Poor Werther

Werther Holding Woodcut of Lotte
and
Werther at the Computer...


Although Werther was irrational, unstable, and had many "sturm und drang" qualities, I felt that Goethe made his situation and troubled mindset easy to understand. Logically I was thinking "Come on Werther, get over the girl and move on," but Goethe made Werther's irrational thoughts rational, in some way. How does Goethe make the reader so easily sympathize with such an instable character as Werther? I think it all connects back to Rousseau, and perhaps even the inherent human quality of sympathy. In the first few pages, Goethe immediately puts the reader in Werther's perspective by showing the social position and the inequality that plays such an large role in Werther's unhappiness:

"...people of a certain rank will always keep a cool distance from common people..." (p. 8)
I found that this quote particularly reflected a lot of Rousseau's thought. It also seems to be the root cause of Werther's suffering throughout the letters. Werther's extreme insecurities, depression, "broken dreams" and his obsessive and tragic love for Lotte all seem to stem from his social inequality. But would Rousseau agree with Goethe/Werther on the following quote?

"...all human activity is directed toward procuring satisfaction for needs that have no other purpose than prolonging our miserable existence..." (p. 11)

This quote bothered me. It was harsh, depressing, and it rather glosses over a lot of common human activities: recreation, the arts, education, and sports are some that spring to mind. These human activities are not simply neccessities for prolonging our "miserable existence." So it seems to me that Goethe's own social jabs are represented by the first quote, while the more fictitious Werther's personal misery in the second.

Being vs. Appearance: Two-Faced Moderns

Rousseau argues throughout Part Two that rivalries and the evils of nascent inequality arise from the ideas of property, "the first fence," and unnatural divisions amongst men. Eventually, after showing the development of memory, imagination, and pride, Rousseau begins to explain how these qualities are neccessary to modern man in large quantities. Therefore, humans have to have skills, talent, beauty, strength, etc. or at least PRETEND to.... I felt this was an interesting twist to everything he had said before, because this brought in an element of duplicity or deceit:

"It was necessary in one's own interest to be other than one was in reality. Being and appearance became two entirely different things."

He goes on to show how the two-faced aspect of modern human beings is the epicenter of so many problems-----"deceitful cunning" and "ostentation". Finally I felt like Rousseau was getting to the heart of some modern problems! For once he was pointing out a problem that I could actually believe nascent man would not have had. As Rousseau points out, these dual personalities tend to sprout a dangerous jealousy amongst people that is "masked in benevolence."

But to take this argument a step further, I began thinking of it in the modern world and our celebrity crazed society. Isn't there a lot of false duality there? Celebrities strive to come across to be something they are not, perfect in every way. Fans attempt to emulate them (denying their true free will, Rousseau might say). And at the same time that our society seems to follow strict guidelines (what to wear? how to eat? what political views?) and crave common understanding and equality, we all are striving to be "individuals" and win back that free will. I remember we touched on some of this in class last week and talked about how phenomena like Myspace are perfect examples of this dance between the individual/truth and the public/false. I think Rousseau's points here about the negative aspects of the private face and the public face are truly at the heart of this modern problem, and what makes modern life so confusing!

Modernity?

(Rousseau)


After the discussion last week, I looked up some general information on the termionology of "modernity" and the debate of "what is modern?" A lot of what I found on the web was quite vague, but the wikipedia article had some very basic descriptions and lots of links to other sites in the same vein of "modernism." Here is the main page, which is good to use as a jumping-off point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernity

I liked the "Paradox of Modernity" section particularly. It reflected a lot of what Rousseau was saying. I feel he could have predicted what would happen as humans continued to compete against one another in an unnatural habitat.

I also found two interesting articles about Rousseau, one that calls him an "idiot," and one that defends him. They both show how Rousseau's philosophies have been used in the modern world, from the founding American fathers, to the modern Ukraine.

http://www.ukraine-observer.com/articles/225/954

http://www.ukraine-observer.com/articles/226/969

Welcome

Welcome to Sam Mitchell's personal blog for the "Inventing Modernity" course.