Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia

Rousseau and the Original Sin Author(s): Jeremiah L. Alberg Reviewed work(s): Source: Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia, T. 57, Fasc. 4, O Mal e a(s) Teodiceia(s): Novos Aspectos Sapienciais (Oct. - Dec., 2001), pp. 773-790 Published by: Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40337657 . Accessed: 09/05/2012 14:21
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia.

http://www.jstor.org

R.P.F. 57-2001

Rousseauand theOriginal Sin

L. Jeremiah Alberg*
that with It ABSTRACT: is a commonplace Rousseau, histheory the goodness huof natural of sin. the the the man rejected doctrine original As is often case with of commonplaces, beings, in will that stands need investigation. paper seek show RousThis to therein truth contained of more its with dogma stemmed from lackofexplanatory than seau'sdissatisfaction the power, with theory natural this contradiction the Further, rejection of goodness. any from supposed telos the ispart a larger of supernatural ofhuman " Finally, alternative beings. rejection the of is accident.Rousseau to that Rousseau for attempts tell proposes thesinofAdam a "fatal the the in accident sucha waythat narrative willchange course thestory this of itself of that followed the events have upon accident. Key Words: Cassirer, Dualism;Education; Entile; sin; E.; Evil;Language;Original Envy; State nature. /.-/.; Rousseau, of Society; Re SUMO:Hoje e urnlugarcomum afirmar Rousseau, que graqasa sua teoriaacerca da A a do dos natural sereshumanos, bondade rejeitou doutrina pecado original. verdade de do necessita ser investigada. em contida lugares-comuns, contudo, Objectivo presente de a com acercado pecado ate e artigo mostrar queponto insatisfacdo Rousseau o dogma do de mais explicativo quede umasuposta contradiqao original provinha da suafalta poder Alem mostra tambem que ate natural sereshumanos. dos da coma teoria bondade disso, muito ampla medida mais na em de umarejeigdo em essa rejeiqao Rousseau fazparte ponto telossobrenatural os sereshumanos. de para que alargadaa afirmacdo todoe qualquer o ate a Mostra-se ainda, por transforma proposta Rousseau finalmente, queponto alternativa tenta narrar historia acidente a deste Rousseau num. "acidente " e como fatal pecadodeAddo de alterar o se coma pretensao porsi mesma narrativa revela de talforma a propria que a dosacontecimentos se seguiu esseacidente. que percurso Palavras-Chave: Cassirer, Conflicto; E.; Dualismo;Educacdo;Entile;Inveja; LinguaSociedade. Rousseau, /.-/.; gem;Mai; Pecadooriginal;

of the of theninth June1762 thehighcourt, parlement Paris,ordered it for In burned. addition, issuedtheorder thenovelEmileto be publicly On of the JeanRousseau. the28th August of thearrest itsauthor, Jacques was de of letter condemnatory of theArchbishop Paris,Christophe Beaumont, de Paris,portant condamde Mandement Monseigneur UArcheveque published: d'un livrequi a pour titre nation "Emile",ou de VEducation, Jean-Jacques par

of Sophia University (Tokyo, Japan). Faculty Humanities,

Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia, 57 (2001), 773-790

774

Jeremiah L. Alb erg

Rousseau, citoyende Geneve} Later the book was also condemnedby the theoof logical faculty theSorbonne.2 The primary of reasonforthecondemnation Rousseau and his book was thathe of was judged in it to have denied thedogma of originalsin. The cleareststatement of thisdenial does not occur,as mightbe expected,in the "Profession Faith of the but Savoyard Vicar" norin thecontextof a discussionof infancy, in Book II when thechild is alreadyat leasttwo yearsold. Rousseau writes:
of maxim thatthe first movements natureare alLet us set down as an incontestable in There is no originalperversity the human heart.There is not a single ways right. vice to be foundin it of whichit cannotbe said how and whenceit entered.3

the teaching"whichled to "oppoAccordingly book was viewed as a "harmful of law and to thedestruction theChristian sitionto thenatural religion." In morerecent timesErnstCassireralso pointsto thisdenialas one of theepochRousseIn traits Rousseau's thought. his The QuestionofJean-Jacques of -making au Cassirermakesplain that thiswas notarcanetheologicaldebate,but
of in fact,an inescapable decision, vital to the history the world and to culturalhiswas involved.What irrevocably tory, separatedRousseau, despiteall his genuineand formsof faithwas the decisiveness with deep religiousemotion,fromall traditional whichhe rejectedeverythought theoriginalsin of man.4 of

This denial and its consequences forceus to face threequestions.First, why,in fact,did Rousseau feel thatit was necessaryto turnso decisivelyfromthe dogma of originsin? It would seem thatthisdogma would be attractive himin thatit is to an attempt explain the depravity the human race withoutblamingGod and to of still respecting humanfreedom.Second, in what preciselydid thisrejectionconsist? Is it a simpledenial of thedogma or is it morecomplicated?Third,withwhat did Rousseau intendto replace the dogma. For it is clear thatwhen the traditional
A printed copy of thisdocumentcan foundappendedto Rousseau's responsein thefolArde lowing version:JeanJacques Rousseau, Citoyende Geneve,a Christophe Beaumont, cheveque Paris, Due de S. Cloud, Pair de France, Commandeaude VOrdrede Saint Esprit, Proviseurde Sorbonne&c. Avec sa Lettreau Conseil de Geneve,A Amsterdam, Chez Marc-MichelRey,M.DCC.LXIQ. For background thecondemnation Emile consultA. Ravier, on of U Educationde L'Homme Nouveau: Essai Historiqueet Critiquesur le Livrede VEmile de J.-J.Rousseau, (Issoudon: EditionsSpes, 1941). For a detailedaccount,in additionto Ravier,consultMaurice Cranston, The Noble SavRousseau 1754-1762 (Chicago: U. of Chicago P, 1991) pp. 344-362. age: Jean-Jacques All references Rousseau will be given withthe volume numberin Roman numerals to and thenpage number theOeuveres Completes, to eds. Eb. Gagnebinand M. Raymond, Paris, abreviated OC. WherepossiBibliothequede la Pleiade, EditionsGallimard,1959-. Hereafter ble I will use the English translations fromCollected Writings Rousseau, eds. Roger D. of Mastersand Christopher Kelley, again withvolume and page number precededby the abbreviationCW. For Emile or On Education, however,I have used the Allan Bloom translation hereis takenfrom IV p. 322, Bloom, p. 92. OE (Basic Books, 1979). The quotation 4 ErnstCassirer,The Question of Jeanand edited by Peter Jacques Rousseau translated Gay (New Haven: Yale UP, 1954) p. 74.
Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia, 57 (2001), 773-790

