Key lecture notes
my thoughts
Today's lecture was an introduction to the topic of Romanticism. I studied Romanticism as part of my A-level English literature course, but only in the sense of studying the changes in poetry and novels from that time.
The Romantic period has always been something that has interested me because I am fascinated by the way that society seemed to back track on itself during this time, where the progression of empirical ideas seemed somewhat irrelevant. I am always impressed with the way that people can completely change the way in which we progress as a species and the Romantic period is one of the best examples of this. There is nothing in the universe that forces us to progress whether it be technologically, scientifically, socially, politically, philosophically, etc; it is something which we seem to naturally keep doing and I find it hard to imagine that we will ever cease to progress in the same way as the Romantic period.
Today I learnt about the massive influence Jean-Jaques Rousseau had on Romanticism. Rousseau presented his ideas towards the end of the 18th Century, but it wasn't until the 19th Century and particularly during the French Revolution that other people tried to put his ideas into place in society.
As I have mentioned in my previous posts, the 18th Century was hugely important in terms of the development of and discovery in the scientific world which lead to a move away from dogma from the church and into empiricism. The Romantic period saw a shift from empiricism towards subjectivity. This meant that rather than understanding how the world around us works people started to focus more on how they worked in the sense that there was more concern for human emotion and sensitivity. Personally I think that this is the best way for society to function, but in moderation! I think that it is important for us to act in such a way that we consider our emotions and importantly the emotions of others around us. However, I can also see how structure and laws in society prevents extreme behaviour. In this sense I would have to agree with Locke's ideas of society that people should not have total free will because disputes will arise so it is necessary to have a government to sort these disputes. Rousseau on the other hand suggests that people should have complete free will because we obey the rules by obey ourselves.
Rousseau believed that the developments of the Enlightenment had tainted man's knowledge and life, and that nothing in books or life was the truth. He believed that truth could only be found in the nature. He also believed that the natural, primal state of man is the most virtuous. I recently watch a documentary on the BBC called Human Planet in which we are shown the most extreme environments that man has learned to survive in. There was one episode which focused on how man has adapted to live in the jungle. The tribes who live in the jungles live in harmony with nature and I imagine that this is the kind of lifestyle which Rousseau believed to be virtuous. Below is a clip from the programme which shows the first footage of a tribe living in the Brazilian rain forest. The tribe are one of the few remaining tribes in the world which have remained "untouched" by modern life in the sense that they have had no contact at all with anyone outside of their tribe and appear to be blissfully unaware of the advances that have been made in all aspects of life. I often wonder what it would be like to be a member of one of these tribes, and I imagine it would be similar to how Rousseau imagined it to be , free, simple and virtuous living in harmony with nature.
Although Rousseau thought that this way of live wold be the best possible way for us to live, he also accepted the fact that this would never be possible in reality. I completely agree with Rousseau about this because it is obvious that man has become too accustomed to and dependant on modern life. For instance, if I were to be taken out of modern society and placed in a jungle there is no way that I would be able to survive! This is so much of a fact that the ITV reality TV show "I'm a celebrity get me out of here!" is based entirely around the concept that people who live privileged lives are unable to survive even a few weeks in a natural habitat. This however is not even a true attempt to live in the natural world because the celebrities are given beds, meals, clothes etc and have people on guard at all times to intervene should nature get the better of any of the contestants. In a way this proves that we cannot even attempt to live in the natural world fully, that is something which is seen as impossible, yet viewers of the programme act as if the celebrities have been completely removed from civilisation, when in actual fact they are simply participating in what can only be described as a glorified camping trip!
It could be argued that man has been struggling to live in harmony with nature from the beginning of time, for example the Neanderthals started created tools in order to help them become more efficient in their struggle with the natural world. To this day man does not work around nature, instead we find ways to make nature work around our lives. For example we construct dams to try and store and control the flow of water in a way that is convenient to us, and we clear huge masses of land in order to build on rather than finding areas that are suitable for us to live in.
In order to make his beliefs of the virtuous natural state of man fit with the fact that man can never return to a natural state, Rousseau tried to create a structure in which we are free not in a physical sense, but free to behave in whatever way we want to. Rousseau said that "man is born free but everywhere is in chains." By this he meant that we are born free but are then chained by the restrictions imposed on us by society and laws. He believed that a free society would be one in which man obeyed the law by obeying himself; so that rules were followed but only ones which were agreed upon by everyone. For example if you choose to eat toast every morning then it would not impose on your free will if a rule was created to say that you must eat toast in the morning, because that is something you want to do and happily agree to doing. There is a dilemma with this way of creating laws though in the sense that Rousseau suggest we must only do things which we are happy to do, however that system would mean that some people ended up doing things which they didn't want to. For example, if one person hated toast then they would not be following the rule because they want to, they would be following it because they had to, and so they would not longer be free to do what they want. In a way, this dilemma means that Rousseau;s suggestion is in fact what is happening in society today. We follow rules and some people follow them because they agree with them and would behave in that way anywhere, where as there are some people who only follow them because they are told to do so - does this mean that only the people who follow the rules because they want to are free?
Rousseau wrote a book outlining his beliefs about how society should function and sent it to Voltaire, a french writer and philosopher. Voltaire completely disagreed with Rousseau's suggestions, stating that "No one has used such intelligence to persuade us to be stupid. After reading your book one feels as if one should walk on all fours." This criticism was not limited to Voltaire and very few people listened to Rousseau or held his beliefs with any credibility. It was not until the French Revolution that Rousseau's ideas started to become integrated into society.
The French Revolution started in 1789, just over a decade after Rousseau died. It stemmed from the fact that France was completely bankrupt as was the King, Louis XVI. In order to find a solution to this King Louis XVI convened with all three estates of France, the monarchy/aristocracy (1st estate), the clergy (2nd estate) and the rest of the civilians (3rd estate). It was during this time that the 3rd estate decided that things needed to change, they were no longer happy with the King having all the power, they wanted to have a democracy which was fair to everyone.
The third estate convened in a national assembly where they created a constitution. The new constitution reflected the beliefs of Rousseau because it focused on the rights of man, the belief that all men are born free and equal and the importance of free will. The want for change led to the French Revolution. The Revolution was quite slow to start until the storming of the Bastille which acted as a catalyst.
It was during the Revolution that the guillotine was invented, and was used to execute the King and the Queen Marie Antoinette. This was not only important in the sense that the civilians had the King killed, but also because the guillotine meant that everyone was killed in the same way - even royalty. This meant that there was equality of men even at death.
The Revolution resulted in massive changes in society and interested many people who were excited by the changes, for example Wordsworth and Mary Wollstonecraft were particularly excited by this. They both visited France during this time and Wordsworth said of the Revolution: "Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, but to be young was very heaven." This sums up perfectly just how much the French Revolution impacted society.
No comments:
Post a Comment