Rousseau: biography life ideas philosophy: Jean Jacques Rousseau. The main pedagogical ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Jean-Jacques Rousseau(1712-1778) - French Enlightenment thinker, philosopher, pedagogical reformer, writer, composer, art theorist. Rousseau gained enormous popularity during his lifetime; he was the recognized ruler of the thoughts of most French people in the second half of the 18th century. A certain historical era gave birth to him, but to the same extent he himself, with his brilliant and original writings, contributed to its formation. Rousseau was born in Geneva in 1712 into the family of a watchmaker. After a troubled youth, he moved to Paris, where he made his living either as a teacher, or as a secretary, or as a copyist of notes. Rousseau did not receive a systematic education; he owed everything he achieved to himself. In the middle of the 18th century. Diderot, who published the Encyclopedia, attracted Rousseau to the editorial office and introduced him to the circle of encyclopedists.

Rousseau's fame began with the publication of the treatise “Did the revival of the sciences and arts contribute to the improvement of morals?” Rousseau was able to notice the danger where no one else saw it: the development of science does not automatically ensure human happiness. The difference between Rousseau and other enlighteners is that he contrasts knowledge of things with enlightened (reasonable) morality. Rousseau believed that all people initially, by nature, have moral impulses, and that the fact that evil exists is the fault of civilization. Thus, the problem of alienation of man from man, from nature, from the state was posed, which would later be dealt with by Hegel, Feuerbach, Marx, existentialists, and Freudians. This is where Rousseau calls to “return to the roots,” to flee from everything social and rational to the natural, sentimentally sincere, to rush from culture to nature. Rousseau idealized the past, but he did not call back to the primitive state. Rousseau's ideal is in the future. This future was, according to his plan, to revive a number of features of the past “state of nature.”

The main theme of Rousseau's philosophical reflections is the fate of the individual, the fate of a person living in modern society with its complex culture, with its contradictions. The famous treatise “On the Social Contract” (1762) is based on the idea that violence cannot be a source of law. The essence of the social contract is that each individual renounces all his rights and transfers them to the benefit of society. At the same time, the person remains an integral member of society. Thus, Rousseau transforms the very concept of personal law and turns it into political law. Rousseau's worldwide fame was created by his famous works - the novel “Julia, or the New Heloise” (1761) and “Emile, or On Education” (1762).

The courage of Rousseau's thoughts caused persecution by the authorities. “Emile” was publicly burned in Paris; the authorities did not want to tolerate Rousseau’s presence either in Paris or in Geneva. He was doomed to wander. In the last years of his life, he worked on an autobiographical work, “Confession,” a merciless analysis of his own personality. Rousseau managed to complete the story of his life until 1765. “Confession” was published after Rousseau’s death in 1778. The influence of Rousseau’s ideas on subsequent generations is great. Madame de Stael, L. Feuerbach, R. Rolland, L. N. Tolstoy dedicated their pen to him.

J. J. Rousseau creates his “concept of anticulture.” In the era when he lived, everything that he expressed was perceived as absolute extravagance. But he raises a global problem: nature and culture. Rousseau appears in grotesque forms. In his treatise “Discourse. Has the revival of science and the arts contributed to the improvement of morals?” he says that everything beautiful in a person comes out of the bosom of nature and deteriorates in him when he gets into society. “Bodily needs are the basis of society, but the spirit is its decoration.” Rousseau brings to the fore the ethical position: “I do not insult science, but I defend virtue before virtuous people.”

According to Rousseau, art and culture are garlands of flowers entwining iron chains, fettering man's natural freedom and forcing him to love his slavery. Art is a cutesy language; previously morals were rude but natural. The treacherous mask of politeness is born of enlightenment. "Our souls became corrupted as our sciences and arts improved." Moreover, in all this Rousseau sees vulgar monotony. The meaning of progress lies in the disappearance of virtue in all times and in all countries. Egypt is the first school of the Universe. The strongest state, but the discovery of sciences and philosophy, the pursuit of fine arts deprives it of its strength.

Greece defeats Asia twice (the Achaeans defeat Troy, the Athenians defeat the Persians), but having turned to the fine arts, Greece itself becomes enslaved by Rome.

The history of Rome is also an example of this: Rome was founded by shepherds, there was an early virtue of Rome. But since the era of Ovid Catullus, Maecenas, Rome has become the arena of the play of passions.

The same fate befell the Byzantine civilization. Hence the conclusion: art relaxes morals and personality.

But Rousseau also turns to the East. If science taught virtue, taught to shed blood for the homeland, then the Chinese would be invincible. He turns to the wisdom of Chinese philosophy (and education has always been valued not only in China, but also in Russia).

But the sciences of the Persians, Scythians, ancient Germans, Romans in an era of poverty, American savages, according to Rousseau, taught virtue, they lived in harmony with nature.

"Happy ignorance of the citizens of Sparta!" “Peoples, know once and for all that nature wanted to protect you from science, just as a mother snatches a dangerous weapon from the hands of her child!” All the secrets hidden by nature are evil, from which it protects us. People are not virtuous, but they would be even worse if they were born scientists.

Rousseau concludes that astronomy is generated by superstition, eloquence by hatred and lies, geometry by self-interest, physics by idle curiosity. In general, all sciences and even morality are generated by human pride. The arts, sciences, and civilization are based on vices. Luxury is incompatible with morality and everything that benefits the arts is vicious.

The concept of education, according to Rousseau, is associated with the idea of ​​a possible return to the bosom of the earth. Therefore, Rousseau believes that until the age of 12, children do not need to be taught anything, and they should be raised in the lap of nature by a philosopher.

In a letter to Voltaire, he gives the following definition of culture: “Culture is a sword that is stuck into a living tree; if it is taken out, the tree will die, but it would be better not to thrust it there at all.” He also has an idea about the difficulty of studying science, he identifies an elite category: scientists who should study science, writers who should write, but it is better for ordinary people not to touch culture.

