A few days ago I came across this lecture by Johnathan Bi, so I wanted to share it with like-minded people who appreciate a good thought.
Rousseau recognizes the existence of “amour de soi” and “amour propre” as a driving force of our actions. Amour-propre can be more malicious in some situations. For example, he explains that in the state of nature, if you spend 10 minutes getting an apple and someone steals it, if you’re hungry you’ll likely go back and get another apple. Our brain evaluates the benefits of both actions and understands that time attaining another apple is less costly than fighting someone over the first one. But when amour-propre gets involved (appreciation of oneself and the desire for others to appreciate/ view us in a certain way), it’s less about hunger and more about defining the status.
Rousseau further talks about the transition from nature to technology, civilization, and the importance of amour propre in it, marriage and cheating, luxury goods, and why we agreed to live in such an unfair society.
I really like the part where he acknowledges that we often blame the rich for bad deeds because their actions are so obvious due to their scale. However, the same are present with the poor as well. So a great thing that he points out is “don’t confuse poverty with virtue.”
I didn’t finish it, but I think it’s important to hear that intro, where he says to forget about the data and the facts that we know now. Rousseau’s view of “the poor” would have been very different. And, as the lecturer says, his words are designed to break up your paradigm, get you to look at the world in a different way.
I don’t even like the term “the poor”. It sounds monolithic, and as if “they” are somehow the cause of their condition. So, you have to take this old essay, let it knock around some of your modern thinking, then piece it all back together.
It’s only because of a societal brainwashing that people buy into such things. Discrimination, racism, bigotry, etc is taught and learned, but does not have to be accepted. People can grow up without buy into these generalizations of other human beings. Human beings, regardless of the colour of the skin, are all different and don’t all think the same despite their skin colour.
Yeah, people need better education. But as explained in the lesson, how do you persuade a person with data if he/she doesn’t acknowledge the data, or how do you give a logical statement when someone does not “have” (denies) logic?
It’s crazy to me how people support and defend big corporations or celebrities. It comes from that fed idea that one day “you can be this one day.” Of course, the part of it is from mastering the story of the message that makes people identify with it on a personality level, but it is crazy how many times people would say “I would do the same if I were them.” So there is definitely a truth in what he’s saying.
I hear the “people can grow up without prejudice”, but that would mean no one is indoctrinating them. If someone is trying to then someone else needs to be calling them in a different direction. Even if its a book in the library, which means they need to read and have a library and are allowed to go there. You can be born not knowing what prejuduce against income strata is, but I saw it, even in college professors Thomas Sowell is accepted as intellectual. It’s pervasive.
I did enjoy the lecture, it inspired me to listen to Rousseau’s own word. I think they provide an opportunity to better define what I’m trying to discuss, and have been chewing on the both the lecture and Rousseau’s 2nd Discourse for a couple weeks now.
At the beginning of Rousseau’s “First Part” he states:
“Important as it may be, in order to judge rightly of the Natural State of Man
“To consider from his origin, and to examine him, as it were, in the embryo of his species, I shall not follow his organization through it’s successive developments, nor shall I stay to inquire what the animal system must have been at the beginning, in order to become at length what it actually is.
“I shall not ask if his nails were at first, as Aristotle suggests claws, or whether his whole body like that of a bear … .
“On this subject I could draw nothing but vague and almost imaginary conjectures… (science) has made too little progress and observations of naturalists are too uncertain to afford and basis for any solid reasoning.”
Please note what Rousseau is writing about is human Behavior, not human Nature, which would obviously need to incorporate biological, evolutionary understanding which clearly demonstrates that our Nature was processed through Mammalian Nature before hominids took that hard right and struck off on their own.
That’s reasonable, given what was known back then. Still, the fact remains he’s firmly and fully within the realm of our human mindscape with only a dim awareness of the universes beyond his/our thoughts. The material stuff and natural laws that underpin our existence, that science is dedicated to studying, are still beyond our understanding.
Fast forward over two and a half centuries, and especially recent decades with its truckloads worth of previously inconceivably detailed scientific evidence, data, understanding regarding those ageless questions, where did we creatures come from, and what does that have to say about who we are and how we behave?
