Dans cet article je présente des réflexions sur l�amour-propre, un élément important de l�anthropologie philosophique de Jean-Jacques Rousseau. À la suite de cet exposé, j�examine brièvement des anticipations de ces idées de Rousseau dans les écrits de deux philosophes du siècle précédent, Blaise Pascal et Pierre Nicole.

In this paper I try to illuminate the Rawlsian architectonic through an interpretation of what Rawls’ Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy say about Rousseau. I argue that Rawls’ emphasis there when discussing Rousseau on interpreting amour-propre so as to make it compatible with a life in at least some societies draws attention to, and helps explicate, an analogous feature of his own work, the strains of commitment broadly conceived. Both are centrally connected with protecting a sense (...) of self which is vital for one’s own agency. This allows us to appreciate better than much of the literature presently does the requirement for Rawls that justice and the good are congruent, that a society of justice does not disfigure citizens’ ability to live out lives relatively unmarked by relations of domination. Some comments on G. A. Cohen’s critiques of Rawls are made. (shrink)

La notion de « commerce d’amour-propre » telle qu’elle a été élaborée par Pierre Nicole constitue-t-elle une sorte de préfiguration de l’utilitarisme moderne ? Il est commun de le penser. Mais c’est peut-être là faire trop peu de cas du soubassement théologique augustinien de la doctrine de Nicole. Pour analyser le problème, il convient de confronter la pensée de Nicole à celles de Pascal, de Hobbes et de saint Augustin lui-même.

O'Hagan agrees with Dent that in Rousseau's idea of "amour-propre" we encounter a powerful, coherent model of human psychology, according to which individuals find their own identities by engaging in a network of relationships within a more or less reconstituted social order. He examines five ways in which people strive to attain that goal and five ways in which they characteristically fail. In the sixth section he discusses Rousseau's strategy of retreat from society, which is also a retreat (...) from the demands of "amour-propre". (shrink)

According to familiar accounts, Rousseau held that humans are actuated by two distinct kinds of self love: amour de soi, a benign concern for one's self-preservation and well-being; and amour-propre, a malign concern to stand above other people, delighting in their despite. I argue that although amour-propre can (and often does) assume this malign form, this is not intrinsic to its character. The first and best rank among men that amour-propre directs us to (...) claim for ourselves is that of occupying 'man's estate'. This does not require, indeed it precludes, subjection of others. Amour-propre does not need suppression or circumscription if we are to live good lives; it rather requires direction to its proper end, not a delusive one. (shrink)

This paper addresses Rousseau's contribution to educational practice by illustrating the ways in which his notion of amour-propre distorts the teacher-student relationship in Muriel Spark's novel, The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie. Though some of Rousseau's pedagogical methods may appear impractical and problematic, his insights into the psychological distortions of amour-propre bear directly on teaching because it is such an important instance of the relationship between self and others. The protagonist, Jean Brodie, is shown to be (...) not only an inadequate teacher but a morally destructive one as well because she violates the teacher-student relationship by both encouraging amourpropre among her students and using those same students primarily to satisfy her own need for power and self-aggrandizement. Her eventual ruin at the hands of her “best” student results from the amour-propre both share. Miss Brodie's failure illustrates the dangers of looking at teaching as self-expression, personal fulfillment etc., to the extent of forgetting what it actually is — the careful addressing of students' experience both as individuals and as learners. (shrink)

This article reframes the approach to Rousseau in political philosophy and histories of political thought by emphasizing some neglected aesthetic dimensions of amour-propre and the general will. I argue that Rousseau's account of the origins of amour-propre in aesthetic judgment alerts us to his view that the potentially dangerous effects of amour-propre can be mitigated if its 'extension' to others is grounded in an aesthetic appreciation of beauty. This pushes back against the predominant 'revisionist' (...) interpretation of amour-propre in terms of Hegelian 'recognition' or Rawlsian 'social bases of self-respect'. It also clears the ground for my recovery of Rousseau's neglected analogy between the general will and what he called the general taste. I argue that reconstructing the general taste and reconsidering the general will in its light yields a significant argument by analogy: like the general taste, the general will is democratically determined by majority vote, not constrained by transcendent standards. (shrink)