Speaking about theaters, Rousseau recalls Protestant Geneva, in which theaters were banned as hotbeds of debauchery.

Nevertheless, Rousseau is considered an enlightener, because he gives his advice on upbringing and education, although he does not fit into the concept of “French enlightenment”.

In the 19th-20th centuries. Rousseau's conclusions influenced some concepts of culture:

1) in ethnography and cultural anthropology - ethnology (thanks to Rousseau’s discovery, humanity began to look at barbarians differently);

2) S. Freud “Discontent with Culture”: culture protects us from nature, but the very position about nature as the beginning of man belongs to Rousseau;

3) L.N. Tolstoy - denial of art, moral imperative;

4) O. Spengler, A. Toynbee: they develop the idea of ​​the death of culture, civilization, and personality crisis;

5) F. Nietzsche - criticism of culture and the weak person and the creation of the cult of a strong personality;

6) the structuralist concept of Lévi-Strauss with a certain element of praise of primitive tribes;

7) in Marxism: “If culture develops spontaneously and is not directed by reason, then it leaves behind a scorched steppe!” Engels said: “We should not delude ourselves with victories over nature. For every such victory, she takes cruel revenge on us.” The idea of ​​a planned economy partly confirms the thesis about a reasonable direction of development;

8) Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and the concept of the noosphere. From the moment a person appears on Earth, she acquires a soul, so all good and evil go into Space. The noosphere is a shell that protects or punishes us.

To this we can add a number of other ideas that were developed in Lately, but based precisely on the thought of Rousseau. Aurelio Peccei and the Club of Rome - a club that united businessmen, humanitarians and many others. etc. to find further ways of survival and development. The idea of ​​cultural ecology, of which D.S. Likhachev is a proponent, is also a unique version of Rousseauism. It is based on the convergence of cultural ties and the preservation of the genetic memory of the Earth.

Seneca

Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 BC - 65 AD) is rightfully considered one of the most prominent representatives of the Stoic philosophical school.

Seneca came from the family of a noble horseman, a Roman of the old school - pious, believing in the mercy of the gods, putting the interests of the state above all else, convinced that Rome itself was destined to rule the world. The true passion of Father Seneca, who bore the same name as younger son(he was called Seneca the Elder) was rhetoric.

In his youth, he heard the speeches of famous rhetoricians of his time and was imbued with the deepest respect for people who were able to speak beautifully and convincingly. Possessing a unique memory, he remembered many of these speeches and subsequently wrote them down, accompanied by commentaries for his heirs and distant descendants. He also prepared his sons for the oratorical field, of whom, indeed, the eldest and youngest became famous political figures of their time. The middle son remained a private person until the end of his days and never regretted it. The brothers' life, full of twists and turns, rich in anxiety and excitement, never attracted him. Moreover, he was secretly proud that he was able to achieve honor and wealth without currying favor with the plebs and without pandering to strongmen of the world this.

Seneca the Younger was interested in philosophy from his youth and initially sought to devote himself to this type of activity, but under the influence of his father, who managed to awaken in him ambition and a thirst for power, he soon began to engage in rhetoric and politics. His natural inclinations were so great that he was immediately noticed and a brilliant future was predicted from the first steps, but a cruel and long-term illness interrupted his ascent to the heights of glory. Seneca's star rises much later, when he finds himself at the court of Emperor Caligula. At first, the princeps favors him (he receives a court position and the title of senator), but soon Seneca’s successes in the rhetorical field arouse the envy of Caligula, who orders his death. Chance saves him from death, but soon a thunderstorm breaks out over his head again. Messalina, whose name has become a household name, accuses him of violating the oath of allegiance to the emperor and of high treason. However, the senators come to Seneca’s defense, and the princeps replaces the already imposed death sentence with exile.

The years of exile became for Seneca a period of developing his own system of philosophical views. Critically comprehending the works of Greek authors, in particular Zeno, Panaetius, Posidonius, followers of Epicurus, and reading the treatises of Cicero, he poses in a new way the problems of the world and man, the individual and society, the individual and the state.

In 48, Seneca returned from exile and, thanks to the efforts of Agrippina (the wife of Emperor Claudius), became the tutor of her son, the future Emperor Nero. After the latter’s accession to the throne, which was accompanied by a number of bloody events (as the historical chronicles of that time report, Nero killed his mother and brother in order to seize power), he was a mentor and close adviser to the princeps for a number of years, but soon there was a cooling between him, which very quickly escalated into an acute conflict. The emperor could not help but be disgusted by Seneca’s reasoning about conscience as the highest judge, his desire to at least to some extent limit the arbitrariness and violence committed on the direct orders of Nero. He also reacted painfully to the growing authority of Seneca among senators and the Roman nobility, suggesting that it was among them that a conspiracy was brewing against him. The princeps patience was filled with the gesture of Seneca, who, after the murder of the senator Afranius Burrus, who was close to him in spirit, who was also the mentor of young Nero, sent him a resignation letter and all the gifts that Nero presented to him for long years. The emperor did not accept either the resignation or the gifts, pretending that the relationship between him and the former teacher remained the same. But when another conspiracy of the aristocratic opposition was discovered, in which Seneca was indirectly involved, he sent his elderly teacher an order to die. Seneca obeyed the order and opened his veins. According to the testimony of Tacitus, contained in the fifteenth book of the Annals, until the moment his consciousness left him, he dictated to the scribes his thoughts about life, death and ways to achieve eudaimonia. A significant part of Seneca's dying thoughts were subsequently published. Seneca's body was burned without solemn rites, fearing that popular unrest might occur during the official funeral ceremony.

