Comparing Rousseau And A Critique Of Progress

All of these authors share some similar points, but the majority spoken is disagreement. I would expect this when there are men and women speaking their views during enlightenment. Of course, the men see women as objects to look good for them while requiring no education or the ability to reason. In 1751, Jean Jacques Rousseau in A Critique of Progress, answers the question, “Has the reestablishment of arts and sciences contributed to purge or corrupt our manners”. (p 363) In response he found the answer to be no, as he saw these advances as corrupting man’s goodness and human morals. He has doubts about the powers of science to be a benefit to ones morals. Also, the diffusion of knowledge will not erase superstition. It is our conscience playing the same role that our instinct plays for our morals. Rousseau sees our personal conscience alone is able to distinguish between good and evil. However
(p 370) It is the love for order in mankind that alone prevents our total destruction. Man’s reason is needed to free us from wrong doing and the injustices in life. We went from an inferior way of thinking to slowly acquiring the ability to think for ourselves. Modernity considers human reason to be the most important aspect of Enlightenment. In addition the main connection seen between modernity and Enlightenment is man’s ability to reason and his optimism. Rousseau and Voltaire have differing views on modernity. Rousseau sees arts and sciences as something that corrupt manner. Our conscience detects the difference between good and evil and we transport ourselves to another universe when we read ancient history. Voltaire on the other hand sees history only as a source of wars and disasters and it is our reasoning that frees us from wrong doing. Also, the discovery of the ability to think for ourselves comes very