifies its absence, and that in the free market everyone gets what they deserve. However this seems to always ending up with the very wealthy getting the greater share - the rich getting richer, and the poor becoming more numerous. (Probably this will be dismissed as a caricature but I hold there is some truth in it. The 'concentration of wealth' since the Reagan revolution is empirically demonstrable.)
Social democrats, on the other hand, believe in distribution of equity through mechanisms such as tax and access to education and health services.
It would seem to me that Rosseau would naturally be claimed by the social democrat side of politics - would he not?
I suppose you're right. My comparison was a bit misleading in that Rousseau was imagining a state prior to, and corrupted by, the emergence of large scale social institutions. But I think the 'trajectory of his thought' could be taken to culminate in a laissez-faire approach to economics, combined with the Small is Beautiful ethos of Schumacher and the anti-corporatist ideal of David Korten.
But then again, that might just be my own romantic idealism.
I suppose you're right. My comparison was a bit misleading in that Rousseau was imagining a state prior to, and corrupted by, the emergence of large scale social institutions. But I think the 'trajectory of his thought' could be taken to culminate in a laissez-faire approach to economics, combined with the Small is Beautiful ethos of Schumacher and the anti-corporatist ideal of David Korten.
But then again, that might just be my own romantic idealism.
I gotta ask. Why don't you think much of Rawls' argument?
Personally, I don't think you've said anything egotistical in stating that people are not equal in talents qualities abilities etc. I was agreeing with you. People are not equal in this sense. This is a tough fact for some people to accept but I, for one, am able to accept it.
I was attempting to move on to the question of what these inequalities should mean for the organization of society which I think is the real question even for Rousseau.
Individuals have unequal talents, abilities, qualities
I am asking if this fact should have any bearing on the manner in which the resources and benefits of society are distributed. Or should instead, the resources and benefits be distributed equally. Or perhaps by some other criteria such as need as in "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"