Seneca wrote many works that were read by his contemporaries. However, of their number, only a few works have reached us, including the treatises “On Mercy”, “On Benefits”, “Studies on Nature” and others. Seneca’s most famous work is the famous “Moral Letters to Lucilius”, where the quintessence of his philosophical and ethical teaching is presented in a vivid, figurative form, and also gives an outline of his ideas about the ideal of man and the goals of education. In fact, this is Seneca’s main work, where, from the point of view of his time, he solves in a new way the problem that has been the focus of attention of Roman thinkers since the time of Cicero - the problem of the civic duty of the individual and its relationship with the duty to his family, loved ones, and finally to himself.

Seneca, who experienced deep disappointment from his unsuccessful pedagogical experiment (the young man raised by him did not become an ideal ruler, as he had hoped, but one of the bloodiest tyrants in the history of the ancient world), comes to the conclusion that the main duty of a person is not a duty to a state that has degenerated into a monstrous organization where customs and laws do not apply. And the life of anyone - from an artisan to a senator - depends on the whim of one person who has tasted blood and enjoys the torment of his victims. From his point of view, fulfilling a duty to the state, which the tyrant personifies, brings nothing but anxiety and unrest. A person who puts the interests of such a state at the forefront is deprived of the opportunity to take an unbiased look at himself and understand the meaning of his individual existence. In addition, the fulfillment of duty by an individual who is a subject of the empire, and not a citizen of the republic, is often accompanied by a violation of moral principles, which means that there is no moral legitimation in the actions and deeds of the absolute majority of people who boast of their civic virtues. In the process of reasoning, Seneca comes to the conclusion that the main task that faces every person is not to live, but to live with dignity, i.e. in accordance with moral imperatives.

From here there was only one step left to an unconventional understanding of “paideia” and a new interpretation of the ideal of a person who, in accordance with Seneca’s ideas, is as cultural as he is a moral person.

Seneca introduces the concept of conscience into his philosophical teaching, meaning by the latter a moral norm realized by reason and experienced by feeling. It is the moral norm that allows a person to avoid the temptations of unprincipled pragmatism, the vulgar desire for power, wealth, and sensual pleasures achieved at any cost.

In other words, Seneca substantiates the idea that only morality turns culture into the highest value. The way to achieve this morality is in the self-improvement of a person, in the cultivation of unshakable loyalty to the developed life principles, insensitivity to losses, disdain for external goods and death itself, which inevitably comes to every person, whether he is an emperor commanding the destinies of millions or a representative of the mob, every hour caring for our daily bread.

It is not difficult to notice that the above idea echoes the thought of Kant, who many centuries later proclaimed: the final goal of nature in relation to the human race is culture, and the ultimate goal of culture is morality.

But Seneca’s role in building the foundation of cultural knowledge is not limited to this. In his works there are extremely rare statements in antiquity about the limitlessness of human abilities, about the absence of limits in the accumulation of knowledge, about the existence of progress, which he considered primarily as spiritual progress. It would not be an exaggeration to say that Seneca comes close to the idea that forms the semantic core of a number of modern concepts of culture, based on the postulate that states: man is the only living being in the universe, constantly going beyond the boundaries of his own existence in the process of creating a world created by him in his own image and likeness.

Seneca also did a lot to understand the crisis of ancient culture. He not only states the fact that ancient civilization entered the stage of decline, not only complains and groans about the greatness of Rome that has sunk into oblivion, as many authors did before and after him, but also clarifies the reasons that determined the progressive collapse of Roman society and the decline in the cultural potential of the once the most advanced power in all respects of the Ancient World, which managed to create spiritual and material values ​​of the highest standard.

From his point of view, the source of the tragedy experienced by Rome should be sought in the oblivion of the institutions of their ancestors, in the degeneration of democratic institutions, in the destruction of the old system of values ​​on which the worldview and attitude of the Romans of the period of the Republic were based, the transformation of the majority of free citizens into corrupted plebs, thirsting only for bread and spectacles. However, Seneca believes that it is not culture in general that is perishing, but the culture of his contemporary society, and there is no point in regretting this, because it has completely exhausted itself and even the omnipotent gods are unable to give it an impetus for development.

This conclusion of Seneca, which is of fundamental importance, will become the starting point for many representatives of cultural thought of subsequent centuries, who, analyzing the crises of culture, will emphasize that the death of culture is the beginning of the emergence of a new culture, which has absorbed all the best from the culture of the society that existed in the previous historical period. stages of development.

Speaking about Seneca’s contribution to cultural theory, we should dwell on one more point. Many researchers involved in ancient philosophy pay attention to the fact that Seneca was one of the few ancient Roman thinkers during the decline of the Roman Empire who substantiates the idea of ​​​​the equality of all people. From his point of view, slave and free citizen, noble and freedman, colon and princeps, Roman and barbarian - they are all members of the “community of men and gods.” Everyone born of a woman, in his opinion, is awarded from the moment of birth with reason, emotions, the ability to set goals and achieve them, i.e. a set of identical qualities, and it depends only on the person who he will become in the future.

Moreover, as Seneca teaches, nobility and wealth are not the basis for the elevation of a person above his own kind, for you can eat on gold, command thousands of people below you on the social ladder, but be a slave to your own passions and obey base desires. From here follows the idea of ​​self-education as the main means of “cultivating the soul” of a person, an idea for which Seneca will be extremely valued by the thinkers of the New Age and the Enlightenment, in particular the same Kant, for whom the problem of education is essentially the problem of self-education. In other words, Seneca proposes a new strategy for the “cultivation” of the individual, according to which the main subject and object of educational influence is the person himself.

Seneca, like Cicero, did not leave any integral cultural theory. Everything he says about culture is just some fragments arranged into the fabric of works written on completely different topics. However, what was told to them about the nature of cultural crises, about the connection between culture and morality, culture and personality, was by no means wasted. His ideas were in demand, and today, when analyzing certain cultural concepts, we do not even think about the fact that a number of their basic provisions were first formulated by Annaeus Lucius Seneca in the 1st century AD.

