A Mild a Humourous Critique of the Philosophy of Jean-Jaques

[Aindriahhn]

Or a Critique of the Critic of Civilization

Jean-Jacques Rousseau was French, which really, despite popular Americanism, doesn’t mean much. And he did have a few 'good ideas', such as his contempt of civilization, something he considered, in a rather blunt manner, a bad thing. Then he denies reason, which is (reason), of course, impossible to the unreasonable, and what is less unreasonable than man, especially the modern? He suggested that everything be governed by instincts and feelings, a sort of 'don't even try' approach, which almost overbalances the intelligence of his previous beliefs. He decided, in an almost suicidal approach, that feelings should be the judge of man (something that is reflected in the justice of the modern media). Then, in a teleological sense, he decided that people have not a collected need (which would have been sensible), but a collected will, different from the sum of the will of the individuals (basically, that when you add up the minds of man, they form something completely different. A fitting analogy might be one plus one equals apple.). You should, of course, submit to generally to the general will (and then, I suppose, make it your own, which would then, by Rousseau's argument, change the will, into perhaps an orange, which you should then submit to, which would then change. Ad infinitum. The world is perhaps a giant, never-ending game of chase-the-will!). The general will might actually be exactly the opposite of what everyone wants, and is somehow always what is best for society. Not a general need, but possibly what people generally need? The general will technically leads, but really only through other people, much like the Queen of England, only more fascist. The people are born good, the institution corrupts them (which makes sense, but just wait), therefore, the natural state of man is good, the 'noble savage' is the pinnacle of goodness (I suppose, even, in gastronomical taste. Mmm, enemies.). Man, once civilized, cannot return to savagery (despite the modern collapse towards that, with the added benefit of mass idiocy!). Civilization must be civilized by savagery (so, perhaps, unpopular politicians might be on the table after all!), it must return to natural instinct. The family can do this (school isn't needed for it), by practicing freedom by example. So, you're not a bad parent after all! You’re really a philosophical idealist! He wasn't, however (try to understand this), an atheist, but he did say religion should be dissolved (a civilizing factor, I suppose), and that God was unknowable (a convenient excuse for sin?). God, the unknowable, should be looked upon (somehow, perhaps in the general direction of?) with awe and reverence. Basically, he believed in a passionate, unknowable fascism, ruled over by an unknowable force, that has a meaningless face, which may or may not be exactly the face of the will. Sound familiar? CoughOrwellCough. He however, believed in ‘Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity’, while really supporting the opposite. Doubleplusgood!

[Therin]

*laughs ass off*