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)

According to familiar accounts, Rousseau held that humans are actuated by two distinct kinds of self love: amour de soi, a benign concern for one's self-preservation and well-being; and amour-propre, a malign concern to stand above other people, delighting in their despite. I argue that although amour-propre can assume this malign form, this is not intrinsic to its character. The first and best rank among men that amour-propre directs us to claim for ourselves (...) is that of occupying 'man's estate'. This does not require, indeed it precludes, subjection of others. Amour-propre does not need suppression or circumscription if we are to live good lives; it rather requires direction to its proper end, not a delusive one. (shrink)

In the First Discourse, Rousseau complains that modern morals encourage us to think of ourselves in an impersonal and hygienic manner, and to present ourselves in public space as dimensionless members of society. Submission to modern morals encourages conformism, Rousseau argues, and conformism precludes us from having selves of the sort upon which moral freedom depends. In this paper, I argue that Rousseau’s vision of the redemptive promise of amour-propre should be understood in light of his concern to (...) reverse the existential catastrophe of conformism and to precipitate a social climate more hospitable to self-creation. This concern informs the moral purpose of Rousseau’s austerely republican societies, and it determines the role of amour-propre in animating the best citizens. Recent interpretive trends give too little scope to the indicated concern. In consequence, they obscure one of the richest dimensions of Rousseau’s social theory. (shrink)

O'Hagan agrees with Dent that in Rousseau's idea of "amour-propre" we encounter a powerful, coherent model of human psychology, according to which individuals find their own identities by engaging in a network of relationships within a more or less reconstituted social order. He examines five ways in which people strive to attain that goal and five ways in which they characteristically fail. In the sixth section he discusses Rousseau's strategy of retreat from society, which is also a retreat (...) from the demands of "amour-propre". (shrink)

Over the past few decades, scholars have reassessed the role of amour-propre in Rousseau’s thought. While it was once believed that he had an entirely negative valuation of the emotion, it is now widely held that he finds it useful and employs it to strengthen moral attachments, conjugal love, civic virtue and moral heroism. At the same time, scholars are divided as to whether this positive amour-propre is an antidote to the negative or dangerous form. Some (...) scholars are confident that ‘inflamed’ amour-propre can be overcome while others adopt a more fatalistic view. While mindful of Rousseau’s pessimism in his most famous works, this essay seeks to identify a middle position. By contending Rousseau’s discussion of amour-propre is largely concerned with the problems surrounding identity construction in commercial, urban societies, it will be argued that amour-propre can be lessened to manageable levels in more rural societies, that is, agrarian provincial life. (shrink)

Malebranche ne dissocie jamais la théorie et la pratique. Son Traité de morale est une œuvre métaphysique. Ceci a sa raison dans les rapports entre la foi et la raison qui sont complémentaires. Le rapport de l'âme et de l'amour, conformément à une tradition platonicienne, est un lieu où l'on peut vérifier cette connexion. L'analyse de l'âme met en évidence la modernité de Malebranche dans sa conception de la conscience ou sentiment intérieur, où se révèle l'irréductibilité du sensible. L' (...) class='Hi'>amour est au sommet de l'âme, en ce qu'il coïncide avec la volonté du bonheur. En ce sens la théorie païenne est juste: une volonté aveugle et un amour d'instinct s'équivalent. Mais la liberté est le don du Dieu chrétien à l'homme. Avec la liberté seulement, un amour-propre déréglé est possible et pécheur. Inversement, le véritable amour, celui où l'âme se reconnaît elle-même, c'est la charité, qui est une sainte concupiscence; celle-ci est capable de nous inspirer le désir du vrai. L'amour de la vérité qui illumine l'âme est le sentiment qui reconnaît Dieu comme la souveraine Raison. (shrink)

