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.