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.