Jean Jacques Rousseau is an outstanding representative of the French enlightenment of the 18th century.

Biography facts and works

Rousseau was born into a simple family of a Genevan watchmaker. From a young age, he was forced to earn his living through various activities, wandering around France and Switzerland. He was a copyist of papers, a musician, a home secretary, and a servant in manor houses. Finding himself in the position of foster child in a rich aristocratic estate, Rousseau for the first time had the opportunity to engage in self-education and, through hard work, achieved extensive and versatile knowledge. He becomes a writer, but his life is still spent in constant unrest and wandering.

In 1749, the Dijon Academy announced a competition on the topic: “Has progress in the sciences and arts contributed to the improvement of morals?” By taking part in the competition, Rousseau created a talented work that aroused deep public interest. He argued that in ancient times, when people did not know civilization, they were more moral and happy. Then equality reigned, and differences between people were determined by natural reasons: abilities and work. Now people are artificially divided on the basis of their origin and wealth. Distrust, deception and enmity have taken over in human relations.

Soon Rousseau wrote two more sharp political treatises on pressing social issues. They raised his name to the heights of world fame.

Rousseau passionately called for the fight against outdated orders in the name of happiness and freedom ordinary people. But how to eliminate the existing contradiction between the natural needs of man and the social conditions for their satisfaction? What should the future free society be like? Rousseau gave a vivid answer to these questions in his work “The Social Contract.” This work had a huge influence on the views of prominent figures of the French bourgeois revolution of 1789.

The Social Contract develops the idea of ​​democracy. In the new state, created by the revolutionary energy of the people, all government institutions will be subordinated to the people's assembly, and the will of each citizen will be subordinated to state laws expressing the interests of all. People's power, according to Rousseau, is created through a general agreement, hence the title of the book. As for private property, although it was the cause of social inequality, Rousseau does not abolish it. He only demands that its size be limited, believing that everyone can be the owner of what they have acquired through personal labor.

Jean Jacques Rousseau on education

One of the most effective means of reviving society Rousseau thought upbringing. Pedagogical statements constitute an important part of his ideological heritage. In his famous novel "Emil, or About Education" and in other works (in particular, in the novel “The New Heloise,” which was read by the writer’s contemporaries), Rousseau argued that people from birth have good instincts, but become corrupted in the conditions of a deceitful civilization. Education should develop natural inclinations in a person and eliminate from his path everything that can distort them.

Rousseau's deep belief in the ideal nature of man made him a defender of children's right to happy life. He made a strong protest against feudal education based on violence against the child, when “the age of joys and happiness is spent in tears, punishments, slavery and under constant threats.” In contrast to this, he demanded love for children, providing them with conditions for free development, raising them in a natural environment, closer to nature.

Pedagogy J. J. Rousseau. Thoughts and ideas of Rousseau as a teacher

Great credit Rousseau before pedagogy- discovery of “natural stages” in the development of a child:

Rousseau was one of the few teachers who paid serious attention sex education. “For every training,” he emphasized, “there is a time that must be known and its dangers that must be avoided.”. For younger children, he advised following the following rule: “When their curiosity about something is premature or unnecessary, you can calmly put silence on their lips.” Another thing is the legitimate interest in gender issues on the part of the young man. “When he reaches the age of 16, do not hesitate to introduce him to all these dangerous secrets, which you hid from him for so long and carefully.” Educating a young man on this matter must be accurate and serious; it is necessary to reveal the true essence of human relations in this area.

“Of course, the strict truth must be told, but at the same time you must make it clear that this is one of the most serious and sacred relationships between people.”

But no matter how natural the interest young man to this side of life, it must not be allowed to absorb all his thoughts and fire his imagination. We must strive to fill his days with serious studies, great and useful hobbies, practical activities and physical work. Most of all, one should avoid idle spending of time, indiscriminate reading, a sedentary and pampered life, and the company of young idlers.”

In adolescence, sincere and intimate relationships between teacher and student are more important than ever. They ease the student’s feelings when he wants to tell his older and experienced friend about the feeling of his first youthful love. Rousseau advises taking such recognition very seriously. “You must,” he turns to the teacher, “draw in his mind the ideal of girlhood and femininity and help him fall in love so that the very purity and poetry of his feelings becomes his best educator as a man.”

Contribution to pedagogy

Despite the inconsistency and fallacy of a number of provisions, Rousseau's pedagogical doctrine played an outstanding progressive role in the development of the theory and practice of education, contributed significantly contribution to pedagogy. His works are full of ardent love for ordinary workers and imbued with deep faith in their ability to create a new, free society. They glorify a humane attitude towards children and put forward creative methods for their upbringing and education. Rousseau hated parasitism and was an ardent advocate of labor education. His pedagogical ideas , like all socio-political teachings, enjoyed enormous popularity in France during the era of the revolution, and then received worldwide recognition. They were widely known in Russia and aroused warm sympathy from its prominent representatives.

N.K. Krupskaya, who highly valued the democratic teachings of Rousseau, noted that during the heyday of the capitalist system, bourgeois ideologists extolled Rousseau, and the modern bourgeoisie treats him with hostility and condescension, treats his ideas, calling them unrealizable. Rousseau was dear to the Soviet people for his ardent democracy and optimistic faith in the ability of working people to create a new society in which true freedom, equality and fraternity would flourish.

Did you like it? Click the button:

Jean-Jacques Rousseau is one of those philosophers who will provoke discussions for a long time. Does he belong to the galaxy of thinkers or, conversely, to its most implacable critics? Did he prepare the ground for the French Revolution or did he do everything to prevent it from happening? Many biographers have broken their spears arguing about who Jean-Jacques Rousseau was. We will consider the main ideas of this philosopher, who simultaneously belonged to the schools of naturalism and sensationalism, in this article. After all, it was this man who understood that progress brings misfortune, and despotism gives rise to the lack of rights of the majority. In a situation where the majority of people lived practically below the poverty line, he cherished ideas about universal equality.