Rousseau and Original Sin

775

the How does one explain depravity is remains. the of solution rejected, problem In without God or human nature? answering thesethree humans blaming simply I three theses.1) ThatRousseau questions wouldlike to developthefollowing instance becauseitcontradicted the sin, rejected dogmaof original notin thefirst but becausehe felt thedogma original that of of histheory natural goodness, rather In the whatitsetoutto explain. order explain origin evil to of sindid notexplain the to of he was compelled develop theory natural 2) goodness. WhileRousseau's for as to discourse a kind seematfirst leavesomeroom theological might rejection in his is to but of 'separate equal' explanation, fact rejection designed completely that is explanation Rousseauproposes that displacethedogma.3) The alternative and This maystrike some as a of theorigin inequality thusevil is an accident. at are those or shallow explanation as no explanation all,sinceaccidents precisely In it moveon the account logically. fact is a brilliant for that happenings we cannot in of allowshimto tellthestory theaccident sucha way of part Rousseauwhich that have to itself becomesan attempt changethecourseof events the that story in I his of from accident. will showthat analysis language theDisthe followed becauselanguage what is makes this is to courseon Inequality essential hisproject is whatmadetheoriginal accident bothin thesensethat language story possible, in one and the is is and possible that what story about secondly thesensethat needs to a language tellthestory. of Sin ReasonsfortheRejection Original universe" sin the Rousseau rejects dogmaof original becausehe saw "another of on "another man"in hisexperience illumination theroadto Vincenandbecame He it of a nes.Thisexperience opened a spacefor newform thought. describes so: up
of O Sir, if I had ever been able to writea quarter whatI saw and feltunderthattree, of how clearlyI would have made all the contradictions the social systemseen, with withwhat simI what strength would have exposed all the abuses of our institutions, that good and thatit is fromthese plicityI would have demonstrated man is naturally alone thatmen become wicked5. institutions

that here. We see twobasicpositions good,and explicated First, manis bynature in were for of bears that second society denied, though responsibility evil.Both these did of sin. theories original Rousseau notsimply different bythe contemporary ways, what hadintuited he to butattemptedprove on any against rely his"enlightenment", to This held contrary. leadshim seekanalternative. that the position version origiof that the to Itis notdifficult understand problems theProtestant held in nal sin,especially itsstronger variants, forthemanwhosenamehas beto sin with comesynonymous "natural Original was often interpreted goodness". in and thatthere was no goodness theheart humans werecorrupted, meanthat most moralgoodness.Rousseauargued, could not recognize humans therefore The thisposition. Savoyard theSavoyard Vicar,against priest through explicitly
5 a Lettres Malesherbes,OC I, pp. 1135-1136, CW p. 575.
Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia, 57 (2001), 773-790

776

Jeremiah L. Alberg

argues fora rejectionof the view thatdoes not allow forgoodness in the depthof thehumanheart. or of If moral is with man goodness in conformity ournature, couldbe healthy spirit well constituted to theextent he is good.If it is notand manis naturally that only in a ceasetobe so without and is he wicked, cannot being corrupted, goodness him only as is vicecontrary nature. he weremadeto do harm hiskind, a wolf madeto to If to a as his manwouldbe an animal depraved a pitying as wolf, slaughter prey, humane in heart of virtue leaveus with is moral the andonly would remorse. Ifthere nothing ... of for these what thesource these is of actions, man, raptransportsadmiration heroic tures lovefor of souls?6 great fromwrong thatentaileddenyingthathumanscould know right Any doctrine or held thatreason was so darkenedthatit could not liftitselfup to the smallest to goodness was repugnant Rousseau. Humans are able to recognize both virtue and depravity and therefore bound to take responsibility them,promoting for are virtue and correcting vice. but The Catholicunderstanding originalsin was no less problematic in a difof ferent to way. Rousseau respondedmost explicitly thisview in his Lettrea Christophe de Beaumontpublishedin March of 1763.7 We findthatRousseau's argumentsare of two types.First,he does not believe thatthe Augustinian interpretationof Scripture theonlyone possible. is this of it the to sin, First, is farfrom being case, according me,that doctrine original in which subject suchterrible is to is and contained difficulties,so explicitly clearly theScriptures ithaspleasedtheRhetorician as to and Augustine ourtheologians erect itthere.8 This argument ultimately so important Rousseau since he downplays is not for thespecial statusof revelation As Cassirerputsit: anyway. No revelation makereasonunnecessary takeitsplace. For whenrevelation can or asksus to subordinate reason faith, must to it for giveus reasons thissubordination, andthus reinstate in reason itsrights.9 So even ifthedoctrine could be seen as clearlyderivedfrom it Scripture, would stillhave to prove its reasonableness.As regardsparticular dogmas,Rousseau was "Les plus grandes idees de la divinitenous viennentpar la always a rationalist. raison seule." In thislightRousseau thenquestionsits reasonableness,and thisis the second more important He it typeof argument. asks whether is reasonable to assume that Godcreated many so and souls to with bodpure innocent only jointhem culpable ies through which take and are to they on moral corruption afterwards condemned hell without other crime this than union which His work.10 is any OE Bloomp. 287. Emile, IV p. 595-596, Lettre Beaumont, OC IV, pp.927-1007. a m: Lettre Beaumont, IV, pp.937-938. a OC Translations myown, parts this are of but letter aretranslated AnnHartle, Modern inRousseau*Confessions, in The s Dame:U of (Notre Self ND Press, I Cf. 1983)which haveconsulted. pg.42. 9 Ernst KantundGoethe, Princeton 1945)p. 50. Cassirer, Rousseau, UP, (Princeton:
Revista Portuguesa deFilosofia, 57 (2001), 773-790