According to familiar accounts, Rousseau held that humans are actuated by two distinct kinds of self love: amour de soi, a benign concern for one's self-preservation and well-being; and amour-propre, a malign concern to stand above other people, delighting in their despite. I argue that although amour-propre can (and often does) assume this malign form, this is not intrinsic to its character. The first and best rank among men that amour-propre directs us to (...) claim for ourselves is that of occupying 'man's estate'. This does not require, indeed it precludes, subjection of others. Amour-propre does not need suppression or circumscription if we are to live good lives; it rather requires direction to its proper end, not a delusive one. (shrink)

Le judaïsme se définit par une modalité particulière d’amour de Dieu : Israël, peuple élu, existe en vertu d’une alliance unique avec Dieu, formée sur la base d’un amour que l’on devrait dire mutuel plus que réciproque. Ce n’est pas, en effet, que l’amour d’Israël réponde à celui de Dieu, ou que Dieu récompense l’amour de ses fidèles d’une affection en retour : ces deux amours s’originent l’un en l’autre, ils ont chacun pour raison et pour (...) fin l’existence de l’autre. Ils coexistent et s’interpellent : telle est le propre de cette élection.Georges Vajda se propose ici d’explorer la construction de ce concept d’amour de Dieu dans les textes et la théologie juive : analysant la lettre de la Bible, du Midrash et du Talmud, il l’articule aux développements théoriques des grands penseurs du judaïsme que furent Ibn Gabirol, Ibn Tibbon, Bahya, Halévi, Ibn’Ezra et Moïse Maïmonide.On découvre ainsi un amour du fidèle pour Dieu nécessairement articulé à la crainte qu’il inspire, crainte révérentielle car liée à l’exigence d’une pleine et juste obéissance. Le phénomène religieux propre au judaïsme se définit dès lors comme « l’engagement total à l’égard du dieu créateur de l’univers, donateur de la Loi et rédempteur d’Israël » : l’histoire du peuple juif devient celle d’un amour tourmenté, singulier et unique.Par cette synthèse au style clair et accessible, George Vajda nous offre les clés d’une question située au coeur de la théologie juive : l’amour de Dieu est-il une dette ou une attente? (shrink)

Louis de Sacy send his Traité de l’Amitié (1703) to Fénelon in order to get a judgement. To his surprise, the result is a debate on his explanation of the ciceronian idea “a friend is another self”, transformed by Erasmus and Montaigne into a rhetorical commonplace. By neglecting this rhetorical side, the editors of Fenelon’s letter have misunderstood the literary and doctrinaire issue of the debate between the lawyer and the archbishop. Emulating Cicero, Louis de Sacy refers to conversations in (...) the salon of Marquise de Lambert whose opuscule on friendship is obviously influenced by Montaigne. Fénelon counters de Sacy by relating friendship to “amour-propre”, this topic ensuring the concern of pagans for his vision of “pur amour”. (shrink)

L?entreprise philosophique de Scheler se présente comme une application de la phénoménologie des Recherches logiques au domaine des valeurs, et procède pour cela à une transposition de l?objectivisme séman­tique husserlien en un objectivisme axiologique. C?est pourquoi, au premier abord, le statut de la passivité ne semble pas poser problème dans la phénoménologie de Scheler, tant ce dernier insiste sur l?objectivité, l?absolui­té et l?indépendance des valeurs qui ne peuvent être, comme l?affirme le Formalisme, « ni créées, ni détruites », mais « (...) existent indépendamment de toute organisation propre à tel ou tels êtres-spirituels » 1 . La sphère de l?affectivité forme le corrélat subjectif de cette objectivité axiologique et ne peut que se cantonner à un rôle de découverte ou de révélation des valeurs, c?est-à-dire à une dimension essentiellement passive : le sentiment nous donne à voir les valeurs mais il ne les constitue pas, contrairement à ce qui sera le cas par la suite chez Husserl 2 . Ainsi l?intentionnalité schelerienne est-elle structurée comme une réceptivité fondamentale qui se contente d?enregistrer la nature et la hiérarchie des valeurs, et ce, quand bien même Scheler continue de parler d?actes pour désigner les différents vécus affectifs qui nous mettent en relation avec le champ axiologique. À cet égard, Maurice Dupuy, dans son commentaire sur Scheler, souligne que « la. (shrink)