The views of Jean-Jacques Rousseau: what underlies them

The main motive of the philosopher’s ideas is the requirement to bring society out of the state in which it now finds itself. That is, from a situation of general depravity. His fellow educators argued that this was possible, if only the princes and rulers were educated correctly. And also establish a republic where everyone will receive equal material goods and political rights. Rousseau believed that the main principle of a proper society lies in correct moral thinking. The philosopher said that “every person is virtuous” when his “private will corresponds in everything to the general will.” Morality for him was the main measure of everything. Therefore, he believed that without virtue there is no real freedom does not exist. But his life was like a refutation of his entire philosophy.

Biography. Youth and early career

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose main ideas we are analyzing, was born in the city of Geneva and, according to his religious beliefs, was a Calvinist in his childhood. His mother died during childbirth, and his father fled the city because he became a victim of criminal prosecution. WITH early age he was apprenticed, but neither the notary nor the engraver, under whose subordination the future philosopher was, loved him. The fact is that he preferred to voraciously read books rather than work. He was often punished, and he decided to run away. He came to the neighboring region - Savoy, which was Catholic. There, not without the participation of Madame de Varan, his first patroness, he became a Catholic. Thus began the ordeal of the young thinker. He works as a footman in an aristocratic family, but does not settle down there and goes back to Madame de Varan. With her help, he goes to study at the seminary, leaves it, wanders around France for two years, often spending the night in the open air, and again returns to his former love. Even the presence of another admirer of the “mother” does not bother him. For several years, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose biography in his youth was so different from his subsequent views, either leaves or returns to Madame de Varan and lives with her in Paris, Chambery and other places.

Maturity

Stay for a long time as the protégé of an aging lady was ultimately considered impossible by Rousseau. He tried to earn money, but was unsuccessful. He was unable to teach children or work as the ambassador's secretary. He had problems with all employers. Misanthropy gradually penetrates into the character of this person. He doesn't get along with people. Nature is what begins to fascinate such a lover of solitude as Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The philosopher's biography suddenly takes a sharp turn - he marries a maid serving in one of the hotels. She was a rude one, which he did not like at all, but she fed him. He sent all his children to the orphanage, later claiming that he did not have money to support his family. He continued to work part-time in various temporary positions, and then, as a secretary, he entered the society of Encyclopedists, who met at home. One of his first friends was The latter was often persecuted for One day, when Jean-Jacques went to visit Diderot in prison, he read in the newspaper a competitive advertisement for a prize for better job on the topic of whether science and art are useful for society. The young man wrote an essay denouncing culture and civilization. Oddly enough, it was he, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who received first place. The main ideas of his philosophy were expressed in this text. This is how his biography as a thinker began.

Glory

Since then, Rousseau lived a brilliant ten years. He wrote music and operettas that were performed on the royal stage. He was fashionable in high society. And since his main idea was the rejection of his contemporary culture, he abandoned the principles of a rich and prosperous life, began to dress simply (and even rudely) and began to communicate vulgarly and offensively with his aristocratic friends. He made his living by copying music. Although society ladies showered him with gifts, all the gifts went to his greedy wife. Soon the philosopher wrote another work, which became popular. The political ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau appeared for the first time in this work. Arguing about how inequality occurred, the thinker believed that everything that underlies the life of modern society - the state, laws, division of labor - all this led to moral decline. One of Rousseau’s connoisseurs, Madame d’Epinay, built a special “Hermitage” for him on her property in the middle of the forest, where the philosopher could indulge in thoughts alone. However, after an unsuccessful affair with a young married aristocrat, which led to a scandal among the Eniclopedists, Rousseau breaks with his comrades.

Problems

The philosopher finds shelter with the Duke of Luxembourg, where he lives for another four years and writes many works. One of them brings the wrath of the Church upon him, and he flees from the court sentence of the Parisian parliament. Taking refuge in his native Switzerland, he sees that he is also not welcome here - the government of the canton of Berne is expelling the philosopher. The Prussian king provides him with a new refuge - Rousseau spends another three years in the village of Motiers. However, then his quarrelsome nature causes him to quarrel with all the surrounding residents. Trying to start new life, he comes to Geneva and again accepts Calvinism, but he cannot get along peacefully with representatives of this denomination, and begins to quarrel with them. The apogee of these problems was the conflict with another “ruler of thoughts” of that era - Voltaire, who also lived near Geneva, on the Fernet estate. A mocking rival uses pamphlets to survive Jean-Jacques of Motiers, and Rousseau is forced to flee to England. He accepts the invitation of another philosopher, Hume. But it’s impossible to get along with him either, and after a while the new friend declares Russo crazy.

Wanderings and death

The philosopher returns to Paris, wanders again, finding refuge first with one friend, then with another. Voltaire begins to publish pamphlets about what a terrible life a man named Rousseau Jean-Jacques lived. The philosophy and actions of this “hypocrite” do not coincide at all, the opponent notes. In response, Rousseau writes the famous “Confession”, trying to justify his past and present. But him mental illness progresses. His health is rapidly deteriorating, and soon, according to one version, during a concert organized in his honor, the philosopher suddenly dies. His grave on the Isle of Willows became a place of pilgrimage for fans of the thinker, who believed that Rousseau had fallen victim to public ostracism.

