![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
anghraineNo idea how long this will take me, so prepare for more spam. This time with more feminism!
She starts with saying that prejudices lie so think on the ground that she has to go back to the most basic principles to make her argument, and do it piece by piece, so she'll be seeming to ask very simple, obvious questions.
To begin with, she roots herself in the ongoing discussion of human nature (which, per last post, clearly kicked off the specific application to women). Why are humans superior to animals? The possession of reason, obviously. What makes some people better than others? Virtues, obviously. Why do we have passions? Because we acquire valuable knowledge in struggling with them through our experiences. Therefore, nature and capacity for happiness (the ghost of Johnson is muttering to himself) comes from the level of reason, virtue, and knowledge at play, which distinguish people and generate the order of civilization. And knowledge and virtue ultimately spring from reason.
She goes on for a bit about how people will insist on their prejudices in the name of reason, without any evidence that those things are so, and force restrictions against basic human rights based on those unproven generalizations.
She then veers off into a discussion of class and economics, and the horrors of capitalism: "it may be made a question whether they [Europeans] have acquired any virtues in exchange for innocence, equivalent to the misery produced by the vices that have been plastered over unsightly ignorance, and the freedom that has been bartered for splendid slavery." Damn.
She condemns social-climbers, but also hereditary rank, which propels people into logical contortions justifying what's really just a chance of birth. And reason becomes some forbidden thing that's stolen against the will of God, rather than a unique gift from God.
At this point she levels her guns at Rousseau for the first but by no means the last time. She talks about how he withdrew into solitude, and as he was cheerful about it, worked to rationalize his own choice as fundamental human nature—people are really solitary by nature, and evil comes of our civilizations. She argues that it doesn't make any sense to say civilization violates our basic natures as created by God, because God must have known that it would then be in our natures to form civilizations, so why would he have created us into a paradox like that? It really would not reflect well on God, would it? Nor would it make ANY GODDAMN SENSE.
Instead, she argues that the problems arising out of human passion are more or less temporary collateral damage as passion is necessary for the function of our reason, a good so great that temporary evils are worth it. People couldn't have seized reason against the will of God, seized consciousness against the will of God—very fortunate fall, here.
She's completely bemused that somebody who argues so magnificently for human immortality would, really, be such a dumbass about reason—regard it as curse rather than blessing. (In a footnote, she also criticizes him for being a wanky vegetarian who insists that we're really herbivores by nature. I can't lie, I laughed: I see those people around now and it's so irritating. You have my sword, Mary!) Self-love, which is basically wrong, leads to an elevated experience of love in recognition the wisdom and goodness of God (oh hey, sublime, I see you there). She's got another footnote about how silly it would be for a watchmaker to stick in some random complication in a perfectly functional watch to see what happened—you'd rightly be appalled as a customer. Likewise, why would God allow evil to fester in the human soul without any ultimate purpose? No, it's part of God's overall vision.
And back into class, she talks about how awful conquerors tend to be and how even their greatness withers away in succeeding generations, brought up in luxury, flattery, etc, which actually makes them worse off than other people. The solution isn't trading one king for another; monarchy itself is the problem. Then she moves onto the army, which is inherently hierarchical and authoritarian in structure, and just creates "idle superficial young men, whose only occupation is gallantry, and whose polished manners render vice more dangerous, by concealing its deformity under gay ornamental drapery."
Oh hey, Wickham!
Sailors are just as bad, but in a different way. They're rough and lazy instead of simpering and lazy, but no better on the intellectual front. It also strikes the clergy! Although their backgrounds encourage more intellectual development, the servility to patrons and subordination to another kind of hierarchy creates similar effects.
In her view, character is heavily influenced by the nature of their professions—men of strong intellectual qualities will only be superficially affected, but the weak-willed become completely formed by it and lose any real individuality. So the real issue is the organization created—society should create organizations that are for the betterment of people, not worsening.
Also, it makes sense for leaders and priests to be the first sources of order in society, which through various struggles result in hereditary monarchy and aristocracy. Internal and external wars force limitations on the powerful, at least ostensible limitations, but it mostly just drives them to performative quasi-democracy while actually keeping hold of all real power through corruption etc (damn if this isn't relevant). It's this shit that poisons civilization and warps people, until reason seems like an actively bad thing—but it isn't. The problem is class hierarchies, not human nature and human intelligence.
