What importance do Locke and Rousseau give to human reason?

“Im anfang war die tat. (In the beginning there was the Word)”

-Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

In the Age of Reason, during 18th century, the importance of human reason was argued harshly. Romantic philosophers were passionate and conservatives were more at the side of reason, thus, even the French Revolution (1789) carried those aggression between ideas and concluded with a lot of blood. One of those conservative philosophers, John Locke (1632–1704) offers his philosophy as a way to use reason and argues that there can be no innate ideas in his Essay concerning Human Understanding (1689). He is an empiricist in the way he takes sensation to acquire the knowledge of external world, then with reflection, deducing more. On the other hand Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) himself is influenced by romantics, he is full of enthusiasm, it is seen in his language, sometimes calls “tyrants” to other philosophers in his writings (2), which is one of the most insulting words he can use against a philosopher in his book Social Contract (1762). He thinks that human nature is perfectible through education, in the nature, men is free. He is defending the disdaining of social properties; sees they are the sources of evil. Around the stormy weather of those ideas, John Locke gives more importance to human reason as it is a means to reach the limited knowledge that humans can experience, as one of core points of the human understanding and argues that the importance reason with experience to avoid using force, while Rousseau believes that the human reason is a limiter to men’s nature, he gives more importance to instincts and emotions and he thinks that feeling of compassion is prior to reason.

Firstly, John Locke thinks that human reason is as means to reach the limited knowledge that humans can experience, while Rousseau believes that the human reason is a limiter to men’s nature, firstly by the social constructions. John Locke was more optimistic on the it is more important than Rousseau to him, thinking that knowledge is limited and people can know the limited external world by human reason. He sees human reason as not being limiter, it is the only chance to reach the limits of knowledge. John Locke and Rousseau seems to agree at some point, that “For nobody, I think, ever denied that the mind was capable of knowing several truths.” but the distinction comes with the main question of “The capacity, they say, is innate, the knowledge acquired” (Locke 41). Locke thinks that knowledge has the limits of capacity, the reason is not constructed with such limits with innate ideas. The limits exist in the outside knowledge, the external things that humans can perceive are limited. However, the order is different in Rousseau, the human reason was the limiter but nature is free, whit no limits. For Locke, nature as an external world is limited with its knowledge, the human reason can reach that limits. In the philosophy of Rousseau, the motivations behind actions are mostly the feelings. In that regard, human reason is a limiter for individuals that is a tool for gaining egoist purposes, because it is constructed on the self-interest in a society. In the nature, men are free, in the family, there is a love relationship between father and child even father is ruling the child as a payment of freedom, but “in the State, the pleasure of commanding takes the place of love which the chief cannot have for peoples under him” (Rousseau 1). Love, creates an environment of freedom but pleasure of corrupted feelings creates inequalities. This means, because not all the people born with equal capabilities, division of labour occurs in the society, strong people act for self-interest and try to possess property of others. Most powerful one assumes the control of the weak, the conflicts start with that circumstances that men created by the social contract and begin to limit their own capabilities of actions. It is seen that the strongest has a right on society, but in order to master of all, he should attach the “right” to his power (Rousseau 2). This power desires obedience and limits individuals to live together under the control, which is an idea that Rousseau finds it meaningless, unreasonable to be reasonable, with the oxymoronic way of thinking he is. The whole idea comes from the nature of man that is free with love, goodness, compassion, liberty and equalty, till the social contract begins to invade individuals and individuals give permission with restricting themselves. The importance of reason, as he thinks, is the mechanism of gaining self-interest goals and restriction of one to another in society: invasion, war, civil-war… Whereas Locke argues that the human reason is a means of reaching the limits of external knowledge, Rousseau thinks that reason as a means of self-interest of other people, limits people, in contrary to nature’s limitless.

