Thoughts on Werther

In the opening pages of what seems like an elongated suicide note, I already see a string of logic between Werther and Rousseau. Early on, while discussing his place in society, Werther proclaims that “I know quite well that we are not and cannot ever be equal (8).” He chooses not to explain this sentence as to why he is not as equal as others, but simply takes it as a truth in society. Later on, he also talks of how judgment on others, a concept that Rousseau sees as essential to man’s downfall, is painful and deceiving: “How foolish it is to judge others by oneself. And as I am so preoccupied with myself, and since this heart of mine is so stormy, oh, how gladly would I let others go their way if they would only let me go mine (81).” Although Rousseau spoke about how civilized man looks inward and learns to judge and contrast himself with others, in Werther’s words, we see this concept at play. Werther is haunted to live in a world where he is expected to give off a “shadow on the wall,” according to Plato. And he himself is also expected to judge other shadows on the wall that people have cast.
There are two strong examples that Werther talks about that strengthen Rousseau’s argument that man is most peaceful and happy in his most natured state. He talks of the beauty and ignorance of being a child, and finally proclaims his true feelings, “How limited and happy were the glorious Ancients! How naïve their emotions and their poetry… What is the use of my present knowledge, which I share with any schoolboy, that the earth is round? Man needs only a few clods of earth whereon to enjoy himself, and even fewer for his last rest (97).” Werther here is clearly in nostalgia to live amongst people who do not judge each other and who have no knowledge of societies. In a way, Werther wishes he were more animal like. If he was, he would not know the joys of the love he had for Lotte in the first part of this book. This is an acceptable sacrifice to also not have known the pain associated with his forbidden love for her during the later parts of this book.
In an even stronger example, Werther meets a man in the winter looking for flowers. The man is clearly handicapped, but his mother comes and explains that he was most happy when he was out of his mind. Upon hearing this, Werther says, “When you were happy!... When you felt as carefree as a fish in the water. God in Heaven! Did you make it men’s destiny only to be happy before they come to reason and after they have lost it again? (121)” Again Werther makes an allusion to the naivety and bliss that must only be present in ignorant beings like animals, children, or the insane. Reason and civilized man have the propensity to be deeply troubled and pained, as in the case of Werther.
I find this interesting, because Kant seems to be arguing the exact opposite. Enlightenment for him is “man’s release from his self-incurred tutelage.” He even goes as far as to say “Have courage to use your own reason – that is the motto of enlightenment (29).” Kant wants to embrace the use of reason, while Rousseau and the fictional character Werther are deeply haunted by it. Reason alone distinguishes man from beast, that is clear. Although reason creates civilizations and eventually societies as intricate as Manhattan, Rousseau and Werther believe that we are actually venturing farther and farther from what it means to be human, or to be made in the image and likeness of God. Werther claims that this human life became too much for even Jesus Christ himself: “Yet did not the cup become too bitter for the human lips of God’s only Son? Why, then, should I brag and pretend that it tastes sweet to me? (116)” I think what Werther wants to say is that perhaps there would not have been a need for God to send his only son to earth if we had never allowed for the cultivation of reason.

