The Natural Education: Rousseau's Correct Education Of Society

Diaz 1

The Natural Education: Rousseau's Correct Education of Society
In Emile or Education philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau claims that he will raise his child the natural way, from nature. This raises the question of what is the natural way of raising a child and whether the method in which Rousseau uses to educate his child is right. Though Rousseau claims that his natural educationwill lead to the development of both a “man” and “a citizen”. Rousseau 's goal of education is “securing the heart from vice and the mind from error”(p. 93). Rousseau feels that to achieve this education the child has to go through a “negative education”. However, in my opinion this negative education will result in a child that is autonomous.
Nevertheless from my view of Rousseau's argument tobecome both a “man” and “a citizen” one must take priority first. Also, we must note that people in society make decisions on how it will affect their own self interest. So Rousseau argues that the proper development of “amour-prope” the self interest of the child plays a huge role on the child's education. We must also take into account the education of Emile and Sophie and evaluate if they arefair and how Sophie's education contradicts's Emile education. Additionally I will relate my views to the usefulness of this type of natural education, how it affect one's society, and the practicality of it.
Rousseau says that the “natural man is entirely for himself. He is numerical unity, the absolute whole which is relative only to itself or its kind. Civil man is only a fractional unitydependent on the denominator: his value is determined by his relation to the whole, which is the social body”(p. 39-40) and Emile is proposed to be educated to be both so he can be a person that can live in society freely. I find that this claim is impossible to do since the natural man is like a person stuck in a deserted island
Diaz 2
all by himself, completely free and would onlywant to benefit for his own-self and self-preservation. The civil man is the citizen who cares about the whole and is submerged in the whole. This is the person who plays a part in the division of labor in our society and whose duties will benefit the whole.
Though being both the man and the citizen will create problems, this will lead to the creation of double men. Rousseau argues that “doublemen, always appearing to relate everything to others and never relating anything except to themselves alone”(p.41). Double men are in conflict with themselves and the common good, underneath there is a constant struggle between himself and society and that is not a good life to live by. He is neither a civil man or a free man. An example of this can be that if a wealthy person decided to letthemselves be taxed more so the welfare of an education programs not be cut and they feel angry in doing so they are double men. If this person feels self-satisfaction in doing so in helping the educational program then they are both the free man and the civil man.
The desire for riches and power makes you subservient to your own wants. Emile would be happier if he is more self-sufficient. If Emilegives money to someone else and he does not feel pained that he is giving money away then in theory Rousseau's natural education has succeeded with Emile because “Emile can become good by doing good (See p.250). “He suffers when he sees suffering. It is a natural sentiment”(p.251). So Emile sacrificing some of his worldly goods to help other people is not bad for him which is what Rousseau argueswhat the education of Emile should make him think so.
Since Rousseau is removing the child from society and leaving him to nature there is something controversial to the view that Rousseau is trying to put forward. It raises the question of whether it leads for the best possible human life for the individual. Emile is a kind of parable to the form of life to which humans can be happy. Humans...