I’m 10 minutes into this lecture and there are already big issues with your interpretation of philosophy and history. Firstly, to classify Kant as an anti-enlightenment figure and a faith oriented philosophy is just silly. Read kant’s essay entitled “What is enlightenment?”, in it he details enlightenment positively as the movement which argues to “have the courage to use your own reason”, explicitly, he states that good reason is one in which we don’t take authority as our guide as to what is true. We use our own individual capacity to reason to break through preconceived dogmas. He is most definitely pro-enlightenment. His struggles were against church dogmas at the time, which other enlightenment thinkers also attack. To put more weight behind this, in his magnum opus “critique of pure reason” he critiques each one of the main arguments for god’s existence in the later parts of the book. The ontological argument, cosmological argument, teleological argument etc. I suggest you take the time to look into those works, the first is a short read and might show you more about some holes in your interpretation. As for Rousseau, again a lot of misunderstandings. Rousseau, as with later radical figures, realized that the enlightenment and individualism has failed to live up to its promises. Only with a change of social conditions could these promises be successful. An important distinction for Rousseau, outlined in the first discourse on inequality, he argues that the individual cannot be free if his society makes him unfree; he argues inequality is a major factor in individual unfreedom, for him, there are natural inequalities that are unavoidable and unnatural ones which are avoidable. In addressing the latter humans have the ability to not be driven by horrible emotional desires but by human reason. In the first discourse he writes, “the extreme inequality in our lifestyle: excessive idleness among some, excessive labor among others; the ease with which we arouse and satisfy our appetites and sensuality;….excesses of all kinds, immoderate outbursts of every passion, bouts of fatigue and mental exhaustion; countless sorrows and afflictions, which are felt by all levels of society and which perpetually gnaw away away at souls: these are the fatal proofs that most of our ills are of our own making, and they could have been avoided by preserving the simple, regular, and solitary lifestyle prescribed to us by nature.” Here he argues FOR a free individuality, and sees inequality as the cause for unfreedom of the individual. Also, it’s also clear here that your argument that Rousseau is somehow arguing for emotion and a feeling as opposed to reason is not accurate. On the contrary, he argues excessive emotion is a symptom of the problem. To really drive this home, and to show your analysis is severely lacking, he makes another distinction on two types of self-love or selfishness. Amour propre is the selfishness of meeting the expectations of others, sacrificing our own individuality for the collectives expectations. He makes this clear this kind of self-love is the product of inequality and the failures to realize individuality. In contrast to this, he argues for amour de soi, which is a self-love which comes from within your own person, it is a love that doesn’t stem from some collective but only you as an individual. So, Rousseau couldn’t possibly be anti-individualism, actually he explicitly argues for it in many areas of his works, his problem is that inequality comes in the way of a freedom. Marx, although disagreeing which much of rousseau’s arguments regarding appeals to nature, agrees that the enlightenment has failed to bring individuality and freedom. I’ll spare you with going further into Marx, but he too saw individual freedom as the goal, but it requires collective social change to bring about this much needed flourishing individuality. Your analysis is too simple and maybe ideological; it lacks an understanding of the primary sources of both Kant and Rousseau.
