Jean Jacques Rousseau says what?

11 Commentsby   |  02.21.11  |  Renaissance/Premodern (Part II)

While reading about Jean Jacques Rousseau I discovered his belief that children are inherently good. I find that not only interesting but surprising because I disagree.
I think that we are born selfish. As humans, we want to satisfy our desires. I think it makes much more sense that we have no native understanding of goodness, fairness, or equality. I think that we are inherently evil. When I see kids play together I observe the stealing that takes place. I see that Child A finds the toy of Child B interesting, and thus takes it for himself. Children do not know how to compromise. They do not care about the desires of others. Adults teach children how to function in society.
Mr. Rousseau says that children are naturally good. He advises that we let them go, in a sense, and give advice sparingly. I say Nay! Children need disciple, love, and example much more than freedom.

Comment

11 Comments

  1. John Day IV
    10:17 pm, 02.21.11

    I cannot say that I totally agree with what you say but I got to respect it. I my self am not sure you can call a baby inherently good if anything they are ignorant or ethnocentric and in need of nurturing. Saying that a baby is evil cracks me up and you got good support but I do not think I am going to get on board with that idea.

  2. Anna Brinkman
    10:29 pm, 02.21.11

    I’m not sure I completely agree with this, but I do think that your last statement, “Children need discipline, love, and example” is very true. While I don’t whole heartedly agree with Rousseau’s view, I do believe that babies are born as a clean slate in a sense. Taking your example as Child A and Child B, it can be simplified to an act of jealousy. Jealousy is a learned trait, I think, and if the media and other children did not influence a child, then jealousy would not take over and the situation would not have happened. I do like how you thought about it and if it were me, I would take a little bit of your side and a little bit of Rousseau’s to make my case.

  3. Brady Campbell
    10:31 pm, 02.21.11

    Your post John is more interesting than I have time to enjoy. Perhaps the “disagreement” comes from our difference in definition of “evil”. While I might freely argue that evil by sense of profoundly immoral does not occur in a person until he or she is capable of understanding the world, I would rather avoid the issue due to its complexity. When I imply that our evil nature exists in infancy, I mean by the definition of something that is harmful or undesirable. I think our selfish nature is evil, even if we are not evil through choice until we are capable of greater understanding.

    • John Day IV
      12:05 am, 02.22.11

      So what I take from this is that you feel we are evil or at least have evil urges by nature until we have the mental capacity to overcome them we are evil. Also by evil your saying lack the ability to give and we only take at the start. If I got you right then I would still disagree because babies despite their neediness they give just as much in return compared to what they take. They do not need to act in order to do so simply existing and being with their parents can be worth far more than the price it cost to satisfy it. I will say that I am not with the inherently good baby either it is just incapable of doing wrong, which I do not feel implies good but are saved (their is a difference).

  4. Brady Campbell
    10:36 pm, 02.21.11

    Anna, I wish we could have a debate on this stuff, I’d totally be up for it, but I recognize that our presence here is moreover for the grade, so I won’t pursue it.

    P.S. to anyone reading this-I am not bothered by anyone disagreeing with my post, I really like any attention my post gets because it furthers the thought that I put into the subject. I hope I don’t sound like I’m aggressive on here(since it’s hard to communicate intent well through only text) because I do not feel that way.

  5. Jacob Luedecke
    10:39 pm, 02.21.11

    I don’t think babies are inherently evil, but I would agree that they are indeed selfish. Think for a moment: when a baby wants something it cries. Most babies would not sit contently and allow their needs to go unmet. They require constant attention due to their, for lack of a better word, neediness. We all have needs regardless of our state or position on the great totem pole of life. They are not evil, but most definitely selfish.

    • Brady Campbell
      10:45 pm, 02.21.11

      Great point! The disparity of definition was addressed with John. Surely fulfilling needs without care of others is harmful and undesirable? Even though it is at a point in early development before such actions can be corrected, it is the beginning of a pattern that must be corrected in order for a baby to become a functioning member of society…, what say you?

  6. Anna Brinkman
    10:40 pm, 02.21.11

    Brady I would love to talk more about this with you! It is really interesting and I really like your views on it because I can tell they are well thought out. And I also have to thank you, because reading your views on it helped me to understand mine!

    • Brady Campbell
      10:56 pm, 02.21.11

      Allright, cool. Then I’ll proceed.
      What is your founding for the statement that jealousy is a learned trait?
      While I’m sure I need to give more thought to the idea, I am almost positive that that is not so.
      Jealousy I think is completely natural. Jealousy, in this situation(because there are different meanings) is the desire for something that someone else has, with disregard to the deprivation to said someone of said thing. It is desire without care for others. This feeling that babies have, through the observation I have had, would surely take place even without modeling of jealousy. I certainly assume that this modeling affects the behavior of children, but I see no reason to conclude that jealousy is “a learned trait”.
      If you still do think that jealously is a learned trait, and not a natural affect of the minimal mental capacity of a baby, feel free to expound upon it.

      I’ll try not to hold you too hard to anything, as I hope will be done for me, since our topic is so very complex and abstract, and the hour is so late. I’m enjoying our discussion.(though I am unsure of how late I will stay up, I normally go to bed at 10)

  7. Emily Pennington
    10:56 pm, 02.21.11

    I think it’s really interesting that he thinks people are born good, and when we take the criminally insane to therapy, we’re essentially trying to wipe the bad out of them and restore them to their natural “goodness.” I just think it’s oddly presumptuous of us to try and press the ‘reset’ button on people and take them back to Rousseau’s original state of goodness, but as you pointed out, we are actually pretty selfish in our primary state, so as psychologists we shouldn’t exactly aim for their youthful goodness, but we should be aiming to instill a new sense of goodness in them just like a parent instills a sense of goodness in their selfish child

    • Brady Campbell
      11:15 pm, 02.21.11

      I wish there were a “like” button on here, because I would have used it.
      Surely the entire field of psychology needs an overhaul, especially in rehabilitation(though this word doesn’t actually work here if people aren’t being restored, but instead guided).

Add a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.