Rousseau and Original Sin

111

of Rousseau reacts sharplyagainst any interpretation originalsin thatwould who condemnshumansforbeing exactlywhat he make God intoan unjusttyrant, made themto be. Ratherhe believes thatGod made humansgood and theopening sentenceof his novel Emile is perhapsthe most famousexpressionof thatbelief: des mains de l'auteur des choses: toutdegenereentredes "Tout est bien, sortant mainsde rhomme."11 of Rousseau's arguments againsttherationality originalsin flow out of his unFor Rousseau eitherhumansare freedfrom of derstanding Christiansoteriology. originalsin by baptismor theyare not. If theyare freed,thenoriginalsin is comto pletelyerased and theyreturn thestateof Adam beforetheFall. Thus, the vices countries wherebaptismis widespread)mustbe humanshave (at least in Christian anotherexplanation.They cannot stem fromoriginalsin. If, on the other given hand, humans are not freedthrough baptism,thenit is as if God, apartfromthe made humans weak and thenturnedaround and actual original sin, deliberately punished them for this weakness. In the end these are two main groundsupon which Rousseau objects to the dogma of originalsin. First,thatit makes God into who sets up trapsforhumansto fall into.Second, and moreimporan unfair tyrant, the tantly, dogma does not actuallyexplain what it sets out to. As Rousseau writes of to theArchbishop Paris:
but because of the sin of our first You say thatwe are sinners father, thenwhydid our father first sin? Why cannotthesame reason,by whichyou explainhis sin,be applied also to the sin of his descendentswithoutoriginal sin and why must we imputeto while our first God an injustice,in thathe makes us guiltyand culpable by our birth this?Originalsin explainseverything sinnedand is punishedas we are without father thatneeds to be explained.12 and it is thisprinciple exceptitsprinciple

on I will notrepeatherewhatI have develop in my otherwritings thissubject, the butsimplysummarize sayingthatI think dogma of originalsin got cut loose by In fromits mooringsin Christian duringthe 16th Century.13 thisway it soteriology for.The dogma of original became the answerto a questionit was neverintended on fromreflections what it meantto be saved by Jesus sin developed historically of Christ,what the death and resurrection the God-humanmeant.The salvation and but thanjust personal redemption had historical in offered Christwas greater even cosmological dimensions. Originalsin was the resultof thesekindsof reflecas tions.By the 16th point Century originalsin oftenfunctioned a kind of starting on forreflections thehumancondition. Finally,it became a kindof catch-allexplawhat the problemwas, the cause was original nationforwhat ailed us. No matter i.e. our fallen nature,our depravity.Sadly, that which explains everything sin,

10Lettre a Beaumont, OC IV, p. 938 a Lettre Beaumont, OC, IV, p. 939. Alternative der See my VerloreneEinheit: Die buche nach einer philosophiscnen zu PeterLang, 1996) pp. 31-43. von Erbsundenlehre Rousseau bis Schelling, (Frankfurt:
Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia, 57 (2001 ), 773-790

um/fe,OCIV,p.245. 12

778

Jeremiah L. Alberg

thathumans Rousseau had only to enunciatea Catholicprinciple, explains nothing. are made good to have thewalls come tumbling down. Rousseau's theory naturalgoodness does not make it easier forRousseau to of He deal withtheproblemof evil. In a certainsense itmakesit moredifficult. has to find an explanationfor the manifestevil withoutblaming the individual.He is or lookingfortheprinciple originof evil. He complainsto theBishop:
According to you the cause of evil lies in the depraved humannatureand this very is the depravity an evil whose cause mustbe looked for.We agree,I think, bothof us, thathumanswere createdgood. You say, however,thathe is bad because he was bad; and I show how he became bad. Out of the two of us, who, in youropinion,ascends better theprinciple?14 to

This lack of explanatory power means thatforRousseau thedogma of original sin has become an ideologythatlegitimates evil of thepresent social order.He the hintsat thiswhen he blames the Jesuits the factthathis book Emile was confor demned.He writesin his Confessions:"I did notdoubtat all thatthisMandate was of theJesuits'making, in at and, even thoughtheywerethemselves misfortune that In old the time,in it I stillrecognizedtheir maximof crushing unfortunate."15 other to words the condemnation not an attempt uphold the truth, an attempt is to but defendan oppressivesocial order. One of thereasonsforgoing againstthe Catholic understanding originalsin of was because it seemed to imply thatthe evil to which humans were liable was the somehow necessary, resultof concupiscence.And thusthemoralas well as the physical evils of the world were to be stoicallyborn,withjustice coming in the next life. Rousseau opposes any positionthattriesto legitimate present evil of the In thissense he feelsthatthedoctrine does notpull back theveil and reveal society. thetruth thesituation. CassirerstatesforRousseau social evil of As
could not be borne because it ought not to be borne; because it robs man not of his no happiness but of his essence and his destiny.At thispoint no retreat, pliancy or submissivenessis permitted. What Voltaire,D'Alembert,Diderot,regardedas mere defectsof society,as mere mistakesin organizationwhich mustbe graduallyelimias nated,Rousseau saw rather the guiltof society,and withflaming words,again and again, he reproached societywiththisguiltand called foratonement.16

Althoughhe believed withpassion thathumanswere good, entireand whole bothin thebirth thespecies and the birth each individual, refusedto blind of he of himself thosestrange recurrent to but eventsthatshow thatsomething drastically is he wrong.Certainly acknowledgedthe progressof the artsand sciences. Science
14 Lettre Beaumont, a OC, IV, p. 940. Les Confessions: Autrestexts OC autobiographiques, I, Bibliothequede la Pleiade (Paris: Gallimard,1969), p. 606. Englishtranslation Collected Writings Rousseau, 5, The Conof the fessions and Correspondence, including Lettersto Malesherbes,trans.Christopher Kelly, ed. Christopher (Hanover:Univ. Pressof New Kelly,RogerD. Masters,and PeterG. Stillman, England,1995) p. 507. 10 Cassirer, 29. p.
Revista Portuguesa deFilosofia, 57 (2001), 773-790

