Interview with The New York Times on “Inequality and Secular Theodicy”
Transcript
I think the question about where the
00:18
source of social inequality lies is
00:23
extremely complicated Rousseau has a
00:28
very specific answer to that question
00:30
Rousseau says there's a certain passion
00:33
that defines human beings and that
00:38
distinguishes us from all other living
00:40
creatures and that's responsible for
00:43
everything that's distinctively human
00:45
about us and it's the passion to be well
00:48
regarded by others it's the desire to be
00:52
recognized by other people and that this
00:57
passion they're not bad in itself and
00:59
capable of taking benign and good forms
01:04
and being satisfied even is so malleable
01:07
and so susceptible to being formed in
01:10
ways that make us desire its various
01:14
forms of inequality in order to achieve
01:16
a kind of recognition so it's a way to
01:19
put it to put it crudely the fact that
01:22
we have this deep driving us to be well
01:24
regarded by others so easily turns for
01:27
us into the desire to be better than
01:30
others and the desire to be regarded by
01:32
others as better than others and this
01:34
Faru so anyway is what explains the
01:38
thing that's deep in human beings that
01:40
accounts for the drive to inequalities
01:42
in all kinds of societies and not just
01:44
capitalist ones when I started working
01:46
on Rousseau and the problem of a more
01:49
problematic nature of the human Drive
01:53
for recognition theodicy was not
01:56
something I had in mind at all I was not
02:00
interested in that topic I was
02:01
interested in this very specific topic
02:03
of what the drive for recognition means
02:09
for human beings and why it's the source
02:13
of so much of our misery but thinking
02:17
about this problem led Russo and led me
02:23
through Rousseau to a version of
02:29
the problem of theodicy I don't think
02:32
that the problems of theodicy
02:34
are of interest only to someone who has
02:40
a Christian worldview I think it's a
02:44
very deep question that motivates human
02:48
beings is the world as a whole
02:55
something that in some sense you can
02:58
affirm as a whole that you can find good
03:04
or at least benign or at least a place
03:09
where the good can be realized so I
03:11
think the project of theodicy and
03:13
Rousseau boils down to something like
03:17
this it starts from a kind of Christian
03:22
at the same place that a Christian
03:24
viewpoint looks at it starts from namely
03:27
it starts from a view of the world it
03:29
looks at the world and sees that the
03:30
world is just thoroughly permeated by
03:35
suffering by evil by alienation by
03:41
enslavement by domination and wants to
03:46
ask what the source of that domination
03:48
is and what Rousseau is I think driven
03:56
to show is that there is nothing
04:01
intrinsic to human nature there is
04:04
nothing intrinsic to human nature and to
04:07
the world we inhabit that makes all of
04:10
those things unnecessary outcome for us
04:13
he has I think a very modest version of
04:17
theodicy it's modest in the sense he
04:20
wants to show that there's nothing in
04:22
nature nothing in human nature and
04:25
nothing in nature as a whole that
04:29
precludes the realization of the most
04:32
important human goods that there are
04:34
being free being happy
04:37
finding love finding recognition
04:41
what Rousseau does is show what Rousseau
04:45
tries to do and I think he's to some
04:47
extent successful in doing this is to
04:50
show both why in the human condition all
04:55
of the bad things are such likely
04:58
outcomes so he's very sensitive to those
05:02
aspects of our condition that are
05:06
dangerous to us that make the the
05:10
alienation the unfreedom such likely
05:12
outcomes but what he's interested in
05:15
showing is that there's nothing in us
05:17
and nothing in the world that
05:19
necessitates those those evils and so
05:24
theodicy for him has what's at stake for
05:29
him in theodicy is showing that there's
05:34
nothing built into the order of things
05:36
that requires our own freedom our
05:39
unhappiness our vices and that means
05:46
there's at least reason for thinking
05:51
that attempts to change the world might
05:54
succeed that's what I think mostly at
05:57
issue for him it's not an attempt to
06:00
convince us that the world is the best
06:02
of all possible worlds or that that
06:04
history is moving in a direction that
06:07
necessarily will realize the best things
06:09
that are available to us those are all
06:11
bad faith forms of theodicy I think but
06:15
it's the very bare idea that improving
06:21
the human situation is not doomed from
06:24
the beginning
06:25
and therefore it's rational to try to do
06:31
that in whatever ways are available to
06:34
you to do that
06:35
there are no guarantees of success in
06:37
fact everything seems to point to the
06:39
likelihood that you won't be successful
06:41
but there's nothing in the nature of
06:44
things that says that you will not
06:48
succeed and so given that you must try
06:52
in the ways that are available to
06:55
that's what makes sense to me about a
06:58
that's why the project of secular
07:00
theodicy may still have some some
07:03
