Philosohpy That Progress In The Arts & Sciences Corrupts Human Nature.

"Philosohpy that progress in the arts & sciences corrupts human nature."

The statement that was chosen, to further explain in depth about its content, is the second statement.
"Philosohpy that progress in the arts & sciences corrupts human nature."
Being this said, I will continue with explaining Rousseau's philosophical view upon this declaration.
Many of the views that Rousseau had aboutthis following statement, which he stated clearly in the discourse of arts and sciences of 1750, can be narrowed to the following group of words: Arts and sciences were responsible for the moral degeneration of mankind, who were basically good by nature.
Now, from that main idea there are different aspects that can help us understand this phrase further more. There could possibly be about threeaspects that are worth mentioning and that this well known philosopher, also liked to point out quite a few times in his lectures regarding science, art and the human race. First of all, he continuously talked about humans being good in their natural state; this means that humans are good only if they haven't really gotten in contact with the pre-established system or society itself, which alsomeans, that their human nature remains intact; once there is a minimum interaction with another human, that being gets automatically corrupted by society's system. When talking about human nature, there is only a basic thing to know. Humans are born with specific physical traits and a way of thinking or acknowledging information, period. Their conception of what morality is, still remains unknown inthat state.
So, in theory, once a human is born and it gets in contact with his parents, both of them, will, without a doubt, begin to impose their knowledge on their new-born child and this child, will begin to know about the morality that his surroundings are based upon. Additionally, he will also start thinking like his parents, which makes him corrupt, since he's not thinking for himselfbut just following blindly what it is imposed on him.Another aspect would have to be "need". The human race, became into hopeless needy beings. After men began to interact with one another and something as deadly powerful as the social status arises the "need" of "competition" is crucial for everyone's existence. That which had more than the other was morally viewed as the ultimate individual, theone with more virtues and values, therefore, in some way, the good sheep and not the black sheep; the black sheep were completely the opposite. Needy and poor as they can be. This new arrangement of inequality, luxury and political life style, in which every individual is governed by X individual, turns into something despicably right and completely necessary because of their need for materialobjects.
Either way, this was completely harmful and here is why, because the third aspect, has to do with one simple denotation. The material world was "created" and in the new system, everyone follows the rule or else is punished. In this material world the super-powers are not the countries themselves but the arts and sciences that control the system. They were the beginning of our humanstupidity. Rousseau states, that they were exactly, the reason for which we be came needy in the first place. We depend of a scientific response to know about something or to live in general. To put it in context, we follow science blindly ever since scientists talked about evolution and started coming up with brand new gadgets to satisfy our luxury needs. Rousseau also says that this is practically thereason why philosophy keeps decaying and will keep decaying because it is not as a objective as science or art, there is always going to be another question and not a concrete answer but most importantly, the more science and art evolve, the more people are going to want what they come up with and the more people would want to follow them blindly. Which means, that there will be no space for...