Jean Jacques Rousseau: An Interesting Mdaman, P

¶ … Jean Jacques Rousseau: An Interesting Mdaman, p .2, the author presents the argument that Jean Jacques Rousseau was the most influential of modern intellectuals.

Reasons

"He popularized and to some extent invented the cult of nature, the taste for the open air, the quest for freshness, spontaneity, the invigorating and the natural" (Rousseau 3).

"Second, and linked to his revaluation of nature, Rousseau taught distrust of the progressive, gradual improvements brought about by the slow march of materialist culture…" (Rousseau 3)

"It was the simple, direct, powerful, indeed passionate, manner in which Rousseau wrote which made his notions seem so vivid and fresh, so that they came to men and women with the shock of a revelation" (Rousseau 4).

I think the author's argument has this form:

The argument is that Rousseau is the most influential of all the modern intellectuals who disavow the church as a source of authority. This is a sophisticated form of disjunctive syllogism in which the author is considering either the achievements of Rousseau or other modern intellects to be the most influential.

(1) Rousseau is responsible for shifting intellectualism to include nature.

(2) Rousseau was one of the pioneers of eschewing a material-based lifestyle, and supplanting it with one of thought and reason.

(3) Therefore, because of his ability to write out these principles in a manner that was lucid and inspiring, he is the most influential of modern intellects.

I have the following objections to this argument:

The author did not give a legitimate degree of analysis to Rousseau's competition for the most influential intellectual. Additionally, these two reasons that are mentioned do not pertain to Rousseau's writing at all, which is the reason the author concluded he was the most influential. The inference from the reasons to the conclusion is too great and unsubstantiated, as is the lack of evidence given to his competition in this disjunctive syllogism.

Structure One:

In Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, p. 2, Galileo Galilei presents the argument that the world moves, spins, rotates, etc.

Reasons:

"First, I shall try to show that all experiments practicable upon the earth are inszyfficient measures for proving its mobility, since they are indiferently adaptable to an earth in motion or at rest" (Galilei 2)

"Secondly, the celestial phenomena will be examined strengthening the Copernican hypothesis until it might seem that this must triumph absolutely" (Galilei 2).

Conclusion:

"Now, so that no stranger may ever a who, arming himself with our weapons, shall charge us with want of attention to such an important matter, I have thought it good to reveal those probabilities which might render this plausible, given that the earth moves" (Galilei 2).

I think Galilei's argument has this form:

(1) Because all experiments on earth adapt to its motion or lack thereof, there is no way of proving the earth is at rest.

(2) Bodies in the sky will be examined using Copernicus' theorem to demonstrate that there is motion that must be attributed to the earth's movement.

(3) Therefore, due to the fact that Copernicus's system shows heavenly movement and the there is no way of proving that the earth is motionless, the earth must move. This argument uses disjunctive syllogism logic, wherein there are only two possible outcomes -- either the earth moves or it does not. Since the earth cannot be proven to be motionless, under Copernicus' system it appears to be moving.