A ramble of questions on Rousseau

(Free-write from 2021)

I think I am now personally moving towards the secondary stage of Rousseau’s social development. That is why I am so uncomfortable. 

Moving from the freedom of pre-moral individuality, I step into a connected society which draws upon my responsibility and moral care for others.

In Rousseau’s mentality, love does not exist within individuality. Where man was originally free, he did not possess the possibility nor desire for love. But with the coming of connectedness and community, we are also confronted with comparison, jealousy, and choice of who we love, who we accept, and who we are connected to. In many ways, love produces bondage.

So the original question still remains: Is man’s personal traits innate from fetal existence, or do we develop our traits with the environment we are born into? The answer has always seemed to me to be both. But then how do Hobbes and Rousseau rebut one another?

Society=Dependence

Is dependence weakness? Is interconnectedness a failure of man, or, as Hobbes argues, a strength? 

Rousseau considers “dependence as the greatest deprivation of freedom”

Yet, we are already here, there is nowhere else to go, as Thoreau demonstrates. Whether we exist within community now or we remove ourselves from it, we will always remain dependent upon some benefits and detriments that community has given us. Even Thoreau, who thinking himself wise and sufficient, moves into a cabin in the woods for a year, discovers that all of the things that have provided him survival and comfort, were provided to him by others. Even in absence, he was dependent. He was not alone.

Rousseau argues the dependence upon the law of freedom as the only solution. A dramatic giving up of self in order to find oneself. Unfortunately, this idea would only work if every single human were also willing to fully give up self and autonomy in order to give self and autonomy. But that is unrealistic and impossible within broad society. There is no broad community wherein every man is able to truly renounce his self in order to create a free community. Perhaps one might observe this format within the enclave of a family, or maybe even within a small village; but otherwise, the only possibility for this situation to occur would be within a forceful and endangering society, wherein individuals are required by some force to comply with rules and expectations.

Though forceful compliance may be technically effective in the continuation of society, and in some ways provide humanity with a sense of freedom within compliance, it only functions when people forego (or are brainwashed to forego) their own innate desires and mould themselves to fit within the expectations and law. 

This form of law is effective. I have experienced it within my own family structures. By subtly convincing a group that they will be safe, cared for, and loved if they fit within projected guidelines, the human tendency to strive for comfort, self-preservation, and (dare I write it) belonging, wins at the expense of their true self and their actual natural desires.

So which is more natural to humanity: The need for freedom, or the need for belonging?

Are they different in different people? Are they of equal weight within us as children? Isn’t there a space where people discover freedom through belonging? Or belonging within their freedom? Or is it necessary that the two are diametrically opposed?

How does personal privilege fit within love. Bondage? Is there a connection? 

There certainly is within the conversation of superiority. 

Are there those who are superior? And when we say superior, do we mean morally, efficiency, intellectually, financially? What contexts of superiority fall within the conversation? 

Physical, intellectual and moral levels vary. We are all circle a line called human existence, and while each of use averages out to walk along this timeline of life (a thread in a tapestry), one person’s IQ may extend above the line, while their EQ falls below. Or their physical ability may rise, while their moral sensitivity slips. But it cannot be so that any of these human attributes contribute to the lessening or heightening of human value. 

That is, if I believe at my core that such a thing as innate human value exists. If so, where does this innate value come from? Are these beliefs remnants from my religious background: the idea of humans being fashioned after the image of God? If not that, then perhaps it stems from my experience of the light and energy I experience through human interaction? Do I believe humans have more of an innate human value than that of creatures, nature, and otherwise? Because other things provide the same light to me. When I am in nature, my own light brightens far greater than if I am with other humans. So then, this light cannot be the core of innate human value.

Perhaps intellect? The ability to use reason? That is how most past philosophers have justified the greater importance of humanity v. The rest of existence. But our ability to use reason is just a way that we communicate our thoughts and perspectives to one another, using language. All other creatures have similar forms of communication, we merely don’t understand them and cannot decipher them. So it likely cannot be reason either, because most creatures exhibit some aspects of reason as well. Is it that Humans have greater reason-enactment history? We use reason and then actively strive to change our situations based upon our power of reason. But animals do that too. Perhaps less effectively, less deadly to other living things, less coordinated. 

I think of Dobby. The only main difference I see between her and humans is that she is more detrimentally loyal and trustworthy than most humans are. Her reason and logic for survival is outweighed by her desire to love and care for her humans. Do I think that I have more innate value than Dobby? And if I do, why? Am I superior to her? Perhaps I am more self-sufficient. Is that the function of logic? To secure oneself against the harmful nature of the big world? 

If innate human value exists, how does that impact our perspective of society building and leadership. Innate human value throws off a great deal of gears in the engine of community. If every human is not equal, then we would find it easy to subdue and oppress the “lessers” in order to fabricate a “greater.” Only, the difficulty is that everyone possesses their own individual perspective of what constitutes “greater” and “lesser.” Even the intellectuals, the powers, the authority seekers, the kindness creators within their own ranks have unique ideas about how those characteristics value out. Thus, every group of people will continue to fight and strive for superiority. There will be a perpetual cyclical overthrowing and re-ruling wherein no peaceful rest will last for more than a few generations. 

But even if innate human value exists, that does not diminish the desire each person seems to possess for power. Perhaps not grand power over the masses, but certainly individual power over their own existence. And the difficulty I run into is that personal power tends to overrun into other people’s power bubbles quickly. I cannot be truly free to live out whatever makes me feel truly at peace and hopeful, because the exact moment I pursue and achieve freedom, I encroach upon the territory of another person’s freedom. 

How does the concept of self, connect to the desire for freedom. Can one have a deep connection with—and understanding of—self without first experiencing true intellectual and spiritual freedom? I am seeking myself, and that is adding to my frenzied grasping for freedom. My soul is lit with a fiery pursuit of individuality. 

In looking internally, I find that self and freedom are one and the same. I define freedom as the ability to be wholly present and full within myself. To exist as only I, without pretenses or expectations projected upon me from any other source. 

But that functions from the idea that there is an innate self, that we possess characteristics that are solely our own design, without the influence of external developments. 

So then I am met with a tragic question: Is freedom—as I am currently defining it—possible?

Depending upon the answer, should I change my definition or should I change my question?

Now then, in this context, freedom seems to me to be more a matter of personal mentality and approach, rather than a needed external change. While external people (especially authority figures) can take active steps towards minimizing their attempt at influence/control, at the end of the day, the only thing that can define one’s freedom is their internal decision to remain free.