Rousseau and Original Sin

779

and from Technical had reduced it. arts the was meansforprogress he benefited But the of of the burden dailyliving. evenwithout benefit experiencing 20thCenas evil with as good.There it Rousseauknewthat technology brought much tury He for with was something prize answering a resounding wrong. wontheacademic the in and sciences improved of had "No", thequestion whether progress thearts He that and are of of themorals humankind. answered thearts sciences born vice, in Discoursewhatthesource these of viceswere. buthe did notanswer theFirst while viceitself arts He simply that andscience morals, leads,inturn, deprave says to this Rousseau doesnotattempt escapefrom circle. and tothearts sciences. The NatureoftheRejection in lies Butas Cassirer out, points Rousseau'sgreatness notso much therejecthe for was one soluto itself intheattempt facetheproblem, which dogma as tion if be to nature it is free "How can evil and guilt attributed human tion, squarely. if no This in from both itsoriginal state, itknows radical depravity? is thequestion Indeed is much it accircled everanew"17. more which Rousseau's around thought metamorof of to speakin themanner R. Spaemann Rousseau's"secular curate It than of sin",rather simple rejection.18was Rousseau'sunwillingphosis original in to answers response theproblem thedeof nessto acceptanyof thestandard so that ofhumans madehisthinking creative. pravity that of on is Thisthinking founded theconviction we needan explanation the a solution it.Rousseau'sstarting to in to causesof theproblem order find proper with He human condition. saw theevil of thissituation a was theconcrete point He beenmatched. is no fatuous has that seldom optimist. clarity
of for But forman in Society.. .it is first all a questionof providing thenecessary,and thenimmensewealth,and thensubjects, nextcome delights, thenforthe superfluous; and thenSlaves; he does not have a momentof respite.What is most singularis that the less naturaland urgentthe needs, the more the passions augment,and, what is after them;so thatafter worse,thepowerto satisfy havingswallowed long prosperity, and desolated many men,my Hero will end by ruining everything up manytreasures if untilhe is the sole masterof the Universe.Such in briefis themoralpicture, not of of humanlife,at leastof thesecretpretensions theHeartof everyCivilized man.19

that No, it was notan optimistic original temperament led Rousseauto reject and human had sin.Rousseau experienced depravity hadtheeyestosee it. is that Putanother by way,I think all ofRousseau'sthinking driven an attempt that to alternative Christianity, his perception a comprehensive to provide given but the notonlydid notexplain problem, also didnotoffer soluany Christianity
17 Cassirer, 30. p. Robert Spaemann, ,,Uber eimge Schwiengkeitenmit der Erbsiindenlehre in: Zur , Erbsiindenlehre: zu 1991), p. 54. Frage, (Freiburg Stellungnahmen einerbrennenden 19 in Discourse on theOriginofInequality OE m, p. 203, CW HI, p. 75-76. All parenthetito refer thistext. numbers cally inserted
Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia, 57 (2001), 773-790

780

Jeremiah L. Alberg

tion. The first at systematic attempt thisis his Discours sur L'Origine et les Fondemensde Ulnequalite Parmi Les Hommes (1755). He says thathis goal in thisis our frivolous to "penetrate, demonstrations good will, whatgoes on at of through thebottomof our Hearts"and to "reflect whatthestateof things mustbe where on all men are forcedto flatter destroy and and one another" 75) 'To penetrate" "to (p. reflect"meantthatRousseau could not be contentwiththe vision he experienced on the road to Vincennes.Ratherhe was compelled to methodologically workout thatvision We can say thatthereis evidencethatRousseau saw himself offering "alan as ternative account" to the Genesis story.I wish to quote here at lengthStarobinski since he gives such an excellentexpressionto what Rousseau is about in the Second Discourse:
[The Second Discourse] is conceived as a revelationto the human;it is a thoroughly for Rousseau kind,a substitute sacred history. religiouswork,butof a veryparticular has rewritten Genesis as a workof philosophy, completewithGardenof Eden, original sin, and the confusionof tongues.This is a secularized,"demystified" versionof the origins of mankind,which repeats the Scripturethat it replaces with another of tongue. . . .Christiantheology,thoughnot presentexplicitly,shapes the structure Rousseau's argument.20

It is an alternative does not enjoy the other'srevelational that status.Rousseau wants to explore the same groundthatis explored in the first threechaptersof Genesis, but not underthe same groundrules. He makes quite explicithis methowhen he statesthathis investigation notintohistorical is dological presuppositions truths.
The Researcheswhichcan be undertaken this concerning Subjectmustnotbe takenfor historical but and better suited clarto truths, onlyforhypothetical conditional reasonings thanto show their like thoseourPhysicists make ifytheNatureof things genuineorigin, the of everyday concerning formation theWorld(p. 19)

He compareshis activity thatof naturalscientists to who form conhypotheses of for how cerningtheformation theearth.The comparisonis important it clarifies Rousseau envisionedhis task. Justas the naturalscientist the timeof Rousseau in of to proposed to explain the formation the world withoutreference creationaccount of Genesis, so Rousseau wished to explore the originof evil without reference to originalsin. He beginsthen, by a simplerejectionof thedogma,butby not laying aside the whole universeof discourse, by "settingaside all the facts" in whichthisdogma foundits meaning.It is Scripture thatmakes clear thatthesituationof Adam was not thesame as Rousseau's naturalman. It makes clear thatthe state of naturenever existed,that"the first Man, having received enlightenment and preceptsdirectly from in God, was nothimself thatstate;.. ."(p. 19). Therefore, all the says Rousseau, "Let us beginby setting thefactsaside, fortheydo notaffect question" (p. 19). It is religionthatteaches thatGod took man out of the stateof
20 JeanStarobinski, Rousseau: Transparency and Obstruction, trans. Arthur Jean-Jacques Goldhammer, (Chicago: U of Chicago Press, 1988), p. 290.
Revista Portuguesa deFilosofia, 57 (2001), 773-790

Rousseau and Original Sin

781

natureimmediately, as it teachesthathe made theworld,butit does notforbid just fromforming drawnsolely fromthe natureof man and "conjectures, philosophers the Beings surrounding him,about what the humanRace mighthave become if it had remainedabandonedto itself (p. 19) any morethanit forbids from physicists hypotheses. forming move of his again at the Rousseau repeatsand emphasizesthismethodological of beginning the FirstPartof the Second Discourse, and thenagain at its end. He statesthathe will begin,"without havingrecourseto the supernatural knowledge" he thisbeing "of all the supernatural gifts could have (p. 20). Instead,he will strip received" so thathe can considerhim "as he musthave come fromthe hands of Second Discourse. Nature"(p. 20).21Finallyhe statesas a conclusionto theentire
and the the I have triedto set forth originand progressof inequality, establishment as can be deduced from Natureof the abuse of politicalSocieties,insofar thesethings of man by lightof reason alone, and independently the sacred Dogmas whichgive to the Sovereignauthority Sanctionof Divine Right(p.67).

