The interpretations of reason presented by Descartes and Rousseau have similarities and differences that help us to better understand our modernity and how we may fully realize our human potential. A few key points where these exist are on the relation of reason to human nature, the necessity of independence in a man’s thinking, and advantages or disadvantages of progress in the arts and sciences.
According to Descartes, reason is the thing humans have which distinguishes them from animals. Every person has reason and a rational soul. Through a devotion to using reason, man may find contentment: “discovering every day by [the method’s] means some truths that to me seemed quite important and commonly ignored by other men, the satisfaction I had from them so filled my mind that nothing else was of any consequence to me” (Method 15). This follows Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, which states that only humans have the capacity for contemplation. This sets us apart from animals and other living things, and thus only we can be called truly happy. Some may object that reasoning should then become our sole activity, but this is not true. As he later writes in Part Six, our reasoning gives us the ability to become “masters and possessors of nature” (Method 35), and therefore affect the world around us to our benefit.
For Rousseau, reason is not natural. Natural man had no self-awareness or sense of consciousness. He was oblivious to the concepts of the future and fear, and lived only for the physical needs of “nourishment, a woman, and rest” (Inequality 26). As such, man was just like an animal. Rousseau notes here that, “It follows that since savage man desires only the things he knows and knows only those things whose possession is in his power or easily acquired, nothing should be so tranquil as his soul and nothing so limited as his mind” (Inequality 86). Natural man was ideal because he lacked reason. Reason only occurred once man became modernized through associations with other people. Once man developed a family unit and started living in community with other families, pride and possessiveness developed. Ownership drove men to fight when another would take part of his land or tree. Scarcity was another propelling force behind the corruption. Natural man would not have had reason, according to Rousseau.
In Cartesian terminology, natural man did not have the cogito. This is the key foundation of Descartes’ reasoning, upon which he forms his proof for the existence of God, among other things. For Descartes, viewing man as an unthinking ‘beast’ is not correct at all; rather, beasts and men have always been different. We as humans are better than beasts because we have something to hope for. Those who dispute that man and beast are different have “weak minds” that are “distance[d] from the straight path of virtue” (Method 33). To Descartes, Rousseau would be a “weak mind” (Method 33) for thinking that man and beast were at one point alike, and especially for asserting natural man, with no sense of reason, is the superior of modern man.
Both writers agree that somewhere along the way man became corrupted. This corruption of reason occurs for Descartes in our associations with other people. When we learn to trust others instead of our own reasoning, we are corrupted. Descartes believes that associating with other people corrupts the pure reason with which we are born. As he writes, “it is nearly impossible for our judgments to be as pure or as solid as they would have been if we had had the full use of our reason from the moment of our birth and if we had always been guided by it alone (Method 8). Descartes discusses this warping of the mind when he talks about his early schooling experiences: ”
Rousseau does not define a set moment when the ideal man became corrupt. However, like Descartes, he blames society and man’s interactions with others for much of the cause. When natural man did not live in families or villages, he had no need to compete and no ego; once societal interaction became the norm, a drive to rise above those around him and be the best of his peers created jealousy, bitterness, anger, and other vices. Rousseau states that a dependence on others is what corrupts man. “People grew accustomed to gather in front of their huts or around a large tree. […]Each one began to look at the others and to want to be looked at himself, and public esteem had a value. […] this was the first step toward inequality and, at the same time, toward vice” (Inequality 49). Had man not associated with others, he would have maintained his natural wholeness.
This leisure time arose out of specialization, the first evil: “Since men enjoyed a great deal of leisure time, they used it to procure for themselves many types of conveniences unknown to their father[…] and that was the first source of evils they prepared for their descendants” (Inequality 48). Rousseau also writes, “For the philosopher, it is iron and wheat that have civilized men and ruined the human race” (Inequality 51). Ruin comes out of dependence; Out of dependence comes deception, because the rich learn to prey on the poor. Man goes from an amour de soi, or self-preserving love, to amour propre, a self-promoting love in which he learns to care about the opinions of others and social standing. When he becomes modernized, Man loses his “natural sentiment” of pity that “contributes to the mutual preservation of the entire species” (Inequality 38). As a result man is corrupted not only in an internal, mental sense, but also in a civic sense as well. The prosperous deceive the needy, and inequality results from this corruption. His purpose in writing is merely to prove that modern man is far removed from his natural state, and “this is only the spirit of society, and the inequality that society engenders, which thus change and alter all our natural inclinations” (Inequality 70). Society is the source of our downfall.