Let’s see how Professor Gi handles the topic.
=====================
Prof. Gi, 7:10 “… Rousseau is seemingly going to give us a historical account of how inequality came to be, and Rousseau’s history seems to have four movements.”
The State of Nature, where humans are really atomistic creatures just roaming around with nothing to do with anyone else.
The second state is called the Golden Age, because sociality is injected with history and inequality.
The third stage is called civilization.
The fourth stage sees the invention of the political state and inequality justified, legitimized.
“So if you’re like me, … I don’t have to pay any attention to what this guy has to say anymore.”
8:11 “Because he’s got his fundamental facts all wrong. I mean, so many errors, the most egregious being is his state of nature. … Rousseau got all his facts wrong, therefore he has nothing to teach me. This I think is quite a natural intuition when you read the second discourse,
8:50 “but it’s also the intuition that I need to inoculate you against immediately if you’re gonna get anything from this discourse. Because any time I meet someone who cares a bit too much about the facts, anytime I meet someone who won’t eat his veggies, who won’t down a perfectly fine argument until I sprinkle some statistics and add in a citation or two, I know I’m speaking with a barely educated man. (met with laughter)
9:10 “Educated just enough to be indoctrinated into the modern religion of the day ( What the does he mean science? Or what? ), but not an ounce more to see many of its glaring loopholes.
This is how an educated man begins his paragraphs. I quote to you so. “Hence, disregarding all the scientific books.”
9:35 Here’s another sentence, how he begins his paragraphs, “Let us begin by setting aside all the facts, for they do not affect the question. …” ( in 2024)
I ask,
Why doesn’t the professor take that moment to highlight (touch on) all we have come to know about our inner human, and about our body as the cumulative result of countless evolutionary developments, lessons that became incorporated into our brain, body and blood and which connects us to all other living creatures? No instead it’s an insulting joke.
That’s what I’m talking about.
Why not encourage young minds to think about the universe beneath their skin and the near eternity of natural innovation that connect all of us creatures?
Modern scientific has much to teach us about who we are, and why we behave as be do?
None of that, instead Professor Gi full on slammed door, with derision toward the concept of facts, without examining it in any detail, then off we were to enjoy an amazing piece of thinking for someone from the middle 18th century - that is what I’m trying to highlight.
I listened to the rest of Prof Gi’s lecture and it inspired me to get an audio version of Rousseau’s 2nd Discourse, which turned out to be a merciful 2.5 hours long so I’ve listened to it multiple times while harvesting firewood, and a couple focused at the end of the day, and he certainly does nail human behavior (At moments he’s almost breathtaking), but to be satisfied with that, and to ignore studying real human nature as modern science has revealed it to us - I don’t get.
To dismiss with a weird joke implying science is simply another modern religion was really off putting. I’m glad I continued listening because he is a good professor and his lecture about the work was excellent.
But, along with the excellent history lesson he also offered me an example of exactly the kind of muddled thinking I’m taking exception to. Muddled, as in being sloppy with the line between physical reality and our human mind, down here on this living Earth. (Dragging in the extremes of modern science/philosophy and pointing at the very limits of the knowable simply underscores my point about using the descriptive “self-absorbed”. )
What I’m writing is about is we Human Beings and our relationship with the knowledge and thoughts we possess as we navigate our lives.
I believe an intricate part of untangling that muddle is to think long and hard about the Human Mindscape ~ Physical Reality divide, for its clarifying simplicity.
Sometimes it seems you don’t want to. Gi is saying that sometimes, you have to suspend some thoughts in order to grasp others. JFK spoke of the ability to hold contradictory thoughts in your head.
Or maybe that was F Scott Fitzgerald
THE TEST OF A FIRST-RATE INTELLIGENCE IS THE ABILITY TO HOLD TWO OPPOSED IDEAS IN THE MIND AT THE SAME TIME, AND STILL RETAIN THE ABILITY TO FUNCTION. ONE SHOULD, FOR EXAMPLE, BE ABLE TO SEE THAT THINGS ARE HOPELESS AND YET BE DETERMINED TO MAKE THEM OTHERWISE.