world-view. hopes to bringphilosophy He Rousseau has set aside theChristian whichled Kant to name intothe worldof science. It was thisway of thinking fully Rousseau theNewtonof themoraluniverse.
Newton was the firstto see order and regularity joined with great simplicity But wherebeforehim therewas only disorderand badly matchedmultiplicity. since Newtonthecometstravelin geometric paths. of to Rousseau was the first discover under the multiplicity formstaken on by humans theirdeeply hidden nature and the concealed laws by which providence his would be justifiedthrough observations.Before this the objection of Alphonsus Newton and Rousseau God is justifiedand fromnow on and Manes was valid. After is Pope's theorem true.22

While Rousseau does not directly argue againstoriginalsin in theSecond Disa kindof investigation, is he course, and insteadclaims to be conducting different a in factseekingto offer viable substitute. While he cannotaccept the dogma of originalsin, Rousseau's starting pointis the realityof humanevil. "Men are wicked; sad and continualexperiencespares theneed forproof.However,man is naturally good; I believe I have demonstrated for whichsocietyinduces and makes it profitable one to it (p. 74). The artificiality, fromwhat one actually is, lies at the root of the problem.The different appear are causes of depravity many,theyinclude all the advances made, all the knowlthat constitution make thehuman all thechangesfromhis primitive edge acquired, on others(p 74). Still,thismanycan be reducedby Rousseau to a single dependent to linearprocess. He does not say thatthereis nothing be admiredin his society, butwhathe does insistupon is thatthepricepaid for"progress"be reckoned.Soci21 of One can see herean influence Bellarmine'sand Saurez's naturapura on Rousseau's thatare used as a kindof 'thought aboutI'hommenature.Both are logical possibilities thinking experiment'. 22 ImmanuelKant,Kant's handschriftlicher Nachlafi,Bd. VH, AA, Bd. XX, S. 58-59.

REVISTAPORTUGUESA DE FlLOSOFIA, 57 (2001), 773-790

782

Jeremiah L. Alb erg

- the men ety"necessarily brings to hateeachother" 74). Thisupsidedownness (p. it that allowpeopleto livetogether makes impossible very thing should actually is thephenomenon investigates. he is Everyreversed reality laid bare.Humans of becausethere money be made.The wants is to rejoicein thecatastrophes others directed toward meresuperfluities of becomesthe strongest passions.The less All is the it useful artis forthecommon lucrative becomes. this to good,themore is a realist and through explanation the reversed. be explained Rousseau,then, situation who could neversay: "Toutest bien".On theother aboutthepresent he an about what be done. can hand, remains optimist Rousseau'sAlternative: Consistency asidethedogma Whenwe turn from Rousseau's reasons rejecting laying or for his at of original and ask what position sin was,we maybe surprised the actually If we of that us variety answers confront in hiswritings. what meanbyan alternaof tiveto original is what sin Rousseauheldto be theultimate source ourpresent thenit could be anything from to to society reflection thelack of breastplight, -feeding.23 if the and does However, we change question ask in what precisely Rousseau's we from alternative account a that of consist, find unity thought stretches at least theSecondDiscourseto theLetter Beaumont, the an Rousseauhimself asserts of inhisletter Beaumont existence this to when writes: he unity
23 answer,although Society is themostwell-known becomingsociable would be phrasing itmorecorrectly. H. Meier has pointedout in his "Introduction" thecritical As to edition the of Second Discourse, Rousseau uses theadjectiveexactlythreetimesin thetext.He says thatin becomingsociable humansbecome "slaves" (p. 24), theybecome "evil" (p. 42) and theybegin to live in theopinionsof others(p. 60). See his J.-J Rousseau Diskursuberdie Ungleichheit / Discours sur Vinegalite3rded. (Paderborn:Schoningh,1993) p. LXXI. Rousseau also fa"a could also be mouslycalls thehumanwho reflects depravedanimal" (p. 138). Perfectibility considereda source of the problem.Rousseau says: "It would be sad forus to be forcedto and is agree thatthisdistinctive almostunlimited faculty the sourceof all man's misfortunes; thatitis thisfaculty drawshimoutof that condition whichhe in which,by dintof time, original would pass tranquil and innocent to over the which,bringing flower days; thatit is thisfaculty centuries enlightenment his errors, vices and his virtues, thelongrunmakes him his and his in thetyrant himself of and of Nature.It would be horrible be obliged to praiseas a beneficent to to of beingtheone who first suggested theinhabitant thebanksof theOrinocotheuse of those Pieces of wood whichhe bindson thetemplesof his Children, and whichassurethemat least and "It apartof their imbecility originalhappiness."We shouldnotbe fooledby therhetorical would be sad.." it is, accordingto Rousseau, in factsad and thushe labels his own systemas "sad" (cf. Preface to a Second Letterto Bordes, CW p. 183). As regardsbreast-feeding: "Do duties?Begin withmothers. You will be surprised you wish to bring everyoneback to his first followssuccessivelyfrom first this The by thechangesyou will produce.Everything depravity. whole moral orderdegenerates;... But let mothers moralswill children, deign to nursetheir reformthemselves,nature's sentiments will be awakened in every heart,the state will be thispointalone, will bring back together" repeopled.This first point, (Entile,p. 46). everything
Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia, 57 (2001), 773-790

