Are we so 'civilized'?

cellomould

It is reason that engenders self-respect, and reflection that confirms it: it is reason which turns man's mind back upon itself, and divides him from everything that could disturb or afflict him. It is philosophy that isolates him, and bids him say, at sight of the misfortunes of others: "Perish if you will, I am secure." Nothing but such general evils as threaten the whole community can disturb the tranquil sleep of the philosopher, or tear him from his bed. A murder may with impunity be committed under his window; he has only to put his hands to his ears and argue a little with himself, to prevent nature, which is shocked within him, from identifying itself with the unfortunate sufferer. Uncivilised man has not this admirable talent; and for want of reason and wisdom, is always foolishly ready to obey the first promptings of humanity. It is the populace that flocks together at riots and street-brawls, while the wise man prudently makes off. It is the mob and the market-women, who part the combatants, and hinder gentle-folks from cutting one another's throats.

from
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
A Discourse on Inequality
1755

cellomould

"My toes taste really good" J.R. Brown

Sounds like bullshit to me. I'm not lacking in reason or self-respect, but I can distinguish between a person in real distress and a person who is whining about the inevitable and predictable result of poor choices. "Perish if you must; I intend to be secure" is more like it.

COMF

Perplext no more with Human or Divine,
To-morrow's tangle to the winds resign,
And lose your fingers in the tresses of
The cypress-slender Minister of Wine.

cellomould

Hey COMF,

Rousseau's point is that it is in our nature to 'identify a person in real distress' and sympathize; civilization, however, has taken us far enough from our nature that we are numb.

The whole premise behind 'being secure' in society is relative, isn't it? (i.e., being more secure than someone of lower social status.)

He makes a valid argument.

Think about it, if not for your social status, why would you go to work?

Couldn't you survive perfectly well on a lower salary?

Haven't you cursed some of your own 'poor choices', such as living beyond your means, though you earned quite a decent income?

cellomould

"My toes taste really good" J.R. Brown

COMF

Rousseau's point is that it is in our nature to 'identify a person in real distress' and sympathize; civilization, however, has taken us far enough from our nature that we are numb.

Yes, I understand that he is saying that. I disagree.

The whole premise behind 'being secure' in society is relative, isn't it? (i.e., being more secure than someone of lower social status.)

I didn't take the quote as relating to status. I understood him to be referring to genuine distress, such as literally starving to death or, the example you quoted him as citing, someone being murdered. In such cases, he says, the "civilized" person does not respond. I disagree. The mob he refers to as taking action to help is in fact made up of civilized people. The market-women he mentions so condescendingly are civilized people.

He makes a valid argument.

I'm missing it, then. Show it to me. Looks to me like he's just making pessimistic wholesale categorizations with no substantiation.

Think about it, if not for your social status, why would you go to work?
Couldn't you survive perfectly well on a lower salary?

I go to work because I keep getting hungry all the time. I have survived on a lower salary, and, no, I didn't do it "perfectly well". But I am concerned with doing more than surviving. Given the means, I will enjoy life to the extent that I can; will acquire comforts for myself. There is no shame in earning a comfortable living, and it is is quite within the realm of possibility to do so while retaining genuine sympathy for those who possess less, Rousseau to the contrary.

Haven't you cursed some of your own 'poor choices', such as living beyond your means, though you earned quite a decent income?

You've confused me with someone else. I have never lived beyond my means. Until very recently, I struggled just to have a means. Now that I have a decent income, a significant part of it is debited from my paycheck before I receive it, being sent to certain charities I have designated--specifically, a certain battered women's and children's shelter, and certain substance abuse treatment centers.

COMF

Perplext no more with Human or Divine,
To-morrow's tangle to the winds resign,
And lose your fingers in the tresses of
The cypress-slender Minister of Wine.

cellomould

I respect your position, COMF. What I might like to start a new thread about is this:

Why does everyone leave their trash for someone else to pick up?

The question here has little to do with sympathy and more to do with common sense. But even the majority of the educated don't seem to acquire this common sense.

cellomould

"My toes taste really good" J.R. Brown

Guest 77

Cell, I have liken 'reasonableness' to a 'yield' sign. Giving others the right of way/benefit of the doubt.

An uncivilized person is not reasonable. How many people go out of their way to help others, Christian or non-Christian? Why must an 'act' of natural kindness/compassion be associated with any religion?

Guest 77

cellomould

I think you understand it as did Rousseau, Guest77,

an act of kindness/compassion is a natural act. He states this is not an act of reason, but a natural response.

So he is implying that in man's ability to reason, he actually lacks what you call 'reasonableness'. I personally think that a refined sense of reason allows us to lose the prejudices and unfeeling that Rousseau described.

He was far ahead of his time; perhaps he did not want to state that what men of his day called 'reason' was actually 'uncivilized' behavior. But he certainly implied it.

And, no, religion should not claim a monopoly on doing or receiving acts of kindness. Perhaps one day human kindness will eclipse religious ideology that supports the status quo.

Remember Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan?

In retrospect, we can say that the religious men were unrighteous. They, of course, thought otherwise. While I acknowledge that it was just a parable, it makes a powerful statement about humility as well as kindness and compassion.

cellomould

"My toes taste really good" J.R. Brown

Robdar

Wow, I feel as if I have stumbled into the board's coffee shop with all this philosophical debate going on in here... I love it.

Robyn

PS, Has anybody seen Occam's razor?

cellomould

Occam's Razor?

Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies.

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html

Maybe you were being sarcastic?

cellomould

"There is no principle worth the name if it is not wholly good." Gandhi

larc

Cello,

Maybe I am slow today, but I have no idea what your point is. What is this last thing about picking up garbage? Could you elaborate please?

Is Rouseau's point that the noble savage is a better person than urbanized, civilized people? If so, I don't buy it, and I am in COMF's camp on this one.

Are we so 'civilized'?

Share this