Le jeu de l'Etre a une règle et un sens à tous commun, ceux de la créativité universelle depuis son origine. Faute de respecter leur radicale exigence, notre espèce mondialise les déséquilibres naturels et culturels causés par sa croissance au détriment des autres espèces comme de ses propres congénères, quitte à disparaître avant ravagé sa planète. Dans un univers en constante évolution, l'incessant rééquilibrage des déséquilibres est crucial. Tant qu'a tout moment, elle n'équilibrera pas l'un par l'autre, l'égoïste liberté et (...) l'amour altruiste, notre espèce, quels que soient ses progrès techniques, ne pourra affirmer par son verbe qu'elle préfère la vie à la mort et démontrer le contraire par ses actes, du fait que leur croissante incohérence est à la fois plus facile et plus rentable. (shrink)

This introduction to the review symposium on Ryan Patrick Hanley’s works on the relatively neglected early modern philosopher François Fénelon provides a brief overview of the symposium itself before turning to Hanley’s treatment of Fénelon’s work on the intersection of politics and religion, culminating in a comparison of Fénelon with his most celebrated admirer, Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The article sketches how both francophone thinkers employ conceptions of divine justice as a measure to counter the dangers of amour-propre, contrasting Fénelon’s (...) thick theology with Rousseau’s thin theology. (shrink)

Telle qu’elle se décline dans la théorie de la pitié du livre IV de l’Émile, la philosophie morale de Rousseau réconcilie deux traditions : les morales dites de l’amour-propre et celles du sentiment moral. La présence de l’imagination, dans la morale dite égoïste, mêle le sentiment moral à l’intérêt et donc à l’amour-propre. A contrario, ne pas recourir à l’imagination dans les morales du sentiment moral doit permettre d’éviter cette perversion. L’originalité de la philosophie morale de (...) Rousseau est de concilier le recours à l’imagination, qui seule permet la mise en place de rapports affectifs entre soi-même et autrui, et l’existence d’un sentiment moral véritable non teinté d’égoïsme. (shrink)

We are moral equals, but in virtue of what? The most plausible answers to this question have pointed to our higher agential capacities, but we vary in the degrees to which we possess those capacities. How could they ground our equal moral standing, then? This chapter argues that they do so only indirectly. Our moral equality is most directly grounded in a social practice of equality, a practice that serves the purpose of mitigating our tendencies toward control and domination that (...) interpreters of Rousseau call “inflamed amour-propre.” We qualify as participants in this practice of equality by possessing certain agential capacities, but it is our participation in the practice, and not the capacities themselves, that makes us moral equals. This chapter thus proposes moving from a capacity-based to practice-based view of moral equality. Doing so avoids problems for other accounts that, like the one defended here, ignore (above a threshold) the varying degrees to which we possess the pertinent agential capacities, such as Ian Carter’s account of “opacity respect.”​. (shrink)

Telle qu’elle se décline dans la théorie de la pitié du livre IV de l’Émile, la philosophie morale de Rousseau réconcilie deux traditions : les morales dites de l’amour-propre et celles du sentiment moral. La présence de l’imagination, dans la morale dite égoïste, mêle le sentiment moral à l’intérêt et donc à l’amour-propre. A contrario, ne pas recourir à l’imagination dans les morales du sentiment moral doit permettre d’éviter cette perversion. L’originalité de la philosophie morale de (...) Rousseau est de concilier le recours à l’imagination, qui seule permet la mise en place de rapports affectifs entre soi-même et autrui, et l’existence d’un sentiment moral véritable non teinté d’égoïsme. (shrink)

In this superb introduction, Nicholas Dent covers the whole of Rousseau's thought. Beginning with a helpful overview of Rousseau's life and works, he introduces and assesses Rousseau's central ideas and arguments. These include the corruption of modern civilization, the state of nature, his famous theories of _amour de soi _and _amour propre_, education, and his famous work _Emile_. He gives particular attention to Rousseau's theories of democracy and freedom found in his most celebrated work, _The Social Contract_, and explains what (...) Rousseau meant by the 'general will'. (shrink)