Locke gives much more importance to the reason on describing human understanding with sensation and reflection which are the elements of reason, while Rousseau doesn’t think that reflection can cure him of, he gives more importance to instincts and emotions. John Locke, as an empiricist philosopher, defines reason as “…the discovery of the certainty or probability of such propositions or truths which the mind arrives at by deductions [inferences] made from such ideas which it has got by use of… sensation and reflection” (Garret). In that regard, John Locke puts the reason to the canter of its philosophy, separating it in two branches: sensation and reflection. Sensation makes possible to have ideas about external world, experiencing them with our five senses, we can reflect doubting, reasoning and sense-perception itself. Reflection also means that have mental operations and have insights of our own. In his work Essay concerning Human Understanding, he argues that innate ideas don’t exist, we born with tabula rasa, therefore all knowledge comes from experience and perception, sensation and reflection itself. Locke states that “…men should come to the use of reason before they get the knowledge of those general truths…” (46). It can be referred that reason is the core point with experience, to start to get knowledge, being born is not enough because there is nothing such as innate ideas. Thus, Locke leaves a wide place for reason to sit next to the experience in his philosophical theatre. On the other hand, as a defender of instincts and emotions, Rousseau has a different approach. For him, reflection is against human nature because the action comes more important for a savage man who is alone by the nature. For a savage man, the only important think is to preserve his own existence (Rousseau 1). This, my lead him to think that instincts and actions are the nature of men, they are prior to reason. Reason comes with society, which is not natural. As he continues on in the Social Contract, reason comes with the other responsibilities to think of others and think of how others would see himself, too (2). Thinking such a way to act, creates an alienation to one’s self, consequently. Acting in accordance with the instincts and emotions are no more possible for a civilized individual. For that reason, Rousseau doesn’t give the same importance to reason with John Locke, who was putting experience together with human reason.

While Locke argues that experience shapes our emotions through senses to avoid using force, Rousseau thinks that compassion is prior to reason, the use of force for violence is avoided naturally. For an empiricist, to know that something good or bad, it should be experienced with other people to have an idea that what is good or bad. For example, in socializing process, children start to learn speaking with hearing his parents, then try to imitate them and through time, when the child begin to make links to the logic of language, the process is done. For an explanation in the Essay concerning Human Understanding, he states that “The sense at first let in particular ideas, and furnish the yet empty cabinet, and, the mind by degrees growing familiar with some of them, they are lodged in the memory, and names got to them” (Locke 48). And after that reflection to get better insight to one’s mind, and then engrave them. This is how humans acquire knowledge of the outside world, the emotions grow with the same way. However, Jean Jacques Rousseau actually stands at the exact point of Locke is opposed to, in terms of a priori knowledge of emotions. For example, Rousseau thinks that humans are born with the instinct of compassion, they have a sense of pity without experiencing it (Younkins). Just like his ideas of being naturally perfectible, human nature carries some sort of intension that are not harmful to anyone, at first. The nature of war, “…is constituted by a relation between things…” (Rousseau 3), is actually avoided by men in the state of nature, it is socially constructed.ş Thus, it is impossible for John Locke to have such an instinct to avoid war without experiencing and evaluating it with reflection. As we see, again, J.J. Rousseau takes the innate emotions at first place, and gives less importance to human reason than Locke does.

To sum up, John Locke gives more importance to human reason than J.J. Rousseau with acknowledging that the reason is not limiting the individuals, it expands the knowledge a person can attain. The knowledge is limited, not the reason itself. Then, Locke, in his Essay concerning Human Understanding describes human understanding with reason, and then he puts sensation inside the human reason. Finally he thinks that an innate idea about using force doesn’t exist, it can be learned with experiencing it, evaluating with reason. However, J.J. Rousseau thinks in his book Social Contract that reason is a limiter to human nature, he gives mre importance to instincts and emotions that they are prior to reason and motives behind human actions. Lastly, he thinks that compassion is prior to reason, humans are naturally avoiding from the use of force for violent. Because people are perfectible and state of nature is a peaceful, liberal place, Rousseau has a lot of conflict with the human reason. The savage man with his innate instincts, is the only man who is free and peaceful. Now, people are seeking for self-interest and under a lot of responsibilities to others, which are not natural. Alienation to one’s self is dangerous for him, when it is thought in a romantic way. Therefore, for Locke, human reason is important to reach the truth, it is not so much important and it is guilty, for Rousseau.

Bibliography

Garret, Jan. people.wku. 8 March 2007. people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/rsn&fth.htm. 23 April

2019.

Locke, John. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, in Four Books. Edited by
Alexander Campbell Fraser, Dover Publications, 1959, bk 1, ch. 1 (pp. 37–63).

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right. Translated by

G. D. H. Cole. Constitution Society, www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.htm, book I, chs 1–9.

Younkins, Edward W. Le Quebecois Libre. 15 July 2005.

www.quebecoislibre.org/05/050715-16.htm. 23 April 2019.