Rousseau Jean-Jacques. Philosophy of escapism

As already mentioned, the thinker’s first works were competitive “Discourses” on the arts, sciences and the origin of inequality. Subsequently, he wrote such works as “The Social Contract”, “Emile, or Education of the Sentiments” and “The New Heloise”. Some of his works are written in the form of essays and some as novels. It was the latter that Jean-Jacques Rousseau became most famous for. The basic ideas about denouncing civilization and culture from which one should flee, expressed by him in his youth, find their natural continuation. The main thing in a person, as the philosopher believed, is not the mind at all, but the feelings. The basic instincts of a moral being should be recognized as Conscience and Genius. Unlike reason, they do not make mistakes, although they are often unconscious. The Renaissance, which everyone admires, led to a real decline in society, because the sciences, arts and industrial development that began at that time led to the alienation of people from each other and the emergence of artificial needs. And the task of a real philosopher is to make a person united again and, accordingly, happy.

Historical views

But it was not only the Renaissance and its achievements that Jean-Jacques Rousseau denounced. The theory of the social contract is one of his main philosophical conclusions. Criticizing contemporary political ideas, it contradicts Hobbes, who was popular at the time. In the primitive era, Rousseau believes, there was no “war of all against all,” but there was a real “golden age.” The modern fallen society begins with the advent of private property - as soon as someone staked out a plot and declared: “This is mine,” the childish innocence of humanity disappeared. Of course, it is impossible to reverse science, but it is possible to slow down progress as such. To do this, it is necessary to conclude a social contract and create a republic of equal small owners. All issues there will be resolved not through separation of powers, but through referendums.

What should a person be like?

Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote a lot about education. A person, first of all, must be a natural being, because all his basic principles are determined by nature. Since feelings, as we have already found out, are the main thing in people, then they should be developed. Superfluous reasoning only tires, and does not exalt at all. The real dignity of a person comes from the heart, not from the mind. People try not to hear the voice of conscience, but this is the call of Nature itself. In his pursuit of civilization, man forgot about this and became deaf. Therefore, he should return to his ideal, represented by the image of the “noble savage”, surrendering to the spontaneity of feelings, and not broken by the unnecessary demands of artificial etiquette.

Enlightenment and education

The philosopher's views are full of contradictions. While attacking culture and science, Rousseau, nevertheless, always used their fruits and recognized their necessity and undoubted merits in the education of man. He believed, like many of his contemporaries, that if rulers listened to philosophers, then society would become more perfect. But this is not the only contradiction that was characteristic of such a thinker as Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The philosopher's pedagogical ideas place hopes on enlightenment, which he so criticized. It is this that can make it possible to raise worthy citizens, and without this, both rulers and subordinates will be just slaves and liars. But at the same time, one must remember that a person’s childhood is his memory of the lost paradise of the golden age, and try to take as much as possible from nature.

Virtue is the basis of everything

Although the philosopher's life did not correspond to his views, morality plays an important role in his works. Emotions and sympathy, from the point of view of the thinker, are the main basis of virtue, and the latter lies at the basis of man and society. This is what Rousseau Jean-Jacques thought. about morality, nature and religion are very similar. Both virtue and faith must be subordinate to nature, he said. Only then will society be ideal when between inner world of a person, his moral, emotional and rational components will achieve harmony with the interests of all members of society. Therefore, individuals must overcome their moral alienation from each other and not become like politicians who “no longer seem mad wolves...than on Christians...who want to return their opponents to the path of truth.”

Rousseau's influence on his own and subsequent centuries was undeniable. His ideas about the contrast between selfishness and virtue, justice and the treachery of false laws, the greed of owners and the innocence of the poor, as well as dreams of a return to nature were taken up by romantics, fighters for a better social order and social rights, seekers of solidarity and brotherhood.

Rousseau, as a conductor of new social and political ideals, especially in three main his works: in “New Heloise”, “Emile” and “The Social Contract”.

The sovereign general assembly of citizens (le Grand Conseil) established the state, established a government for it, and even gave it a religion, declaring the teachings of Calvin as the state religion. This democratic spirit, full of Old Testament theocratic traditions, came to life in Rousseau, a descendant of the Huguenots. True, since the 16th century. this spirit weakened in Geneva: the government (le Petit Conseil) actually became the decisive force. But it was with this city government that Rousseau was at odds; to its predominance he attributed everything that he did not like about contemporary Geneva - its falling away from the original ideal, as he imagined it. And this ideal was in front of him when he began to write his “Social Contract”. Ten years after Rousseau's death, France entered a crisis similar to that experienced in Russia in 1998 and the world in 2009-2010.

In a letter to Grimm, he even exclaims: “It is not so much those nations whose laws are bad as those who despise them that are truly corrupt.” For the same reasons, Rousseau, when he had to deal with purely theoretical considerations about political reforms in France, treated them with extreme caution. Analyzing the project of the Abbé de Saint-Pierre, who proposed that the king surround himself with elected advisers, Rousseau wrote: “for this it would be necessary to start with the destruction of everything that exists, and who does not know how dangerous in a large state is the moment of anarchy and crisis that must precede the establishment of a new system. The very introduction of an elective principle into the matter should entail a terrible shock and would rather produce a convulsive and continuous vibration of each particle than give strength to the whole body... Even if all the advantages of the new plan were indisputable, then what sane person would dare to destroy ancient customs, eliminate old principles and change the form of the state that was gradually created over a long series of thirteen centuries?...” And this most timid man and suspicious citizen became Archimedes, who knocked France out of its centuries-old rut. The lever was the “Social Contract” and the principle of inalienable, indivisible and infallible democracy derived from it. The outcome of the fatal dilemma that arose for France in the spring of 1789 - “reform or revolution” - was determined by the decision of the question of whether the constituent power of the government would remain or would unconditionally pass to the national assembly. This question was predetermined by Rousseau's treatise - by the deep conviction in the sanctity of the dogma of democracy that he instilled in everyone. The conviction was all the more profound because it was rooted in another principle pursued by Rousseau - the principle of abstract equality.