Why does respect for persons involves accepting that persons have responsibilities, and not just authority, for their lives and interactions? I show how we can answer this question with a role-based view: respect for persons is an attitude of recognizing others for a social role they occupy. To fill in a role-based view, we need to describe the practice into which the pertinent role figures. To do this, my account draws on the Rousseauian idea of inflamed amour-propre. Roughly, (...) respect for persons is an attitude of recognizing persons for the role they occupy in a social practice that helps solve the problem of inflamed amour-propre. (shrink)

Telle qu’elle se décline dans la théorie de la pitié du livre IV de l’Émile, la philosophie morale de Rousseau réconcilie deux traditions : les morales dites de l’amour-propre et celles du sentiment moral. La présence de l’imagination, dans la morale dite égoïste, mêle le sentiment moral à l’intérêt et donc à l’amour-propre. A contrario, ne pas recourir à l’imagination dans les morales du sentiment moral doit permettre d’éviter cette perversion. L’originalité de la philosophie morale de (...) Rousseau est de concilier le recours à l’imagination, qui seule permet la mise en place de rapports affectifs entre soi-même et autrui, et l’existence d’un sentiment moral véritable non teinté d’égoïsme. (shrink)

Rousseau's conception of virtue is puzzling, for he sometimes defines virtue as self-mastery and sometimes as patriotism. The prevailing Kantian interpretation emphasizes the first definition with its man-citizen thesis, while attributing the latter to Rousseau's inconsistency. This article challenges this reading and argues that Rousseau intentionally operates with two conceptions of virtue: political virtue as love of fatherland and moral virtue as love of humanity. While the former relies on a state-level amour-propre that draws motivation from the division (...) between nations, the latter hinges on conscience—an intelligent form of amour de soi—that reaches universal humanity. Underlying the two virtues is the irreconcilable tension between nature and politics. Where nature demands universal happiness incorporating all humans, politics necessitates passions that entail division. Retrieving Rousseau's dual conception of virtue highlights Rousseau's fundamental pessimism toward human politics, which has been blurred in the emerging Kantian-liberal scholarship. (shrink)

In Rousseau’s Social Contract, political laws are rationally binding because they satisfy the interests that motivate individuals to obey such laws. The later books of Emile justify morality by showing that it is continuous with the natural dispositions of a well-brought-up subject and is thus conducive to genuine happiness. In both the moral and political cases, Rousseau argues for an internal connection between the rational ground of an obligation and the broader aspects of human psychology that are satisfied and expressed (...) by acting from that obligation. Yet, inspired by Kantian philosophy, the recent and influential Social Autonomy interpretation has disjoined rationality and psychology. Criticising this interpretation, I argue that for Rousseau, obligations are justified because they satisfy the demands made by our moral psychology, most notably amour-propre, i.e. the desire to have one’s worth recognised by others. (shrink)

