Critics on the ” Discourse on the Arts and Sciences”

It prat non be denied that with the development of information and technology, people live in a much comfortable way which they hatful never image star hundred years before. Sciences and arts change peoples thoughts and improve human culture. well-nigh changes may be good, others may be not that delightful, but no matter how, we still go forward in the wave of science revolution. What scientists do is all about human needs, not like Rousseau argued, which is simply a result of pride and vanity.For example, do weneed cars, trains, planes? No, surly we can walk to whateverwhere by our own feet, no matter how bulky it takes or how dangerous it can be. Do we need phones? Of course not, I can yell from one mountain to the other trying to mark my mother I will get home later. Excuse for my mockery and please no offense, but I have to quote the animadversion from Jules Lemaitre who thought the instant deification of Rousseau as one of the strangest proofs of humans stupidity.Ma terial abundance in addition brings some problems and the critical one is inequality which is the most important contestation arised by Hippies. The conclusion they give is no more material, and we should all go back to primitive or so called as noble savage. manifestly it is an unadvisable and unrealistic idea. Inequality can not be abruptly avoided whether we use forks or not. Once wolves work together for hunting, there is an Alfa as a leader who is the strongest one of the term and will get more food for its protection from enemies.Is that fair for other members gain less because they be born weaker? Should they just abandon eating for avoiding unwanted impurity? preceding(prenominal) all, I cant say agree to Rousseau for his attitude to sciences and ars. If there are any unfairness caused by sciences, what we should do is to creat more material wealth for everyone can afford luxury. There will be no inequality which is the akin as primitive society, and the difference is ample material.