The “social contract” is known to the people in power only in the form of a homogeneous mass, shunning all differences. And Rousseau not only formulated the principles of 1789, he also gave the very formula for the transition from the “old order” to the new, from the states general to the “national assembly.” The famous pamphlet of Sieyes, which prepared this coup, is all contained in the following words of Rousseau: “what in a certain country they dare to call the third estate (tiersétat) is the people. This nickname reveals that it is placed in the foreground and in the background private interest the first two classes, while public interest is placed in third place.” Among the principles of 1789 is freedom, which the National Assembly has long and sincerely tried to establish; but it became incompatible with the further unstoppable progress of the revolution. Rousseau gave the slogan for the transition to the second phase of the revolution - the Jacobin one - by recognizing coercion as legitimate, that is, violence for the purposes of freedom. This fatal sophistry is all Jacobinism. It would be in vain for anyone to note the sayings with which Rousseau condemned in advance certain features of Jacobin politics and terror. “There is no,” says, for example, Rousseau, “a general will, where a single party is so great that it prevails over others.” From this point of view, the Jacobin dictatorship proclaimed in 1793 is contrary to the principle of democracy. Rousseau contemptuously turns away from that part of the people that was later an instrument of Jacobin rule - from “the stupid, stupid rabble, incited by troublemakers, capable only of selling themselves, preferring bread to freedom.” He indignantly rejects the very principle of terror, exclaiming that to sacrifice the innocent to save the crowd is one of the most disgusting principles of tyranny. Such anti-Jacobin antics of Rousseau gave one of the most ardent supporters of the policy of “public salvation” a good reason to proclaim Rousseau an “aristocrat” worthy of the guillotine. Despite this, Rousseau was the main forerunner of the revolution that at the end of the 18th century. happened in France. It has rightly been said that Rousseau's revolutionary character is manifested mainly in his feelings. He created the mood that ensured the success of the theory of the social contract. The stream of revolutionary feelings coming from Rousseau is found in two directions - in the denunciation of “society” and in the idealization of the “people”. Contrasting nature with the brilliance of poetry and idyllic feeling to the society of his time, Rousseau confuses society with his reproaches of artificiality and instills in it self-doubt. His philosophy of history, denouncing the origin of society from deceit and violence, becomes for him a living reproach of conscience, depriving him of the desire to stand up for himself. Finally, the malicious feeling that Rousseau has for the noble and rich and which he skillfully puts into the mouth of the aristocratic hero (“New Heloise”) prompts him to attribute vices to them and deny their ability to virtue. The “people” is opposed to the corrupted upper layer of society. Thanks to the idealization of the masses, living by instinct and uncorrupted by culture, the pale rationalistic idea of ​​the people-ruler receives flesh and blood, arouses feelings and passions. Rousseau’s concept of the people becomes comprehensive: he identifies it with humanity (c’est le peuple qui fait le genre humain) or declares: “what is not part of the people is so insignificant that it is not worth the trouble to count it.” Sometimes the people mean that part of the nation that lives in communion with nature, in a state close to it: “the village people (le peuple de la campagne) make up the nation.” Even more often, Rousseau narrows the concept of the people to the proletariat: by the people he then means the “pathetic” or “unhappy” part of the people. He considers himself one of them, sometimes moved by the poetry of poverty, sometimes grieving over it and acting as a “sorrower” for the people. He claims that real state law has not yet been developed, because none of the publicists took into account the interests of the people. Rousseau, with sharp irony, reproaches his famous predecessors for such disdain for the people: “the people do not distribute departments, pensions, or academic positions, and that is why the scribes (faiseurs de livres) do not care about them.” The sad lot of the people endows them with a new sympathetic feature in the eyes of Rousseau: in poverty he sees the source of virtue. The constant thought of his own poverty, that he was a victim of public tyranny, merged in Rousseau with the consciousness of his moral superiority over others. He transferred this idea of ​​a kind, sensitive and oppressed person to the people - and created the ideal type of the virtuous poor man (le pauvre vertueux), who in fact is legitimate son nature and the true lord of all the treasures of the earth. From this point of view, there can be no alms: charity is only the repayment of a debt. Emil’s governor, who gave alms, explains to his student: “my friend, I do this because when the poor deigned to have rich people in the world, the latter promised to feed those who could not support themselves either with their property or with the help of work.” It was this combination of political rationalism and social sensitivity that Rousseau became the spiritual leader of the revolution of 1789-94.

(1812 – 1878)

Jean Jacques Rousseau occupies a special place not only in the history of philosophy, but also among the philosophers of the Enlightenment. Unlike other enlightenment philosophers, Rousseau believes that the development of culture leads to the degradation of man and society, science and art are the cause of the decline of morality, and the cult of reason replaces cordiality. Criticizing civilization, he calls: “Back to nature!”

Rousseau criticizes not only official religion, but also atheism. Being a deist, unlike Voltaire, he finds the basis of faith in God not so much in reason as in direct feeling, personal experience.

Alone among the enlighteners, Rousseau defended the interests and dignity of the poorest segments of the population. Fighting for freedom and equality, he puts forward a hypothesis about the cause of the origin of inequality, and also proposes his program for transforming society, based on democracy. His treatise “The Social Contract” had a huge influence on the leaders of the Great French Revolution.

Rousseau became famous not only for the originality of his ideas, but also for the form of their presentation, not only as a philosopher, but also as a brilliant writer. His views had big influence to subsequent philosophy, sociology, psychology, pedagogy, aesthetics.

The Dijon Academy announced a competition in 1750 on the topic: “Has the revival of the sciences and arts contributed to the improvement of morals? Rousseau submitted a treatise to the competition and was awarded a prize. He gave a negative answer to the question posed: the successes of the sciences and arts led not to improvement, but to the deterioration of morals. What was the reason for this unexpected answer?