Levinas's Talmudic readings have played an important role in defending the claim that the discipline of modern Jewish philosophy cannot be reduced to a list of assimilationist thinkers. This article argues that this claim is defendable, but only if the premise of the claim ceases to be the content of Levinas's Talmudic readings: "The Temptation of Temptation" wrongly takes its sugya as representative of Judaism as a whole, the differing mathematical calculations between Levinas and the sugya he treats in "The (...) Pact" suggest that the Talmud assumes a Rousseauian amour-propre , and "And God Created Woman" implies that Jewish ethics is not opposed to Jews' assimilation. I instead suggest that Levinas's Talmudic readings serve to promote the fecundity of Judaism; it is only through such "bad" readings that historical determinism can be conquered, and a messianic future becomes possible. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:THE SCANDAL OF ORIGINS IN ROUSSEAU Jeremiah L. Alberg University of West Georgia To speak of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and scandal is not difficult. Immediately one thinks of his relationship with Mme de Warens, his lover and his beloved mama. Most of his works upset some group or another—other intellectuals (the Discourse on the Sciences andArts), the Genevan authorities (the "Dedication" the Discourse on Inequality), the Church (Emile)—the list could (...) go on and on. In this article I would like to turn away from our usual use ofthe word scandal and look more deeply at the connection between Rousseau's system and the theological or, more properly, the biblical notion of scandal. This notion is obscure. While no one would deny its importance in the New Testament, trying to develop a coherent "theory ofscandal" from the various usages in the New Testament has proven difficult.1 To give only one example of the problem, Christ crucified is proclaimed as a scandal (ICor 1.23) and yet the Christians who follow him are forbidden to cause scandal to others (ICor 8.9), especially the younger and weaker. 1 For a basic understanding ofthe biblical notion ofscandal the following titles are helpful' G. Stählin, Skandalen Untersuchungen zur Geschichte eines biblischen Begriffs, (Gütersloh. Bertelsmann, 1930), as well as his article "Skandalen, skandahzo" in Theologisches Wörterbuch des Neuen Testaments, ed Kittel and Friedrich, 7 339-58, J Calvin, ConcerningScandals (translation oíDe scandalis. 1550) (Grand Rapids Eerdmans, 1 978), H Bintz. Das Skandalen als Grundlagenproblem derDogmata. (Berlin de Gruyter. 1969), D McCracken, The Scandal ofthe Gospels Jesus, Story, and Offense, (NY Oxford UP, 1994); J Alison, The Joy ofBeing Wrong Original Sm Through Easter Eyes (NY Crossroad, 1998) 140-146; G. Bailie, Violence Unveiled Humanity at the Crossroads (NY Crossroad, 1995) 207-2 10; R Girard, Des choses cachées depuis lafoundation du monde, (éditions Grasset et Fasqelle, 1978) especially 573-592 2 Jeremiah L. Alberg The most successful attempt at bringing coherence to the various elements of scandal has been carried out in the various works of René Girard.2 His basic insight was to see in biblical scandal an inchoate theory of human desire. Girard calls this desire "mimetic" or desire that one receives from another. This type of desire leads to scandal. It is here that the connection with Rousseau becomes evident. The famous literary theorist T. Todorov states: "the 'mimetic desire' of Girard is only another name for the amour-propre ofRousseau" (Todorov 38). For his part Girard defines theskandalon (that which causes the scandal) in the following way: It is not an obstacle thatjust happens to be there and merely has to be got out ofthe way; it is the model exerting its special form of temptation, causing attraction to the extent that it is an obstacle and forming an obstacle to the extent that it can attract. (Girard 1987, 416) Rousseau's analysis of amour-propre as that which excites without satisfying, seduces without delivering, and promises without fulfilling, parallels Girard's analysis ofmimetic desire as the doomed-to-be-frustrated reaching for the scanáalon3 Thus, I am arguing that in his various works Rousseau is developing the conceptual possibilities of biblical scandal. While there would be many way's of showing this structural parallel between Rousseau's thought and biblical scandal, I will concentrate on a reading ofthe "Preface" to the Discours sur l'origine et lesfondements de l'inégalité parmi les hommes (1755), in order to show that this work is structured by scandal. It is structured by a human desire that seeks what is unattainable and renders the object unattainable in the very seeking after it. More concretely, 1 shall argue that in the "Preface" Rousseau is able to reduce the question aboutthe origin ofinequality "to its genuine state" only 2 See the work cited above as well as his more recent / See Satan Fall Like Lightning ' Rousseau's definition of amour-propre makes its connection with offense (another translation of the biblical word for scandal) quite clear. Speaking of man in the primitive state he remarks. "For the same reason [that he is not capable ofmaking comparisons... (shrink)