Rousseau

and Original

Sin

783

These books [Rousseau has just mentionedthe Second Discourse, his Letter to M.D'Alemberton the Theatre,and his novel The New Heloise], whichyou have presumably read, since you judge them,breathethe same principles[as contained in is Emile]; thesame way of thinking notany moredisguised.24

haveattributedthehuthe others to claimsto haveshown vicesthat Rousseau He to source. has shown the are manheart, notnatural man,buthavea different and written genealogy".25is their It in areborn, so to saytheir "manner which they here.Rousseau's proposalcan be sumthatI wish to describe thisgenealogy manner: The human individual bestunderstood is from in marized thefollowing 1) aided drives dualisof the 2) viewpoint dualism. Perfectibility, bycircumstances, this a the of three ticbeing namely, state nature, golden andfinally age stages, through in of into 3) way depends a crucial uponlanguage. society. Thefaculty perfectibility The NaturalGoodnessofMan: Dualism in of As of Theproblem evilis explained Rousseau terms a dualism. he sucby that "Besidesitappears thecoexistence of a itin hisLettre Beaumont: cinctly put of and theconstitutiontheuniverse to resolve better twoprinciples many explains without as, for examwhich it, difficulties, can be solvedonlywith great difficulty makeup thehuman Two substances of the perconcerning origin evil."26 ple,that in that rooted a cosmological dualism are son. These two substances ultimately Descartes. from stems
Besides it is certainthatwe have the idea of two distinctsubstances,namely spirit the one which thinksand the otherwhich is extended.And these two and matter, the ideas can easily be conceived theone without other.27

headintwodifferent direcand the In thehuman person sensible thereasonable toward the headstoward good of thebodyand thereasonable The sensible tions. is of that thegoodofthesoul.Thus,thedualism Rousseau proposes nota dualism of and there werea principle light a principle evil.It is notas though goodversus conflict oneanother. with there twodifferent are ofdarkness. Rather, goodswhich form dualism this this understand ifwe recallthedramatic we Perhaps can better her which it towards Father in receives thenovelJulia.For Julie is notherduty it to St. with conflicts herlove towards Preux.Rather is having choosebetween In her rends heart. thesamewaywe do nothavea goodanda bad in twolovesthat and lead us in twovery but of thisform dualism, twogoodsthat different, often directions. conflicting,

24 a Lettre 25 a Lettre 26 a Lettre Ll a Lettre

OC Beaumont, OC Beaumont, OC Beaumont, OC Beaumont,

IV, p. 933. IV, p. 936. IV, p. 956-957. IV, p. 955.

Revista Portuguesa deFilosofia, 57 (2001), 773-790

784

Jeremiah Alberg L. FirstStage

of Rousseauclaimsthat who the "thePhilosophers haveexamined foundations of haveall felt necessity goingbackto thestate Nature, noneof but the of society an them reached (p. 18). Rousseauwillreachit through actof abstracting it" has that or sociabilfrom backto society tohuman be everything couldpossibly traced The 'natural' no longer towards a in to is which beingstrives order fulfill that ity. it from capacities of its 'nature', rather is "onlythat can the which be developed eachindividual".28 in WhenRousseau he man thinks thought this through finds thenatural an unalienated that as Rousseauadmits thehuman an beingwho is also a dumbanimal. he animal "lessstrong some, agilethan is others" atthesametime has but than less of at of theadvantage "constantly all having of one's strength one's disposal, alenforanyevent, of alwayscarrying and so oneself, to speak, waysbeingready havea with one" (p. 21). Humans good,then, in thesensethat are not they tirely are but all destiny, in thesensethat creatures good in so faras they supernatural is out are to carry whatthey programmed do. The use of theword"programmed" notaccidental. the Rousseauviewsall animals, one,as "onlyan including human machine" 25). As suchhe stands before indifferently moral goodand ingenious (p. evil.In thefirst state manknows himself therefore notsee hiswelland does only Accoras with of -being either opposedto or conforming thewell-being others. hedoesnothate love. or dingly A dualistic in animal couldsimply remain a sort balanced of never state, changinteract and for 1) ing.Rousseauhas to account twothings: howthetwoprinciples in what this Rousseau interaction accounts theinterfor 2) way produces progress. in action thefollowing On theonehand, "understanding much the the to owes way. handthepassions very are much to indebted the 27), andon theother passions" (p. The reasonfor"we seek to knowonlybecause understanding. passions improve we desireto havepleasure 27). Primitive is humans desireand fearand that (p. to to in But thepassions themselves enough getthem beginto reason. "originate ourwants" their and for desire progress depends uponourknowledge, we cannot or fearanything unlesswe have an idea of it or from "thesimple of impulsion nature" 27). Natural manat this has but kindof impulses, (p. point onlythelatter he has thepotential theformer. passions for The developin sucha waythat they induce humans lookfor to more. How doesthis happen? Rousseauneedsto find element is, at one andthesametime, an in that rooted thepassionsand yetdevelopstheintellect thepointthat intellect turn to the in to a influence thepassions. on Thiselement cannot be begins exercise (pernicious) inborn else God wouldbe ultimately or and yetitneedsto be simply responsible universal order account thehuman in to for condition. Rousseau finds element this inlanguage. 28 Robert ohne (Munchen, p.67. Spaemann, 1980) Burger Vaterland,
Revista Portuguesa deFilosofia, 57 (2001), 773-790

Rousseau and Original Sin

785

For Rousseau language is rootedin thepassions. Accordingto his Essay on the Origin of Language thatoriginis the expressionof passions.29At the same time language plays a crucial role in thought.According to Rousseau "general ideas come intotheMind only withtheaid of words,and theunderstanding graspsthem and only through propositions"(p. 32). All general ideas are purelyintellectual theydependupon language. It For But languagetoo has itshistory. cannotexplainitself. thisRousseau has to which"withtheaid of circumstances a of develops all postulate faculty perfectibility itself dependent is At theothers". the same timethisfaculty upon thepossession of here.We are in the generalideas and thuslanguage.We need notsee a contradiction of kindof circlecharacterized thewhatis knownas 'feed-back',i.e. theresults the by is The faculty perfection theultimate of "source of the processeffect process itself. and in because it draws him out of that"originalcondition" all man's misfortunes" of the long run "makes him a tyrant himselfand Nature"(p. 26). But thiskind of the would not be possible without "Logic of Discourse" (p. 33), in "perfectibility" of no longerresembles whichthething anyexisting thing. spoken "the obstacles to the Origin of Languages" (p.) The Rousseau considers first has mainobstacle is thatone has to assume preciselywhatRousseau himself called intoquestion,"namely,a kind of societyalreadyestablishedamong the inventors of language" (p. 29). Rousseau cannot imagine how language became necessary. His imagination stops,whichis whathappenswhenone does nothave thewordsto among themselves help extendit. He says "forsince Men had no communication the nor its nor any need of it, one can conceive neither necessityof thisinvention possibilitywere it not indispensable.Rousseau simply supposes "this firstdifficulty conquered" and then assumes the necessity.Then he asks how languages could be establishedgiventhattheyare necessary.Here theproblemis therelationOne would need to know how to speak in order ship betweenspeech and thought. well enoughor deeplyenoughto inventlanguage.But if languato be able to think . ge is notyetinvented.. timesRousseau makes clear thathe is caughtin a circle. I think At least three thatthis is one of the more important aspects of the Second Discourse because it teaches us how to read it. The originof our situationis never simple or singular. His The origin thatRousseau seeks is what lies at the end of the investigation. will close a circle but it will not simplyrepeatwhathas gone before. investigation We There will be a difference. have to presumethe originin orderto be able to our does not undermine taskor our talk.We speak about it. Still,thispresumption the do notget involvedin a vicious circlebecause our talkcan influence story.
29