1. Sciences and arts take the place of morality, replace and displace it. This leads to alienation of a person from his nature: instead of truth - appearance, instead of morality - etiquette, instead of personal - general, instead of warmth - rationality, instead of deeds - words, instead of practice - theory, instead of good deeds - useless knowledge. Rousseau opposes the conventions of culture - manifestations of hypocrisy, falsehood, hypocrisy: “There is no sincere friendship, no real respect, no complete trust, and under the monotonous and treacherous mask of politeness, under this vaunted politeness, which we owe to the enlightenment of our century, suspicions are hidden, fears, mistrust, coldness, second thoughts, hatred and betrayal.”

2. The sciences and arts serve an unjust society built on the oppression of the poor by the rich, slaves by masters, commoners by the nobles, and the weak by the strong.: “While government and law protect public safety and the welfare of fellow citizens, sciences, literature and art are less despotic, but perhaps the more powerful ones wrap garlands of flowers around the iron chains that bind people, drown out in them the natural feeling of freedom for which they were seemingly born, force them to love their slavery and create so-called civilized nations.”

3. “The sciences and arts owe their origin to our vices.” One of them is luxury. It gives rise to science and art, and they, in turn, increase luxury, and “luxury is incompatible with good morals,” “addiction to luxury never gets along with honesty... And what will virtue turn into if people are faced with the need to enrich themselves with something?” come what may? Ancient politicians impartially talked about morals and virtue, ours talk only about trade and money... They regard people as a herd of cattle. In their opinion, each person is of a certain value to the state only as a consumer...”

In the second treatise, Rousseau explores the question of the origin of inequality between people. To answer this question, Rousseau uses the concept of the original “state of nature.” Hobbes believed that in the “state of nature” “man is a wolf to man” and there is a “war of all against all.” Rousseau puts forward his point of view: a natural (natural) man - a savage - is neither evil nor good, but inclined to compassion.

Subsequently, the mind develops, a number of revolutions take place in technology, and production improves. And as a result of all this, private property arises. The founder of civil society, Rousseau argues, was the one who “first ... attacked the idea, by enclosing a piece of land, to say: “This is mine.”

Hobbes believed that to end wars, a transition from the “natural” state to the “civil” state is necessary. Rousseau, on the contrary, proves that the “most fierce war” began precisely after humanity left the “natural state.”

The rich took selfish advantage of the misfortunes of the masses. They invited people to recognize the supreme power over themselves, which, on the basis of laws, should protect all members of society. The laws “further increased the power of the rich, irrevocably destroyed freedom, forever strengthened property and inequality, turned a clever seizure into an inviolable right, and doomed - for the benefit of a few ambitious people - the entire human race to labor, poverty and slavery.”

The emergence of property and developing inequality is accompanied by moral degradation. From a free person turns into a slave (including the master). Selfishness, ambition, greed, envy, cruelty and other vices - these are the traits of a civilized or sociable person. Rousseau contrasts him with the primitive, natural man, or savage. The savage thinks “only about peace and freedom,” he “lives within himself.” On the contrary, a “social” person is always outside himself; he can only live in the opinions of others. In the “social” state, everything becomes artificial and feigned and represents only a deceptive and empty appearance: honor without virtue, reason without wisdom and pleasure without happiness.

Jean Jacques Rousseau "The Social Contract"

In 1762, Rousseau wrote his treatise, The Social Contract. It is based on the idea that government can only be based on a social contract that meets the will of the people. Its goal should be freedom and equality. Violence cannot be a source of law.

In his treatise, Rousseau tries to solve the problem of overcoming the contradiction between the general and the personal, to find a form of state that “protects and protects the personality and property of each member and in which everyone, uniting with everyone else, still obeys only himself and remains just as free.” , as before".

To solve this problem, Rousseau introduces the concepts of “general will” and “will for all.” The “general will” is that in which all private wills coincide. “A will for all” is a collection of private wills, each of which pursues its own special interest. If we discard all existing disagreements from the “will of all,” then some average opinion will remain. This will be the “general will”.

The expression of the “general will” is possible only if each citizen casts his vote separately from others (plebiscite). The existence of parties is contrary to the “general will.”

In his Social Contract, Rousseau puts forward the demand for the unity of politics and morality.

Some time later, in 1762, Rousseau’s next work, “Emile, or On Education,” was published. The basis of Rousseau's pedagogy is the philosophy of feelings. Rousseau insists on the primacy of feelings and the secondary nature of reason. Therefore, first we need to develop feelings: “...our first teachers of philosophy are our feet, our hands, our eyes.” Sensations are unmistakable; delusion begins with judgment.

According to Rousseau, the criterion for selecting objects of knowledge and the time when they need to be studied is benefit.

Rousseau insists that the main thing in a person is not thoughts and knowledge, but feelings and passions. The feelings that nature has endowed us with are innate. These are feelings that contribute to our self-preservation: self-love, fear of suffering, aversion to death, desire for well-being. The innate feeling, thanks to which a person can become a social being, is the principle of justice and virtue, which Rousseau calls conscience. Conscience is “the infallible judge of good and evil, making a person like God.”

“Everything is good, coming out of the hands of the creator of things, everything degenerates in the hands of man.” These words could be set as an epigraph to all of Rousseau's works.

Rousseau's providences turned out to be prophetic. In the twentieth century they gained character global problems modernity. The development of the contradiction between civilization and nature has reached such a level that it can cause the death of all humanity. The unity of science and morality is the problem of the survival of mankind. The contradiction between art and morality manifested itself in monstrous forms. The contradiction between wealth and poverty, luxury and poverty, domination and slavery not only has not lost its significance, but has acquired enormous proportions. Cold rationality replaces the warmth of immediate human feelings. The psychology of a “consumer” society is conquering the world, in which the place of moral relations has been taken by the cult of trade, profit, money and things.

Rousseau's passionate appeal for the revival of morality is more than relevant today!