Paradoxalement, l’interprétation des Pensées de M. Pascal par Jean-Jacques Rousseau montre sa fécondité philosophique au lieu de l’écart maximal entre les deux penseurs : « injuste en soi » selon Pascal, « toujours bon » selon Rousseau, c’est pourtant l’amour de soi constitutif du « moi humain » dans les Pensées morales éditées par Port-Royal que Rousseau accueille et cultive en en inversant l’appréciation axiologique. Lu par Rousseau, Pascal n’est pas Fénelon ; il n’est pas non plus Nicole ; (...) et à sa suite, l’on doit le lire en deçà de la distinction, si ordinaire aux moralistes, du bon amour de soi et du mauvais amour-propre. Rousseau nous y invite du moins, retenant de ces pensées que seul l’amour de soi porte à se connaître, c’est-à-dire à connaître le principe qui nous anime. En conséquence, seule la connaissance du principe d’union en quoi consiste, en son fond, « l’amour que l’on se doit à soi-même » porte à régler l’amour de soi constitutif de la modalité juste du moi, autrement dit celle du « moi commun ».Paradoxically enough, it is precisely where the gap between Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Pascal is widest that Rousseau’s interpretation of the Pensées de M. Pascal proves highly fertile philosophically speaking : the self-love that is described as that which constitutes the « human self » in the Pensées morales published by Port-Royal, this self-love which Pascal deems unjust in itself whereas Rousseau considers it always good, is in effect what Rousseau draws upon so as to reverse its axiological assessment. Read by Rousseau, Pascal is not Fénelon ; nor is he Nicole ; he must thus be read beyond the distinction between the good amour de soi and the bad amour-propre which is so commonplace among moralists. This at least is what Rousseau suggests that we do, by retaining as he does from Pascal’s moral thoughts the notion that only self-love can enable one to know oneself, through the knowledge of the principle one is animated by. Consequently, only the knowledge of the principle of union which « the love that one owes to oneself » fundamentally consists in can enable one to set the self-love that will constitute the just mode of the self, ie that of the « common self ». (shrink)

Against the impression that Rousseau is an eclectic thinker, this paper is an attempt to reconstruct the systematic core of his anthropology. First, I discuss the methodological starting-point. Second, I develop the structural framework required to make the concept of nature operative as an ideal within social contexts. Finally, I interpret Rousseau's genetic account in terms of this framework. Such a procedure allows me to solve two interpretative problems, the aporia of the origin of wickedness and the question of man's (...) natural isolation. A twofold notion of logic is introduced to integrate the demands of history and structure, which overlap with those of freedom and necessity in Rousseau's thought. This organizes my argument in a mirror-like way. I call this undertaking an essay, for it is the endeavor to think what Rousseau must have thought in order to write what he wrote. Key Words: amour de soi • amour propre • bourgeois • ego sentio • human make-up • human nature • natural as ideal • other-centered • savage • self-centered • totalities of feeling • totalities of needs. (shrink)

ABSTRACTOur contemporary culture has been labelled as one of “greed.” Our challenge, it is argued, is even more formidable if we recall Rousseau’s argument that it is the desire for esteem and fame that is the driving force of modern societies. This striving for recognition is the direct offspring of l’amour-propre, here translated as egoism. Contemporary economic systems thrive on this corrupted form of self-love, which is often sugarcoated as ambition, or even courage and vision. The development of (...) l’amour-propre can be partly prevented and checked through the cultivation of l’amour-de-soi, conceived by Rousseau as being the source of the humane passions, a clear-sighted reason, and a mature conscience. At the cultural and institutional level, Rousseau’s thought implies a radical transformation that consists in the detachment of self-fulfillment from economic achievements, and the subordination of economic life and interests to other human ends, such as the good and virtuous human life. The corrupting effects of luxury and the loss of liberty caused by the multiplication of needs are therefore especially highlighted. Conversely, the alternative, non-military and non-materialist ethos in Rousseau’s works is emphasized. (shrink)

In this essay Megan J. Laverty argues that Jean-Jacques Rousseau's conception of humane communication and his proposal for teaching it have implications for our understanding of the role of listening in education. She develops this argument through a close reading of Rousseau's most substantial work on education, Emile: Or, On Education. Laverty elucidates Rousseau's philosophy of communication, beginning with his taxonomy of the three voices—articulate, melodic, and accentuated—illustrating the ways in which they both enhance and obfuscate understanding. Next, Laverty provides (...) an account of Rousseau's philosophical psychology, with specific reference to amour-propre and amour de soi. Listening plays a central role in Rousseau's philosophy of communication, Laverty maintains, because it is in the act of listening that humans fulfill, or fail to fulfill, the imperative that we seek to understand others. (shrink)