"That the Cf. In particular ChapterII of the Essay on the Originof Language entitled the Needs but from Passions". One needs to exerof FirstInvention Speech Derives notfrom betweenthe"invention of cise cautionhere,forit seems to me thatRousseau is distinguishing is speech" and theoriginof language.Both are rootedin thepassions,butthelatter no longer in needs". needs" butrather "other rootedin the"first
Revista Portuguesa deFilosofia, 57 (2001), 773-790 9

786

Jeremiah L. Alberg

to abRousseauemphasizes roleofdiscourse allowing the in humans conceive how to in and This stractly, progress thinking evenin imagining. highlights selfwiththe He the -referential text at this is point. couldnotwrite SecondDiscourse in in outdiscourse yethe wants explain theorigins what haspresumed and of he to In to of order getstarted. to Thus,Rousseauhas to begin tellthestory theorigins. if cannot this was accidental becomes way,what meaningfulnotlogical.Rousseau He canpresume howwords sentences and themselves become meaningful. explain it.He canencourage to it. too others investigate Butall this presumes language. SecondStage In thesecondstatehumans into Theyenter relationbeginto eye each other. In each other with and things. Theylearnto cooperate. thebeginning shipswith this still cooperation higher the of cases where paysto it is primates. Theydiscover in a workwith others order accomplish common to goal and also whento be on others. "so longas there less opposition interests conBut is of than guard against man Rousseauis explicit these that course between interests is essentially good."30 rather havean associations notneeda fully do human they developed language, fuels The dialectic passionandreason of "inarticulate universal language" 45). (p. encounReasonis applied find to solutions theproblems humans to that progress. in The of and the ter, this, turn, develops humans' capacities. cloudon thehorizon theraceappeared to when humans enough had leisure make"commodities", things thathad notbeen necessary before weremerely but convenient. Rousseaucalls these "the are source evils" of commodities, first yoke"andsaysthat they "thefirst wereevil in and of themselves, bebut (p. 46.). Theseare such,notbecausethey cause they their lost Thusbegins of powerto pleasein thevery possession them. thedialectic theconveniences, of which weremeant freehumans, become to but instead 'chains bind'himsincehecanno longer without the that do them. It is atthis in that and point hisanalysis Rousseau againbrings language itsdeintothediscussion. explanation itsdevelopment fantastic, His of is but velopment thepoint that bridge he needsfrom primitive tribe thesociety is the that a rural to that evilis full-blown is human Rousspeech(cf.p. 46-47).Withitsintroduction seausays:"Everything tochange appearance" 47). its begins (p. Withtheadvent language reason, of and which makespossible, it camecomPrimitives couldholdintheir minds andrelations weigh and one parisons. qualities theother. against
The one who sang or danced the best,thehandsomest, strongest, mostadroit, the the or the most eloquent became the most highlyconsidered;and thatwas the first step toward inequalityand, at the same time,toward vice. From these first preferences were born on the one hand vanityand contempt, the othershame and envy; and on the fermentation caused by these new leavens eventuallyproduced compoundsfatal to happinessand innocence(p. 47).

30 Lettre Beaumont,OC IV, p. 936-937. a

Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia, 57 (2001), 773-790

Rousseau and Original Sin

787

movements such as vanityand envy are of great Rousseau holds thatspiritual but thattheirbeginningswere innocuous. It is this way thathe can importance having to admitto any kindof 'originalsin'. These emoexplain the evil without tions are dependentupon language, but language can be used to explain this dethe pendence.Even withthese problemswe are just now entering Golden Age or the rousseau-ian equivalent of the Garden of Eden. Rousseau summarizesthis second statein thesewords:
men had come to have less enduranceand althoughnatural Thus although pityhad althis of readyundergonesome alternation, periodof thedevelopment humanfaculties, stateand thepetua maintaining golden mean betweenthe indolenceof theprimitive musthave been the happiestand most durableepof lant activity our amour-propre, och (p. 48).

for This Golden Age is important methodologically Rousseau because it emphasizes the fact thatfor him progressdoes not simplymean decline. One can, a through properbalance of the available forces minimizeevil and promotethe good aspectsof a change.31 witha simplelifethatrequiredonly theprimitive As long as man was satisfied cooperationof animal-likebeings,man was happy. But when it became possible all forappearance to be separatedfromreality, was lost. Rousseau's biblical allusion makesclear thathe is givinghis versionof theFall.
As long as theyapplied themselves only to tasksthata single personcould do and to arts thatdid not require the cooperationof several hands, they lived free,healthy, good, and happy insofaras theycould be accordingto theirNature,and theycontinBut from intercourse. ued to enjoy among themselvesthe sweetnessof independent as the momentone man needed thehelp of another, soon as theyobservedthatit was usefulfora single person to have provisionsfortwo, equalitydisappeared,property were changed into smiling labor became necessary;and vast forests was introduced, Fields whichhad to be wateredwiththe sweat of men,and in whichslaveryand misand erywere soon seen to germinate growwiththecrops (p. 49).