Thoughts on Rousseau's Discourse Part 2

The most intriguing idea that Rousseau brings up for me is the concept that the man of nature is more concentrated on himself, whereas the civilized man is more concentrated on all things external to himself. “Each began to look at the others and to want to be looked at himself; and public esteem came to be prized… and this was the first step towards inequality and at the same time towards vice. (114)” Rousseau seems to imply that humans only learned to become cruel, and were not originally cruel. When I first read that line, I immediately thought of all the things I do in expectation, or maybe in hope, that others will see: I make sure my face is clean and shaven, although I will never actually even see my face (except in a mirror or photograph), I make sure I am fully clothed, with all buttons buttoned and all zippers zippered, (nothing seems more embarrassing than someone else noticing your zipper is down), I even take great stakes to decide what shirts and clothes I wear, because that in itself is something I want to show other people. For example, today I am wearing a Beatles shirt. This is significant to me, because I feel that this shirt tells people that I have not conformed to listen to the rap and garbage that has become popularized in music today, but instead choose to listen to classic rock.
Rousseau says that we become obsessed with the appearance we give, and in the process lose sight of what we really were in essence: “It was necessary in one’s own interest to seem to be other than one was in reality (119).” This strengthens his original idea about civilized man looking outward, and again I see a parallel in today’s society. Among college age people, Facebook is becoming a staple of society. The interest, and at points the unhealthy obsession, with Facebook, seems to me that each person can control what others see of them. They are completely aware what pictures of them are available for others to see. They control and create their own unique profile for others to see. Why would I make a list of my interests, favorite music, education info, and photos of me if it was for myself? I surely know all these things about myself. But it is the desire to tell other people what you are about that fuels Facebook. Most importantly, each person is completely aware of what is available for others to see, which is a true perk. When I go out on a weekend, I look in the mirror before I go out, and probably occasionally throughout the night, but I cannot know constantly how I look. With Facebook and Myspace, each person is constantly aware of what others perceive of him or her.
Rousseau goes further, saying that “the savage lives within himself; social man lives always outside himself; he knows how to live only in the opinion of others, it is, so to speak, from their judgment alone that he derives the sense of his own existence (136).” Our whole system of comparing and contrasting, good and bad, vice and virtue, is born out of our first attempt to appeal to others. I think this is Rousseau’s strongest point about the civilization of man. It explains why we sometimes have a tendency to be vain, and to constantly look out for ourselves in selfishness.
However, in general I find Rousseau’s euphoric depiction of the savage man a little overdone. Although the savage man is more likely to choose peace over violence, he clearly cannot identify his first virtue as compassion. He is more animal like, with no reasons to interact with other people. Because he is not inclined to violence, but rather pity, I do not find this sufficient reason to be jealous and nostalgic towards our beginnings. Rousseau’s findings are important and revolutionary in the relation to the ideas of other philosophers at the time. But I would find it hard to believe that anyone in our society would gladly choose to live among savage humans who are less violent and jealous, but also do not have the joys and happiness that is only available in civilized man. The passion of love, he claims, is completely nonexistent in the savage man. This seems to me to be a deterrent, for isn’t love of one another what propels our civilized society to constantly move forward?

Thoughts on Rousseau's Discourse Part 1

One of the points that Rousseau implicitly makes in part one of his discourse is that God’s influence (or some supreme being) is much more prominent in the natural and barbaric state of man. Rousseau does not argue this explicitly, but rather shows many examples of how the savage man is a better representation of being in the ‘image and likeness of God himself’ than the reasoned and civilized man. On page 96-97, he makes a point that suggests that maybe humans didn’t even invent language, but rather discovered it from some divine force. He believes that the notion that language could not have been created by purely human means, and he asks the reader this question: “Which was the more necessary, a society already established for the invention of language, or language already invented for the establishment of society? (96-97)”
He goes on to talk about many of the instincts of the savage man, the heart of which he sees is compassion. He says that all humans and even animals possess some innate sense of pity when another member of their species is suffering. This instinct is stronger with the man of nature, because without language or reason, his primary purpose is to sustain and reproduce his species. With this idea in mind, his concept of ‘love’ is a purely physical one, without any moral attachment. Rousseau then claims that “men must experience the ardours of their temperament less frequently and less vividly and consequently have fewer and less cruel quarrels (103).”
For Rousseau, the changing of the heart of man from a savage and compassionate instinctual being to that of the 18th century man is parallel to the forming of reason: “It is reason which breads pride and reflection which fortifies it; reason which man turns inward toward himself; reason which separates him from everything which troubles or affects him (101).” Through philosophy and reason, man learns to care more for himself than the betterment of the species as a whole. He learns to not feel threatened when another man’s life is at stake. In conclusion of Rousseau’s beliefs: “In instinct alone, man had all he needed for living in a state of nature; in cultivated reason he has what is necessary only for living in society (97).”
For me, Rousseau clearly believes that man was originally created in the image and likeness of God. These compassionate instincts and peaceful ways of life seem to point toward a divine inspiration. Only through the development of culture and socialization have we lost what it meant to be created in the likeness of God; to be truly compassionate beings. We have learned to care more for ourselves than others. One point Rousseau does not touch upon is why the compassion could not go hand in hand with reason. Also, Rousseau makes a lot of judgments and conclusions drawn from savage man, which I am very doubtful of his foundations. How could Rousseau know so much and generalize so much about this ‘savage man?’