Unjustifiably expecting a higher form of regard from others than one deserves is a familiar vice; call it the “vanity-vice.” How serious of a vice is it? Rousseau claims that it is uniquely morally dangerous. I show how Rousseau’s claim is true of only one form of the vanity-vice. I first develop an account of dangerous vices that takes seriously Rousseau’s concern about the anti-egalitarian vices associated with inflamed amour-propre. I then apply two, cross-cutting distinctions in vanity: a (...) distinction in whether one cares about the correctness of one’s expectations of high regard, and a distinction in the kind of high regard one expects. When we do not care about the correctness of our inflated expectations of regard, and when the unduly high regard we expect is authority-recognizing deference, we manifest a form of vanity that is uniquely dangerous, what I call “entitled smugness.”. (shrink)

Im Discours sur l’inégalité führt Rousseau den Schlüsselbegriff der Selbstliebe (amour de soi-même) ein. Diese erläutert er als einen ursprünglichen Trieb des Menschen, einen, der noch vor der Entwicklung der Vernunft da ist. Rousseau versteht sie als den Selbsterhaltungstrieb, wie ihn jedes Tier von Natur aus besitzen soll. Indem sich jedoch die menschliche Vernunft entwickelt, wird das Selbst der nunmehr möglichen Selbstliebe ein anderes. Rousseau stellt zunächst nur die negative Erscheinungsform des vernünftigen Selbst dar, welche durch Eigenliebe (amour- (...) class='Hi'>propre) charakterisiert ist. Erst der Contrat social, obwohl er weder von Selbstliebe noch von Eigenliebe spricht, reicht die positive Erscheinungsform nach. Ich werde darlegen, dass vernünftige Selbstliebe, wie man mit dem zeitgleich erschienen Émile sagen kann, die moralische Gesinnung des Bürgers ist. (shrink)

This paper seeks to show that Bernard Mandeville's primary purpose in The Fable of the Bees was to historicize the concept of self?love (amour?propre) articulated by seventeenth?century French Jansenists and moralistes; that in doing so Mandeville constructed a theory designed to explain the inter?subjective constraints and forces of social discipline which characterize commercial societies; and that a full understanding of Mandeville's achievement depends upon an appreciation of the way in which pride in his theory becomes socialized into hypocrisy (...) at a decisive moment in the civilizing process, a moment after which, Mandeville argues, cultural institutions themselves can contain that unfettered self?interest which his contemporaries fearfully associated with the triumph of commerce. (shrink)

Malebranche est sans doute, a l'age classique, l'auteur le plus critique a l'egard de l'imagination. En plus d'etre, comme le soutient Pascal, maitresse d'erreur et de faussete, l'imagination designe en effet chez lui la folle du logis, une folle qui se plait a faire la folle et a deregler la raison humaine pour l'entrainer dans le monde de l'absence et du fantasme. C'est elle qui torture les esprits visionnaires, elle qui transforme les hommes en loups-garous et leur fait organiser des (...) sabbats, elle qui engendre des enfants monstrueux et accelere la contagion du peche originel. L'imagination ne detourne pas seulement les hommes de la verite, concue chez Malebranche comme un ensemble de rapports entre les choses et les idees, tels que Dieu les a institues. Elle les fait en outre vivre dans un monde ou l'ordre des choses est renverse, ou prevalent les apparences, la superstition et l'amour-propre. Elle est fatale a la fois a ceux qui la possedent et a ceux qui l'admirent dans les autres sans la posseder. Mais l'etude de l'imagination permet egalement de mettre au jour les modalites et les effets de toute une serie de rapports dont la machine corporelle est le centre. Lire le livre II de la Recherche de la verite, c'est ainsi tenter de comprendre comment la science (tout particulierement la physiologie) peut servir a eclairer l'homme d'aujourd'hui. Alors cette derniere ne sera plus perpetree comme une trainee de poudre, mais rationalisee et par-la meme confortee dans son statut de dangereuse fantaisie. (shrink)