For writing, review, and instruction guides, as well as ALL the content I use to teach, check out: morganapteaching.com/
The Modern Political Spectrum (regarding individualism vs. collectivism)
0:25 - The Politics Spectrum: The Radical Left & Radical Right
4:45 - Moderate Individualists
**Note this does not include radical libertarians or radical libertarian-anarchists
6:40 - Radical Collectivists
7:25 - Radicalism Rousseau
9:55 - Radical Right-Wing: Fundamentalists
11:40 - Radical Right-Wing: National Socialists
14:45 - Radical Left-Wing: Utopian Socialists
15:50 - Radical Left-Wing: Anarchism
**William Godwin was the gentleman’s name
16:50 - Radical Left-Wing: Classical Marxists
19:20 - Radical Left-Wing: Leninism, Stalinism, & Maoism
21:35 - Characteristics of Radical Collectivists
Classical Marxism
24:16 - Marxism
27:00 - Historical Materialism
28:35 - Hegelian Influences
35:50 - Marxism: Primitive Communism
39:45 - Marxism: Private Property & Inequality
44:30 - Marxism: Feudal Stage
50:10 - Marxism: Capitalist Society
54:35 - Marxism: Private Property & Wage Slavery
1:00:00 - Marxism: Predictions on Capitalist Society
1:05:30 - Conflict Theory
1:11:10 - Marxism: Proletariat Revolution (Stage 1)
1:14:10 - Marxism: Dictatorship of the Proletariat (Stage 2)
1:17:20 - Marxism: Transition to Communism
1:23:30 - Criticisms of Marxism
I’m 10 minutes into this lecture and there are already big issues with your interpretation of philosophy and history. Firstly, to classify Kant as an anti-enlightenment figure and a faith oriented philosophy is just silly. Read kant’s essay entitled “What is enlightenment?”, in it he details enlightenment positively as the movement which argues to “have the courage to use your own reason”, explicitly, he states that good reason is one in which we don’t take authority as our guide as to what is true. We use our own individual capacity to reason to break through preconceived dogmas. He is most definitely pro-enlightenment. His struggles were against church dogmas at the time, which other enlightenment thinkers also attack. To put more weight behind this, in his magnum opus “critique of pure reason” he critiques each one of the main arguments for god’s existence in the later parts of the book. The ontological argument, cosmological argument, teleological argument etc. I suggest you take the time to look into those works, the first is a short read and might show you more about some holes in your interpretation.
As for Rousseau, again a lot of misunderstandings. Rousseau, as with later radical figures, realized that the enlightenment and individualism has failed to live up to its promises. Only with a change of social conditions could these promises be successful. An important distinction for Rousseau, outlined in the first discourse on inequality, he argues that the individual cannot be free if his society makes him unfree; he argues inequality is a major factor in individual unfreedom, for him, there are natural inequalities that are unavoidable and unnatural ones which are avoidable. In addressing the latter humans have the ability to not be driven by horrible emotional desires but by human reason. In the first discourse he writes, “the extreme inequality in our lifestyle: excessive idleness among some, excessive labor among others; the ease with which we arouse and satisfy our appetites and sensuality;….excesses of all kinds, immoderate outbursts of every passion, bouts of fatigue and mental exhaustion; countless sorrows and afflictions, which are felt by all levels of society and which perpetually gnaw away away at souls: these are the fatal proofs that most of our ills are of our own making, and they could have been avoided by preserving the simple, regular, and solitary lifestyle prescribed to us by nature.” Here he argues FOR a free individuality, and sees inequality as the cause for unfreedom of the individual. Also, it’s also clear here that your argument that Rousseau is somehow arguing for emotion and a feeling as opposed to reason is not accurate. On the contrary, he argues excessive emotion is a symptom of the problem. To really drive this home, and to show your analysis is severely lacking, he makes another distinction on two types of self-love or selfishness. Amour propre is the selfishness of meeting the expectations of others, sacrificing our own individuality for the collectives expectations. He makes this clear this kind of self-love is the product of inequality and the failures to realize individuality. In contrast to this, he argues for amour de soi, which is a self-love which comes from within your own person, it is a love that doesn’t stem from some collective but only you as an individual. So, Rousseau couldn’t possibly be anti-individualism, actually he explicitly argues for it in many areas of his works, his problem is that inequality comes in the way of a freedom.
Marx, although disagreeing which much of rousseau’s arguments regarding appeals to nature, agrees that the enlightenment has failed to bring individuality and freedom. I’ll spare you with going further into Marx, but he too saw individual freedom as the goal, but it requires collective social change to bring about this much needed flourishing individuality.
Your analysis is too simple and maybe ideological; it lacks an understanding of the primary sources of both Kant and Rousseau.