The downfallwas not immediate, any more thanthe Golden Age had been a the staticstate.Humans were not,like Adam and Eve, exiled from Gardenof Eden. Rather,it was a momentof passing balance as the human race moved along its course. Somethingwas lost,but it was verymuch like humaninnocence- as long as we enjoyed it, we enjoyed it unaware,and we only became aware of it in its loss.
beforewe had appreciatedtheir We lost peace and innocenceforever delights.Untelt men of later times,the by the stupid men of earliesttimes,lost to the enlightened to happy life of the golden age was always a stateforeign the humanrace, eitherbeCf. Steven Johnston, Encountering Tragedy:Rousseau and the Project of Democratic thatis, for Rousseau forthisconception, criticizes Order,(Ithaca: CornellUP, 1999). Johnston entailsbringing aboutevil aboutpublicgood necessarily to that notaccepting trying bring fully all too. While thereare manyfinepointsin thisrecentstudyof Rousseau's thought, too often of Robertsanalysis depends upon the imputation ignoranceto Rousseau about the deeper aboutthisimputation. I of implications his own thought. remainskeptical
Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia, 57 (2001), 773-790

31

788

Jeremiah L. Alberg
cause it went unrecognizedwhen humans could have enjoyed it or because it had been lost it when humanscould have knownit.32

We recognize heretraits whathas rightly calledRousseau'sromantiof been the cism.He sensesdeeply loss notof what was,butwhatwas not.At theendof thenovelEmilehe saystotherealists:
The golden age is treatedas a chimera,and it will always be one foranyone whose the heartand tastehave been spoiled. It is noteven truethatpeople regret golden age, since those regretsare always hollow. What, then,would be requiredto give a new birth? One single butimpossiblething:to love it.33

ThirdStage from Whatwas thedownfall? we Rousseausaysthat can onlyhavedeparted acthe"happiest most man""bysomefatal and durable from "bestfor the epoch", which..ought . never havehappened" 48). to cident, (p. of in to Instead remaining thegolden racecontinued progress. age,thehuman to with broadstrokes, crucial but Rousseaudoes notdetailtheprocess. paints He and it this is of possible process the"progress languages" 51). Thismakes first (p. thennecessary humans least appearto be building for at beauty, upon "mind, that or skill,upon merit talents", or becausetheseare thethings now strength, than At to "attract consideration". thispoint, was necessary appear be other "it to what in fact one was" (p. 51). Humans as are couldappear their ideas,which suptold should ported language, them by they appear.
To be and to seem became two altogether different things;and fromthisdistinction came conspicuous ostentation, deceptive cunningand all the vices thatfollow from them(p. 51).

With distinction this a a Thosewhofirst toward state war. of begins fatal progress thelandfind in I will themselves perpetual battle with stronger. notenter the occupy into socialcontract the which to of I this attempts resolve state affairs.wouldliketo that a and is emphasize itis effected throughspeech thespeech a lie (cf.53-54).In this freedom" killed 54) without is way"natural (p. being replaced civicfreedom. by Rousseauis convinced theproblem the"universal that is desire reputation, for honors preferences" 63). Thisis the and force theworld. of (p. driving
It excites and multipliesour passions, and, by creatinguniversalcompetition and rivalry,or ratherenmity,among men, occasions numberlessfailures,successes, and disturbances all kinds by makingso many aspirantsrun the same course. I could of show thatit is to thisdesireof being talkedabout,and thisunremitting of distinrage guishingourselves,thatwe owe the best and the worstthingswe possess, both our virtuesand our vices, our science and our errors, our conquerorsand our philosoand a veryfew good ones. phers;thatis to say, a greatmanybad things,

32 FromtheGeneva Manuscript, m, p. 283, CW IV, p 77. OC " Entile,OE IV, p. 859; Bloom, p. 474.
Revista Portuguesa deFilosofia, 57 (2001), 773-790

Rousseau and Original Sin

789

and Whatthisdriveleadsto is the"laststageof inequality, theextreme point the whichwe started" 65). whichcloses theCircleand touches pointfrom (p. is An Rousseau'simagehereis instructive. extreme point usually'theendof the to is a "Hereeverythingbrought line',buthereit marks return thestarting point. and to backto thesole law of thestronger, consequently a new stateof Nature, we which beganin that was theStateofnature one in from different theone with of and itspurity, thislastis thefruit an excessof corruption" 65). So it is a (p. And is differis with return a difference. yetthedifference small:"there so little . these states..(p. 65). two encebetween is between one's exisAndyetthedifference vast.It is thedifference sensing And is For and tence being nothing. thedifferencein language. a savagethewords The bear Theyareineffect nothing. opinions 'power'and'reputation' no meaning. thesavage has his beingin are of others equallywithout value,nothing. Thus, founded comparison nothing on are to that to The himself. words point a difference which nothing, are his constitute these But the him. for socialperson comparisons, in of different The consciousness thesavageis structured a radically being. very and It between of the integration alienwayfrom person society. is thedifference the summarizes whole Rousseau ation. by problem saying:
the Such is, in fact,the genuine cause of all these differences: Savage lives within knows how to live only in the himself;the sociable man always outside of himself, judgmentalone thathe draws the opinionof others;and it is, so to speak, fromtheir of sentiment his own existence(p. 66).

to relieson theviewsof others tellhim The human society beingof modern of His that knows then he is no longer whohe is,but sovereign. consciousness his and this of to is existence reduced thejudgment others, ultimately failsbevery he he Coleman summarizes to causehe can pretend be what knows is not.Patrick of whichRousseauhas madeto our understanding theway in thecontribution structures which reality. language
of The originality Rousseau's analysis [in the Second Discourse] lay in the way he but not how inequalityfunctioned, only in thecourse of humanhistory, demonstrated in thegenesis of the conceptualvocabularythatmade social communication possible could justifysocial inequality.34 and in turn

Conclusion humans' desof to supernatural teaching Christianity According thetraditional an revealed 'origin' of in as simultaneously tiny, revealed theresurrection Christ as If this the that a 'fall'from original was origin. language preceded fall, thescripthe of was this then language thelanguage which things account tural by suggests, in was doneeffortlesslytheoriginal Suchnaming, God werenamed origin, justly. an the nowonlypossible presents alternative through laborofthecross.Rousseau
in PatrickColeman, Rousseau's Political Imagination:Rule and Representation the a 'Lettre d'Alembert (Droz, Geneva, 1984).
Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia, 57 (2001), 773-790

34

790

Jeremiah L. Alberg

accountwheretheoriginaloriginis a stateof solitudewithout language.The emerdestruction reconstruction and gence of language and sociability requirea thorough of the human.If the scholasticstaughtthatgrace and thus salvationdoes not denature rather but the it, stroy presupposesand perfects Rousseau represents position of destruction replacement. and

Revista Portuguesa de FiLOSOFiAy (2001), 773-790 57