Re: Re: Chomsky on reason

[Rod Hay <rodhay@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Logically you are correct, Ricardo, but remember the context. The political
opponents of Rousseau and others of the time were arguing the divine right
of kings to grant rights and take them away. It was progressive to argue:
"we don't need you kings to tell us what your rights are. They are given by
nature and we can figure them out for ourselves."

Ricardo Duchesne wrote:

> *Chomsky Reader*p48 [an excellent interview.]
>
> "What is interesting, in the present connection, is the path Rousseau
> follows to reach these conclusions "by the light of reason alone,"
> beginning with his ideas of human nature. He wants to see man "as nature
> formed him" It is from human nature that the principles of natural right
> and the foundations of social existence must be DEDUCED."
> Ibid 142
>
> This passage  reveals well the fundamental problem with  the whole
> classical liberal tradition on 'natural rights':  if our rights
> are given to us naturally, how can they be derived by
> "the light of reason alone". Saying that they are "deduced" by reason
> acknowledges the role of reason but only in the passive sense of
> discovering something already given to us.  Nature has not
> given us any rights; rights social constructs. It is only at a
> certain point in our history that we came to think of ourselves
> as 'rights-bearers'.

--
Rod Hay
rodhay@xxxxxxxxxx
The History of Economic Thought Archive
http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html
Batoche Books
http://members.tripod.com/rodhay/batochebooks.html
http://www.abebooks.com/home/BATOCHEBOOKS/
52 Eby Street South
Kitchener, Ontario
N2G 3L1
Canada