Rousseau's thought is marked by an optimism and a pessimism that each evoke, at least in the right mood, a feeling of recognition difficult to suppress. We have an innate capacity for virtue, and with it freedom and happiness. Yet our present social conditions instill in us a restless craving for superiority, which leads to vice, and with it bondage and misery. Call this the "thesis of possible goodness": that while human psychology is such that men become wicked under the (...) conditions in which we now find them, nevertheless men would be, or have been, good under other conditions. It is surprisingly difficult, or at least surprisingly complicated, however, to articulate even a possible psychology that would explain the thesis of possible goodness. Interpretations of Rousseau, even several to which the author of this essay is highly indebted, have not fully engaged, I think, with the complications. This essay tries to reconstruct psychological principles that would explain the thesis and that are at least consistent with what Rousseau otherwise says on the subject. Much of the value of this exercise, however, lies not in the particulars of the resulting psychology but rather in the depth of the tension between Rousseau's optimism and his pessimism that it reveals. CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati What's this? (shrink)

In this thesis I offer an interpretation of Arthur Schopenhauer’s pessimism. I argue against interpreting Schopenhauer’s pessimism as if it were merely a matter of temperament, and I resist the urge to find a single standard argument for pessimism in Schopenhauer’s work. Instead, I treat Schopenhauer’s pessimism as inherently variegated, composed of several distinct but interrelated pessimistic positions, each of which is supported by its own argument. I begin by examining Schopenhauer’s famous argument that willing necessitates suffering, which I defend (...) against the misrepresentative interpretation advocated by Ivan Soll. I also offer a metaphysical reading of Schopenhauer’s claim that no amount happiness can compensate for the mere fact of suffering, based upon his negative conception of happiness. I proceed by analysing Schopenhauer’s criticisms of two prominent optimists, Leibniz and Rousseau. I attempt to salvage something of Schopenhauer’s counterargument against Leibniz that this is the worse of all possible worlds, and I also examine Schopenhauer’s claim that the optimistic metaphysics of a priori rationalistic philosophy cannot cope with the evidence of meaningless suffering. In the case of Rousseau, I interpret Schopenhauer’s brief objection to Rousseau’s assumption of original goodness, by means of an examination of Schopenhauer’s conception of the contrary doctrine, original sin. Next I consider the metaphysics of Schopenhauer’s account of eternal justice. After defending it against a number of objections, I argue that the nature of his version of eternal justice, which he admits constitutes a justification for suffering, does not conflict with the fact that he so strongly condemns Leibniz’s and Rousseau’s optimistic justifications for suffering. Finally I assess whether and to what extent Schopenhauer’s ethics of salvation are either pessimistic or optimistic. I conclude that the mere fact that salvation is possible is not necessarily a cause for optimism, but that Schopenhauer’s doctrine of salvation is made partly optimistic by the higher form of cognition that he describes as part of it. I also argue that Schopenhauer’s views on the essentially mystical nature of the state of salvation ultimately commit him to being neither positively optimistic nor positively pessimistic about salvation. I conclude overall with some brief remarks about the meaning of Schopenhauer’s pessimism, and how in spite of its diverse nature, it is able to lay down a singular challenge to all future philosophers concerned with the question of suffering. (shrink)

Distributive justice, defined as justice in distribution of income and wealth, is impossible. Income and wealth are distributed either unequally or equally. If unequally, then those with less are unjustly subject to social contempt. But equal distribution is impossible because it is inconsistent with bargaining to advance our own good. Hence justice in distribution of income and wealth is impossible. More generally, societies where social relations are mediated by money are necessarily unjust, and Marx was wrong to think a socialist (...) society which retained money would lead to communism. Contributive justice proposes that each flourishes by advancing the flourishing of others. To achieve this goal all labor, both simple and complex, must be shared among all capable of doing it. The good of contributing our abilities to benefit others is then available to all non-competitively. (shrink)

هذا البحث هو بحثٌ في المشروعيّة أو في مداها، بحثٌ في مشروعيّة دراسة فلسفة جان جاك روسّو ونظرية ا، سواءٌ على الصعيد الفلسفيّ، أو على الصعيد العربيّ. فهو من جهةٍ أولى، بحثٌ في مشروعيّة دراسة نظريّة الاعتراف وارتباطها بنظريّة العدالة، في تلك الفلسفة؛ ومن جهةٍ ثانيةٍ، هو بحثٌ في مشروعيّة دراسته عربيًّا. ونعني بالمشروعيّة، في هذا السياق، وجود مسوّغاتٍ فكريّة أو واقعيّةٍ، نظريّةٍ أو عمليّةٍ، معقولةٍ ومقبولةٍ، جزئيًّا ونسبيًّا على الأقلّ، تُظهر إمكانيّة القيام بدراسةٍ ما وضرورة القيام بهذه الدراسة. وتتمثّل (...) هذه المسوّغات عمومًا في الجِدّة التي تتضمّنها الدراسة، وفي الفائدة التي تسعى إلى تقديمها، وفي مدى تناسبها مع القارئ المستهدف وواقعه. وبالنسبة إلى المشروعيّة الأولى، سيكون السؤال الذي سنتناوله هو، ما مدى مشروعيّة دراسة نظريّة الاعتراف عند روسّو، وما مدى مشروعيّة القول بأنّ هذه النظريّة هي النظريّة التأسيسيّة الرائدة، في تاريخ فلسفة الاعتراف؟ وبالنسبة إلى المشروعيّة الثانية، فستتّخذ شكل الراهنيّة، إذ سيكون السؤال المطروح بهذا الخصوص هو: ما هي راهنيّة فلسفة روسّو عمومًا، ونظريّتي الاعتراف والعدالة لديه خصوصًا، بالنسبة إلى الواقع والقارئ العربيّين؟ وبخصوص سؤالي المشروعيّة، يتبنى البحث أطروحةً مفادها تأكيد وجود هاتين المشروعيّتين. وعلى هذا الأساس، ينقسم بحثنا إلى قسمين أساسيّين: يناقش القسم الأوّل علاقة روسّو بفلسفة الاعتراف، في حين يوضّح القسم الثاني مدى حضور فلسفة روسّو في الفكر العربيّ الحديث والمعاصر، ومدى أهمّيّة هذا الحضور وضرورته، بالنسبة إلى القارئ والواقع العربيّين. (shrink)