meaning for us may still have some
07:04
importance for us
00:18
source of social inequality lies is
00:23
extremely complicated Rousseau has a
00:28
very specific answer to that question
00:30
Rousseau says there's a certain passion
00:33
that defines human beings and that
00:38
distinguishes us from all other living
00:40
creatures and that's responsible for
00:43
everything that's distinctively human
00:45
about us and it's the passion to be well
00:48
regarded by others it's the desire to be
00:52
recognized by other people and that this
00:57
passion they're not bad in itself and
00:59
capable of taking benign and good forms
01:04
and being satisfied even is so malleable
01:07
and so susceptible to being formed in
01:10
ways that make us desire its various
01:14
forms of inequality in order to achieve
01:16
a kind of recognition so it's a way to
01:19
put it to put it crudely the fact that
01:22
we have this deep driving us to be well
01:24
regarded by others so easily turns for
01:27
us into the desire to be better than
01:30
others and the desire to be regarded by
01:32
others as better than others and this
01:34
Faru so anyway is what explains the
01:38
thing that's deep in human beings that
01:40
accounts for the drive to inequalities
01:42
in all kinds of societies and not just
01:44
capitalist ones when I started working
01:46
on Rousseau and the problem of a more
01:49
problematic nature of the human Drive
01:53
for recognition theodicy was not
01:56
something I had in mind at all I was not
02:00
interested in that topic I was
02:01
interested in this very specific topic
02:03
of what the drive for recognition means
02:09
for human beings and why it's the source
02:13
of so much of our misery but thinking
02:17
about this problem led Russo and led me
02:23
through Rousseau to a version of
02:29
the problem of theodicy I don't think
02:32
that the problems of theodicy
02:34
are of interest only to someone who has
02:40
a Christian worldview I think it's a
02:44
very deep question that motivates human
02:48
beings is the world as a whole
02:55
something that in some sense you can
02:58
affirm as a whole that you can find good
03:04
or at least benign or at least a place
03:09
where the good can be realized so I
03:11
think the project of theodicy and
03:13
Rousseau boils down to something like
03:17
this it starts from a kind of Christian
03:22
at the same place that a Christian
03:24
viewpoint looks at it starts from namely
03:27
it starts from a view of the world it
03:29
looks at the world and sees that the
03:30
world is just thoroughly permeated by
03:35
suffering by evil by alienation by
03:41
enslavement by domination and wants to
03:46
ask what the source of that domination
03:48
is and what Rousseau is I think driven
03:56
to show is that there is nothing
04:01
intrinsic to human nature there is
04:04
nothing intrinsic to human nature and to
04:07
the world we inhabit that makes all of
04:10
those things unnecessary outcome for us
04:13
he has I think a very modest version of
04:17
theodicy it's modest in the sense he
04:20
wants to show that there's nothing in
04:22
nature nothing in human nature and
04:25
nothing in nature as a whole that
04:29
precludes the realization of the most
04:32
important human goods that there are
04:34
being free being happy
04:37
finding love finding recognition
04:41
what Rousseau does is show what Rousseau
04:45
tries to do and I think he's to some
04:47
extent successful in doing this is to
04:50
show both why in the human condition all
04:55
of the bad things are such likely
04:58
outcomes so he's very sensitive to those
05:02
aspects of our condition that are
05:06
dangerous to us that make the the
05:10
alienation the unfreedom such likely
05:12
outcomes but what he's interested in
05:15
showing is that there's nothing in us
05:17
and nothing in the world that
05:19
necessitates those those evils and so
05:24
theodicy for him has what's at stake for
05:29
him in theodicy is showing that there's
05:34
nothing built into the order of things
05:36
that requires our own freedom our
05:39
unhappiness our vices and that means
05:46
there's at least reason for thinking
05:51
that attempts to change the world might
05:54
succeed that's what I think mostly at
05:57
issue for him it's not an attempt to
06:00
convince us that the world is the best
06:02
of all possible worlds or that that
06:04
history is moving in a direction that
06:07
necessarily will realize the best things
06:09
that are available to us those are all
06:11
bad faith forms of theodicy I think but
06:15
it's the very bare idea that improving
06:21
the human situation is not doomed from
06:24
the beginning
06:25
and therefore it's rational to try to do
06:31
that in whatever ways are available to
06:34
you to do that
06:35
there are no guarantees of success in
06:37
fact everything seems to point to the
06:39
likelihood that you won't be successful
06:41
but there's nothing in the nature of
06:44
things that says that you will not
06:48
succeed and so given that you must try
06:52
in the ways that are available to
06:55
that's what makes sense to me about a
06:58
that's why the project of secular
07:00
theodicy may still have some some
07:03
meaning for us may still have some
07:04
importance for us