Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Mary Wollstonecraft on the imagination

Abstract

The article compares Rousseau's and Wollstonecraft's views on the imagination. It is argued that though Wollstonecraft was evidently influenced by Rousseau, there are significant differences between their views. These differences are grounded in their different views on the faculty of reason and its relation to the passions. Whereas Rousseau characterizes reason as a derivative faculty, grounded in the more primary faculty of perfectibility, Wollstonecraft perceives reason as the faculty defining human nature. It is argued that contrary to what is often assumed, Wollstonecraft's conception of the imagination is not primarily characterized by its Romantic features, but rather by the close affinity she posits between reason and the imagination. This close affinity has several consequences. One consequence is that she is less worried than Rousseau about the imagination wandering without external constrains, because she believes in reason's ability to guide the imagination by choosing its objects. Ultimately the difference between Rousseau's and Wollstonecraft's views on the imagination helps us understand why she was a passionate philosopher of the Enlightenment while he was one of its first, perceptive and most articulate critics.

Mary Wollstonecraft

“…nor to dry up the feelings by employing the mind in investigations remote from life' (Works 5: 135). The problems Wollstonecraft 16 For more detail on Rousseau's view and how it differs from Wollstonecraft's, see Reuter (2017). 17 It is likely that Thoughts on the Education of Daughters was finished before Wollstonecraft left London to work as a governess in Ireland.…”

“…23 See Whale (2000). Other studies discussing Wollstonecraft's views on the imagination are Green (1997); Khin Zaw (1998); Taylor (2003); Reuter (2017); and Tomaselli (2021: 81-91).…”

“…On the differences between Rousseau's and Wollstonecraft's views on perfectibility, seeReuter (2014Reuter ( , 2017.…”

Mary Wollstonecraft och autonomins uppkomst:

“…Wollstonecrafts liberala syn på vilseledande intryck utgör en tydlig skillnad mellan hennes uppfattning och Rousseaus syn, som betonar att vilseledande passioner inte kan stävjas när de en gång uppkommit och att det därför är viktigt att tutorn reglerar vilken typ av intryck 23. Rousseau, å andra sidan, förhåller sig generellt skeptiskt till böcker och betonar att "Det barn som läser tänker inte, han bara läser" (Rousseau, 1817, s. 151 (Reuter, 2017). Halldenius har ingående analyserat de filosofiska ståndpunkter Wollstonecraft utvecklar i sina egna romaner (Halldenius, 2013;, s. 51-74, & 2016 (Rousseau, 1817, s. 63), kan Wollstonecraft tillåta att unga människor rycks med av sina passioner därför att förnuftet, om det bara ges de rätta möjligheterna att utvecklas, kan skilja mellan sanna och falska intryck och därmed även stävja missriktade passioner.…”

Across disciplines, languages, and nations: Recent scholarship on Mary Wollstonecraft

“…Literary critics, in particular, often revisit her vexed self‐identification with his Solitary Walker, whose twinned capacities for hypersensitivity and insight make conformity impossible and exclusion excruciating (see, for example: Favret, 1993; Taylor, 2017; Yousef, 1999). Recent analyses have also investigated the resonances and distinctions between Wollstonecraft and Rousseau's philosophical outlooks, including their different perceptions of the imagination and its relationship to reason (Reuter, 2017) and the philanthropic potential of reverie as a nonrational mode of cognition (Kirkley, 2022a).…”