Oh course we do, otherwise I wouldn’t have been able to listen to Rousseau so many times, nor to Gi and to gain some new appreciation for Rousseau. But you’re trapping yourself within your mindscapes by doing that too much.
Remember after we listen, with our internal dialogue shut down, at some point we should be able to start up our thoughts and engage: “… well that’s fine and good, but what about this universe of reality over here?” How long do you want to ignore incorporating that? Instead you are telling me it doesn’t matter, stop thinking about it.
Why not reflect on the available knowledge pool of 1750’s and 2020’s.
Why not reflect on the difference between human behavior and human nature (the undercurrent that drives human behavior)?
You and the rest of them philosopher types dismiss all of that with such confident, yet blithe alacrity.
Muddled thinking and short-sighted self-serving priorities isn’t enough, we gotta dig down and understand why humanity has turned into such a self-destructive failure.
What failure, Pinker tells us these are the best of times? From his entitled ivory tower it certainly is the best of times, for the entire world the God of Progress hasn’t been near as kind.
Never ever came close to saying that. that is all you. Total strawman statement.
That is what I do. That is what I mean when I say that philosophy (and metaphysics) is only valid when it is based on up to the date science. Anything else is psuedoscience. When I reference older philosophy, I’m discussing the history of evolution of thinking. To me, that is recognizing the deep time you talk about. But you just want to argue, so if I say something from the past, you say I’m ignoring recent data, and if I say something about the present, you say I’m ignoring my deep connection to where I came from, where we evolved from.
Not a moment for considering what we know about the interior biological nature of human beings - how that changes our understanding of ourselves & our relationship with Earth, which would have a profound impact on behavior.
But, you are telling me there’s no problem, it’s all in my fevered head?
Christ not even a mention that Rousseau’s is very vested in a Christian God and conception of humanity. As if that isn’t worth considering when weighting his words.
Looks, to me, like defending the interior of a bubble.
Oh and don’t get me wrong, Rousseau wrote a superb read (1750s). Especially part two. I agree that it is a timeless classic, but there is a universe of happening behind anything he could conceive or wrote about, and it’s worth learning about. But it requires peering past our egos, to the reality that is beyond, and where our opinions doesn’t matter.
And yes, Lausten it will be bit redundant, at times, since it is fundamental one perspective I keep being challenged to defend.
This is no longer a conversation about Rousseau, or anything really. It’s you asking me questions that don’t make sense. I didn’t give anything a free pass. I could at this point discuss what Bi said, maybe ask what you mean by “free pass”, but it’s hard to imagine anything you would have to say other than what you have said before.
Also, not something that can be responded to anymore. I’ve responded to this fifty times. If I say something about how biology is connected to the brain, you’ll say I’m talking about the mindscape. If I say something about the evolution of thought, you’ll say I’m stuck in Medieval thinking. And God forbid I mention Descartes.
You’ve constructed a worldview with your own language and terms. You invite people in, but then make them kneel to your definitions and follow your crooked path that goes in a circle. It looks a lot like trolling.
I wasn’t asking about what ‘you’ I was trying to discuss the way Gi handles Rousseau words and dismissed the important “facts” or of incorporating modern scientific biological understanding into this dialogue - you simple reduced to taking offense at what I’ve written and ignoring it.
Recognizing the difference between our physical reality (biology and interactions with other creatures and life in general - and our thoughts, the stuff our body brain produces.
That’s a pretty damned trollish statement in itself.
Although gaslighting is probably a more accurate description of what you are doing.
What does this even mean. You commented on the talk and I responded to your comment. You asked a question and I answered it. What ‘you’ were you asking that gave a free pass? That’s me having this discussion. How else am I going to respond except as me? How does me responding become “taking offense”? I’m not offended. I have my own thoughts and I write them. It’s a discussion forum. What do you think should happen?
I’m not trolling your trolling. Great, we’re on the schoolyard.