His criticisms of modern day society give Rousseau a somewhat ascetic air. To him, arts and sciences, as well as luxuries and specialization, corrupted the world. In his notes he writes,
Luxury is a remedy far worse than the evil it means to cure; […] From society and the luxury it engenders arise the liberal and mechanical arts, commerce, letters, and all those useless things that make industry flourish, enriching and ruining states[…] in general, the arts are lucrative in inverse proportion to their usefulness, and the most necessary must finally become the most neglected[…] Such are the discernible causes of all the miseries into which opulence finally brings down the most admired nations. (Inequality 79)
This is very strong wording against advances of technology which are usually praised and heralded as man’s triumph over nature.
Descartes’ views on modern technology are quite different from Rousseau’s critiques. He sees the arts and sciences as springing out of our reasoning and awareness:
I have tried to find in general the principles or first causes of all that is or can be in the world, without considering anything but God alone, who created the world, and without deriving these principles from any other source but from certain seeds of truths that are naturally in our souls. After that I examined what were the first and most ordinary effects that could be deduced from these causes; and it seems to me that by this means I had found the heavens, stars, an earth, and even, on the earth, water, air, fire, minerals, and other such things. (Method 36)
After proving the existence of God, he concludes that since our senses come from God, the first cause, they can be trusted. Thus, we can use our senses to explore and enjoy the world around us, and through our reasoning become, as mentioned before, masters of the natural world. We should use our reasoning to further our studies in the sciences, so that we might “enjoy trouble-free the fruits of the earth and all the goods found there,
The refinement of our logic (and introduction of his new and possibly better method) is the motive behind Descartes’ Discourse on Method. By using his own reason, man can liberate himself from control of others and their ideas. This echoes the sentiments of Rousseau, who states that man becomes enslaved to his needs when he changes from natural to modern man. Both writers seek to liberate man from the heteronomy that controls him. Their methods are different, but their goals are the same.
Unlike Descartes, who believes all men have an opportunity to use their reason well as he recommends and achieve a sort of contentment, Rousseau states that we cannot return to our ideal natural state, and any attempts to do so would be foolish. Instead, good men should, and will,
respect the sacred bonds of their respective communities; they will love their fellow-citizens, and serve them with all their might: they will scrupulously obey the laws, and all those who make or administer them; …But they will not therefore have less contempt for a constitution that cannot support itself without the aid of so many splendid characters, much oftener wished for than found; and from which, notwithstanding all their pains and solicitude, there always arise more real calamities than even apparent advantages. (Inequality 81)
His is a rather pessimistic attitude. At the end of their respective works, their different out looks are obvious; Descartes, in an optimistic state, asks for help in continuing the experiments he began so that all may “advance together much further than a single individual could do on his own” (Method 36). Rousseau states that “inequality that reigns among all civilized people… is obviously contrary to the law of nature” (Inequality 71). As a global phenomenon, there is no way to fully remedy it, and thus it is simply a permanent aspect of life.
Ultimately, Descartes and Rousseau agree that reason and human nature are related, although not in the same way. They agree that man has become depraved, but disagree on the way this happened. Each supplies his own method as the solution and offers his opinion of modern progress. Despite their differences, their similarity lies in the fact that both seek to liberate man and create a more free-thinking individual, a goal which cannot be maligned even today.
Works Cited
Descartes, Rene. Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy. Trans. Donald A.
Cress. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1998.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. Trans. Donald A. Cress.
Indianapolis: Hackett, 1992.
