Tweet
Originally posted by BSR
View Post
Ha, I'm glad you answered 
I'm not sure the following will be really a proper answer but maybe it will make my former comment clearer:
-i referred to the social contract classic theories, like those of Hobbes and Locke. According to them the society as a whole is a product of a social contract, which is to be understood as both its hypothetical origin (providing a possible historical starting point) and its foundation (providing a legitimacy for the social fact). I'm quite convinced by Hume's critic that points out that to pass a contract you need to already live in a social form. It's a circular argument very close to the one Rousseau uses about the origin of the language (to agree on the convention that the word 'dog' names a dog you need to speak in a language, thus there is no first overall convention about the meaning of words).
I'm not sure the following will be really a proper answer but maybe it will make my former comment clearer:
-i referred to the social contract classic theories, like those of Hobbes and Locke. According to them the society as a whole is a product of a social contract, which is to be understood as both its hypothetical origin (providing a possible historical starting point) and its foundation (providing a legitimacy for the social fact). I'm quite convinced by Hume's critic that points out that to pass a contract you need to already live in a social form. It's a circular argument very close to the one Rousseau uses about the origin of the language (to agree on the convention that the word 'dog' names a dog you need to speak in a language, thus there is no first overall convention about the meaning of words).
I got that - I'm coming from a classical liberalism background, and all the critiques thereof (principally from the critiques, to be honest.) I also agree -- to a point -- with Hume's critique of Rousseau's belief that humans are born free -- this is the origin of Rousseau's fascination with the 'noble savage' - the bon sauvage, and with the slave no? Of course, his interest in the noble savage is limited to the issue of where the savage fits into an evolutionary teleological model of societal development.What Hume misses perhaps is that Rousseau would have very well agreed with him on his stance that one must exist in a social form in order to make a social contract. Rousseau, it should be noted, differentiated between the naked society and the legitimate society. The noble savage of course belonged in the category of those who lived in illegitimate society whereas later, more advanced societies belonged, naturally in the legitimate society, where its members have agreed to a social contract.
This distinction renders Hume's frustrating tautological position moot, viz., Rousseau's logic is as follows: men have first to live in elementary society before evolving to legitimate, democratic society, therefore he is already a member of a "type" of social form.
In any case, I disagree with what I think you are saying about the highly theoretical nature of the social contract. It's not a surprise that Rousseau, Montaigne, Locke, Hume, etc are becoming interested in these questions as Western man is encountering people living in forms unfamiliar to them through their excursions to the New World; in other words, I am insisting that theory must, and has always been founded on the empirical. If not, we're trapped in the limitless possibilities inherent in the method of 'thought experiments' - the nightmare of Shroedinger's cat ad infinitum.
I'm uncertain if this advances our mutual understanding about the issue of the social contract. Perhaps you can articulate the question in a different form? In whatever case, you're much smarter than I, and I'm certain I'll have to continue to think about the issues (I think) you're posing.
Peace out,
MBD
Comment