Rousseau's Politic Argument in the Discourse on the Sciences and Arts

Abstract

Rousseau's arguments often turn on a correct understanding of the relationship between cause and effect. We argue that the principal cause-effect argument of the Discourse is actually the opposite of the one Rousseau appears to posit in his work. Whereas he initially seems to argue that the sciences and arts corrupt morals, his ultimate argument is that the corruption of morals is the cause of the advancement of the sciences and arts and of their corrupting effects. Behind both moral corruption and the advancement of the sciences and arts lies a more remote cause: human pride and the unequal social and political conditions that result from pride and then foster it. Rousseau takes advantage of this complex causal relationship by simultaneously presenting an initial causal argument that gives his essay its paradoxical character and obscuring the ultimate causal argument of the work because of its implications as a critique of political authority and inequality.

Using Artificial Intelligence for High-Volume Identification of Silicosis and Tuberculosis: A Bio-Ethics Approach

“…It is timely to take stock of barriers that might undermine the advancement of AI innovation on behalf of those who have been socially marginalized. On the eve of the French Revolution, democratic rights champion Jean-Jacques Rousseau provocatively argued against pursuing “science and the arts” in society if doing so would be corrupted by narrow interests contrary to the public good [ 55 ]. Similar lines of argumentation have even been invoked to question the terms for promoting public health in general [ 56 ].…”

Rousseau’s Observations on Inequality and the Causes of Moral Corruption

“…Finally, where d’Alembert hints at the influence of different forms of government such as republics and monarchies on the pursuit of the sciences and arts, Rousseau offers a similar hint by saying that such questions are good to pursue in the republic of Geneva, suggesting that he too has political causes in mind. Some scholars have concluded from his remark about Geneva in particular that Rousseau is beginning to consider the relationship between politics and moral corruption, but they do not follow Rousseau’s hint to consult d’Alembert or pursue the point any further (see Rosenblatt 1997, 74; Wokler 1980, 265; compare Campbell and Scott 2005, 826).…”

“…Stanislaus begins his remarks by alluding to Rousseau’s opening claim there that the earliest peoples who saw the sciences born in their midst recognized that the sciences were born from corrupt motives. In this passage, Rousseau offers the most explicit causal argument of the Discourse , tracing the origin of the sciences to “our vices,” and ultimately to “human pride” ( Discourse , 12; see Campbell and Scott 2005, 822). Rousseau quotes Stanislaus’s renewed query concerning the true sources of moral corruption: “ It is not from the sciences , I am told, but from the bosom of wealth that softness and luxury have always been born ” (48).…”

“…Looking back from the Observations to the Discourse , most interpreters have focused on the “genealogy” passage alone and debated whether his account there of the causal chain of corruption is actually present in the earlier essay. Among those who find the argument present is Masters (1968, 227), who argues that the passage “reveals more fully his conception of the ‘genealogy’ which produced the sciences.” Similarly, focusing the causal argument of the Discourse itself, Campbell and Scott (2005) argue that the argument concerning the corrupting effect of inequality is present in the Discourse . In turn, other scholars are unpersuaded that the “genealogy” argument from the Observations can be found in the Discourse .…”

“…What little scholarly analysis the Observations , and the other polemical writings, has received centers on the question of the relationship between the first Discourse and Rousseau’s later writings. On one hand, some scholars argue that his prize essay contains the most important elements of his thought, including the critique of inequality developed in the Discourse on Inequality (e.g., Black 2009; Campbell and Scott 2005; Goldschmidt 1974; Gourevitch 1972; Masters 1968; Strauss 1947). On the other hand, some interpreters maintain that the Discourse at best includes elements of his mature philosophy in inchoate form, and instead argue that Rousseau gradually developed these arguments later, including in the course of defending the Discourse (e.g., Hope Mason 1987; Rosenblatt 1997; Starobinski 2001, chap.…”