Rousseau's Confessions

As an autobiographer, Rousseau's revolutionary project was to depict a man "dans toute la vérité de la nature" [in all of the truth of his being]. One is unclear as to whether he chooses to focus on himself because he of course knows himself the best and could only complete such a project with regard to himself, or because of his almost palpable immodesty. Even in its choice of title, Rousseau's text presents itself as a response to Augustine's Confessions, though R. claims he has "told of the good and the bad with the same honesty, not adding anything bad or good," perhaps in contradistinction to Augustine whose Confessions serve theological if not also political ends.  Rousseau claims that any existing artifice in his text is due to "deficiencies of memory"[défaut de mémoire] and that he has "revealed his innermost being as if you [the reader] had seen it yourself."

As an assertion of an autobiographical project, Rousseau's rationale is compelling. However can one person ever relate his or her experience to another as if that other had himself seen it? The very paradox of the writing of the self is that one relates experiences that another has presumably not had in order for the other to experience them vicariously, perhaps sympathize, or occasionally even empathize. The practice of autobiography both widens the chasm between self and other as it stretches across that abyss, for in some instances when confronting certain experiences even in the writer's absence the reader can reach out from herself toward the event experienced by the writer, in some sense.

Do you think that Rousseau allows for such a bridging of the space between self and other in his piece, or is his goal more individualistic? He emphasizes his uniqueness as an individual while encouraging us to read his confessions. What is the paradox of such a project? Is there a paradox at all? How (if at all) do you see Rousseau as distancing his text from the work of Augustine with which it is clearly in dialogue?

Boethius and the Consolation of Philosophy

Both in form and content, Boethius' classic work De consolatio philosophiae (c. 524) straddles the artificial boundary between the West's "Classical" period and the Middle Ages.  The text is structured as a dialogue between the despondent Boethius, condemned to death for reasons to which he alludes in Book I, and Lady Philosophy--an allegory of wisdom. But the text itself is written as a prosimetrum or a hybrid composition combining prose and poetry. As a translator and student of the works of Plato (as well as other Ancient Greek philosophers), Boethius' thought is steeped in Platonic philosophy. Thus, his very employment of this form has meaning in itself. The prose stands for the measured words and reason of philosophy, while the poetry is a formal place holder for the role of artifice in thought. After all, Plato bars poets from his ideal republic. Considering Plato's ironic critique of poetry and poets, it is curious that Boethius has Lady Philosophy also speak in poetry after her admonition of the Muses (she goes so far as to call them meretricas or "prostitutes"). Perhaps this suggests that reason cannot fully triumph over artifice, or beauty cannot be completely vanquished by truth, its synonym in the Platonic scheme.

Although Boethius was a Christian and this work in particular made an indelible impact on Medieval Christianity, also evident here are strands of thought akin to Pagan, Stoic, and even Buddhist philosophy. It is B.'s desire for a willed reality that differs from Reality that leads to his suffering. This is a philosophical idea akin to the First and Second Noble Truths of the Buddhist tradition, namely that 1) all experience is dukkha ("suffering"or "unsatisfactory") and 2) the cause of that dukkha is desire. B. also brings up important philosophical questions regarding the role of Fortune, and the conflict between free will and determinism. B. has studied philosophy, but when confronted by the vicissitudes of misfortune, it is immensely difficult for him to apply the philosophy that formerly sustained him in happier times. Thus, that philosophy becomes personified as an often strident interlocutor.

What is the medicina that Lady Philosophy offers the speaker in this text? Does he find it without or within? In what ways do you see the role of Lady Philosophy in this text? Is she a projection of B.'s superego? Besides the female gender of the word sophia in Greek (and most other abstract nouns in gendered languages) might there be another reason that philosophy is personified as a woman? Would she have worked as a male interlocutor?  As we will be reading Augustine's Confessions next week, consider the ways in which this "consolation" might also be a "confession." Regarding genre, is this text more of an autobiographical narrative or a philosophical treatise?