Rousseau and Locke Critique

            Jean Jacques Rousseau gives a history of man that explains the origins of inequality. His opening sentence condemns the first man who over claimed personal property. His history begins with pre-civilized, and even pre-barbaric, man. The first step towards inequality came when man proclaimed himself chief among the animals. Then through several steps, man’s association amongst itself became the breeding ground for judgment based on inequality. Rousseau ends by saying that independent man is the pinnacle of mankind and that civilization is corrupt because of the congregation of men. In Emile, JJR gives his view on the raising of children and the acquisition of knowledge. His basis is that God made all things, and that it was good until it was ruined by man. When a child is born, it is dependent on man, not God, but it is the duty of a parent to remove this dependence for it is an evil. He then says that man cannot experience the absolutes (i.e. joy and total despair), but can only experience happiness, and the lack of happiness. Furthermore, a child must only be given what is essential to live, and must not be trained that anything in excess is good. JJR ends by saying that man is born basically good and that “he does not know how to do wrong.”

            Rousseau does not follow a strict theology through his works. His views on the nature of man are anti-biblical and seem to be a predecessor to Darwin. Additionally, his evaluation that happiness is the greatest state which man can achieve is incorrect; man can achieve true joy which is our ultimate end. JJR also implies that God made all things good and that man corrupted it, therefore the deeds of man are greater than the works of God.

            John Locke was the first of many great philosophers to ask the question, where does knowledge come from? His response began with the fact that man is born with “no inborn qualities.” Locke goes on to say that all knowledge comes about by experience. That experience has two forms: sensory observation and reflection in the mind. He attempts to show his point by saying that the ability to reason comes only once things have been observed by the senses, then the mind has enough capacity to reason. The mind then organizes the experiences.

            Locke introduced a massive topic that would be addressed by many further writers. The reason they felt the need to discuss it was because Locke did not do enough to prove his points, and merely left them as his beliefs and rarely tried to prove them. Moreover, to say that man is born with no “inborn qualities” is errant because if man were born as a blank slate, man would not know how to use his senses to observe and experience nature. The most basic ability to know how and to desire to observe is inherent in man.

            The fundamental flaw of both authors is their misunderstanding of human nature. Both Rousseau and Locke, although emphasized more by Locke, say that man is born basically good, and is corrupted by the world. Their solution is also very similar; man must be removed from the evils of the world, or can only experience ameliatory influences. This solution only works if man is naturally good and if experience is the only way in which knowledge can be acquired. Clearly man is sinful. But not just sinful, man is completely and totally depraved. Paul states that “there is no one righteous, not one.” Additionally, experience is not the only path to finding knowledge. Immanuel Kant said that “although all our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it arises from experience.” (Yes I have used this quote a lot, but it’s one of my favorites) There are three distinct, but intrinsically connected, parts to our ability to gain knowledge: experience, reason, and revelation. Revelation is the greatest of the three because through it, we are given the knowledge and ability to observe absolute truth. Experience gives us abstract examples of our knowledge. And through reason, we can synthesize the knowledge that we observe because of the truth revealed to us by God. Just as Kant proved that pure reason alone is incapable of bringing the ship back to the shore, experience also falls far short of steering the ship in a positive direction. There is no hope if man relies on reason alone, or on experience alone, but as Christians we have been given revelation which allows us to use reason and experience the way they were meant to be used which gives us hope and joy, which is our ultimate end.