What do you think?
Rate this book
Rousseau's Theodicy of Self-Love: Evil, Rationality, and the Drive for Recognition
This book is the first comprehensive study of Rousseau's rich and complex theory of the type of self-love ( amour propre ) that, for him, marks the central difference between humans and the beasts. Amour propre is the passion that drives human individuals to seek the esteem, approval, admiration, or love--the recognition --of their fellow beings. Neuhouser reconstructs Rousseau's understanding of what the drive for recognition is, why it is so problematic, and how its presence opens up far-reaching developmental possibilities for creatures that possess it. One of Rousseau's central theses is that amour propre in its corrupted, manifestations--pride or vanity--is the principal source of an array of evils so widespread that they can easily appear to be necessary features of the human enslavement, conflict, vice, misery, and self-estrangement. Yet Rousseau also argues that solving these problems depends not on suppressing or overcoming the drive for recognition but on
cultivating it so that it contributes positively to the achievement of freedom, peace, virtue, happiness, and unalienated selfhood. Indeed, Rousseau goes so far as to claim that, despite its many dangers, the need for recognition is a condition of nearly everything that makes human life valuable and that elevates it above mere animal rationality, morality, freedom-- subjectivity itself--would be impossible for humans if it were not for amour propre and the relations to others it impels us to establish.
cultivating it so that it contributes positively to the achievement of freedom, peace, virtue, happiness, and unalienated selfhood. Indeed, Rousseau goes so far as to claim that, despite its many dangers, the need for recognition is a condition of nearly everything that makes human life valuable and that elevates it above mere animal rationality, morality, freedom-- subjectivity itself--would be impossible for humans if it were not for amour propre and the relations to others it impels us to establish.
- GenresPhilosophy
292 pages, Hardcover
First published July 10, 2008
7 people are currently reading
76 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
March 24, 2023
In this brilliant book, Neuhouser focused on one of the major and important concepts in Rousseau's philosophy: amour-propre. Amour-propre is a kind of self-love that drives humans to seek esteem and admiration from others. In Rousseau's account, amour-propre is the source of all evils that we see in human societies.
Neuhouser, like Kant, considers Rousseau's theory of amour-propre as a theodicy. Theodicy is an explanation of why good God permits evil to exist. In Rousseau's account, human nature is "good" but the social man is corrupted. He articulates that neither human nature nor human conscious will is responsible for evil. But 'the blindness of man' or a lack of knowledge is responsible for evil. In Neuhouser's view, not only does Rousseau show where human evil comes from but also, he proposes social and domestic remedies for averting the dangers of amour-propre (In Émile and the social contract).
In Neuhouser's interpretation, inflated amour-propre is responsible for human evil. But he insists that, in Rousseau's view, extirpation or suppression of amour-propre is not the answer. It means that cultivation of this passion in the human soul and devising social and political institutions properly could avert the dangers of inflated amour-propre. But Neuhouser goes further and claims that amour-propre is a condition for the possibility of rationality, morality, and freedom.
Neuhouser, like Kant, considers Rousseau's theory of amour-propre as a theodicy. Theodicy is an explanation of why good God permits evil to exist. In Rousseau's account, human nature is "good" but the social man is corrupted. He articulates that neither human nature nor human conscious will is responsible for evil. But 'the blindness of man' or a lack of knowledge is responsible for evil. In Neuhouser's view, not only does Rousseau show where human evil comes from but also, he proposes social and domestic remedies for averting the dangers of amour-propre (In Émile and the social contract).
In Neuhouser's interpretation, inflated amour-propre is responsible for human evil. But he insists that, in Rousseau's view, extirpation or suppression of amour-propre is not the answer. It means that cultivation of this passion in the human soul and devising social and political institutions properly could avert the dangers of inflated amour-propre. But Neuhouser goes further and claims that amour-propre is a condition for the possibility of rationality, morality, and freedom.
June 25, 2018
Neuhouser definitely interprets Rousseau through Hegel, but his reading is all the more interesting because of it.
The main take-away from this book is that, since the manifestation of amour-propre is largely the result of freely chosen social arrangements, there always remains the possibility that we can alter those arrangements and use it for good. Neuhouser's categorization of the Discourses as 'diagnoses' and SC/Emile as 'remedies' were quite useful, as was his rigorous analyses of amour-propre, its dangers, and its potential.
Recommended for anyone interested in Rousseau and Hegel.
The main take-away from this book is that, since the manifestation of amour-propre is largely the result of freely chosen social arrangements, there always remains the possibility that we can alter those arrangements and use it for good. Neuhouser's categorization of the Discourses as 'diagnoses' and SC/Emile as 'remedies' were quite useful, as was his rigorous analyses of amour-propre, its dangers, and its potential.
Recommended for anyone interested in Rousseau and Hegel.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews