...
Show More
How long ago did I read Rousseau’s Discourse on the Arts and Sciences? I can’t even remember. But I vividly recall my initial reaction. I relished it and found it ingenious, yet I never for a moment regarded it with utmost seriousness. I never felt the need to do so to take the second discourse seriously. However, I have reevaluated my stance, though I wouldn't precisely term it a stance. I think I was more captivated by the concept of the noble savage than truly convinced by it. I can't fault my younger self for this. She read with an eye towards the future, not the past. She opted for the noble savage over leviathan based on what she desired human nature to be. This merely demonstrates that she wasn't a particularly astute reader of books, as she misconstrued the descriptive for the prescriptive and simply favored nobility over slavery. Nowadays, I'm far more intrigued by the past – how we arrived at this juncture rather than where we're headed. Now I believe Rousseau’s first discourse merits more serious consideration. I couldn't perceive it before because I couldn't endure a world devoid of the arts and sciences, without culture, without refinement. The noble savage I extolled was a philosophical construct, a topic of intellectual debate, a product of the imagination. The paradox of lauding an ideal that negates all the things I cherish, even a negation of the work of literary sophistication that embodies it, was resolved by my not truly believing a single word of it. But now I do believe. This time, the paradox is resolved by my realization that the things I value shouldn't be so highly esteemed. I arrived at this change of heart as I contemplated the art and science that I hold dearest: language. When I first read Rousseau attributing moral corruption to the invention of culture, I couldn't fathom it because I thought quite the contrary. Although I was aware that sophisticated civilizations gave birth to new vices, I was certain that the good outweighed the evil. How could art not make people better? How could cultural progress not lead to moral progress? I knew that the noble savage was happy and robust, a solitary yet compassionate soul. I knew that civilization engendered political inequality. Still, I couldn't hold the arts and sciences accountable for that. I couldn't blame the pursuit of beauty and truth. I couldn't blame language for the moral corruption that has been eroding our species for millennia. But now I do. “... the art of writing preceded the art of thinking, an order which may seem strange, but may be all too natural” (207) Language is the ultimate instrument of moral corruption. The more refined language becomes, the more harm it can inflict. That's because language is the tool that begets other tools. From language emerges a plethora of abstractions. These abstractions assume the status of real entities. Then we become enslaved to our own creations. But do I truly believe this? I have a room filled with books that seem to suggest otherwise. They are intellectually enlightening, emotionally stirring, aesthetically pleasing. Reading them, I become a more civilized and refined person, but do I become better?