She starts with saying that prejudices lie so think on the ground that she has to go back to the most basic principles to make her argument, and do it piece by piece, so she'll be seeming to ask very simple, obvious questions.
To begin with, she roots herself in the ongoing discussion of human nature (which, per last post, clearly kicked off the specific application to women). Why are humans superior to animals? The possession of reason, obviously. What makes some people better than others? Virtues, obviously. Why do we have passions? Because we acquire valuable knowledge in struggling with them through our experiences. Therefore, nature and capacity for happiness (the ghost of Johnson is muttering to himself) comes from the level of reason, virtue, and knowledge at play, which distinguish people and generate the order of civilization. And knowledge and virtue ultimately spring from reason.
She goes on for a bit about how people will insist on their prejudices in the name of reason, without any evidence that those things are so, and force restrictions against basic human rights based on those unproven generalizations.
She then veers off into a discussion of class and economics, and the horrors of capitalism: "it may be made a question whether they [Europeans] have acquired any virtues in exchange for innocence, equivalent to the misery produced by the vices that have been plastered over unsightly ignorance, and the freedom that has been bartered for splendid slavery." Damn.
She condemns social-climbers, but also hereditary rank, which propels people into logical contortions justifying what's really just a chance of birth. And reason becomes some forbidden thing that's stolen against the will of God, rather than a unique gift from God.
At this point she levels her guns at Rousseau for the first but by no means the last time. She talks about how he withdrew into solitude, and as he was cheerful about it, worked to rationalize his own choice as fundamental human nature—people are really solitary by nature, and evil comes of our civilizations. She argues that it doesn't make any sense to say civilization violates our basic natures as created by God, because God must have known that it would then be in our natures to form civilizations, so why would he have created us into a paradox like that? It really would not reflect well on God, would it? Nor would it make ANY GODDAMN SENSE.
Instead, she argues that the problems arising out of human passion are more or less temporary collateral damage as passion is necessary for the function of our reason, a good so great that temporary evils are worth it. People couldn't have seized reason against the will of God, seized consciousness against the will of God—very fortunate fall, here.
She's completely bemused that somebody who argues so magnificently for human immortality would, really, be such a dumbass about reason—regard it as curse rather than blessing. (In a footnote, she also criticizes him for being a wanky vegetarian who insists that we're really herbivores by nature. I can't lie, I laughed: I see those people around now and it's so irritating. You have my sword, Mary!) Self-love, which is basically wrong, leads to an elevated experience of love in recognition the wisdom and goodness of God (oh hey, sublime, I see you there). She's got another footnote about how silly it would be for a watchmaker to stick in some random complication in a perfectly functional watch to see what happened—you'd rightly be appalled as a customer. Likewise, why would God allow evil to fester in the human soul without any ultimate purpose? No, it's part of God's overall vision.
And back into class, she talks about how awful conquerors tend to be and how even their greatness withers away in succeeding generations, brought up in luxury, flattery, etc, which actually makes them worse off than other people. The solution isn't trading one king for another; monarchy itself is the problem. Then she moves onto the army, which is inherently hierarchical and authoritarian in structure, and just creates "idle superficial young men, whose only occupation is gallantry, and whose polished manners render vice more dangerous, by concealing its deformity under gay ornamental drapery."
Oh hey, Wickham!
Sailors are just as bad, but in a different way. They're rough and lazy instead of simpering and lazy, but no better on the intellectual front. It also strikes the clergy! Although their backgrounds encourage more intellectual development, the servility to patrons and subordination to another kind of hierarchy creates similar effects.
In her view, character is heavily influenced by the nature of their professions—men of strong intellectual qualities will only be superficially affected, but the weak-willed become completely formed by it and lose any real individuality. So the real issue is the organization created—society should create organizations that are for the betterment of people, not worsening.
Also, it makes sense for leaders and priests to be the first sources of order in society, which through various struggles result in hereditary monarchy and aristocracy. Internal and external wars force limitations on the powerful, at least ostensible limitations, but it mostly just drives them to performative quasi-democracy while actually keeping hold of all real power through corruption etc (damn if this isn't relevant). It's this shit that poisons civilization and warps people, until reason seems like an actively bad thing—but it isn't. The problem is class hierarchies, not human nature and human intelligence.
