4. The “Individualistic” Ideal of the Eighteenth Century. In eighteenth-century philosophy, we find ourselves in a very different circle of ideas. “Nature” still means something antithetical to the existing social organization; Plato greatly influenced Rousseau. But the voice of nature now speaks for the diversity of individual talent and for the need of the free development of individuality in all its variety. Education in accord with nature furnishes the goal and the method of instruction and discipline. Moreover, the native or original endowment was conceived, in extreme cases, as nonsocial or even as antisocial. Social arrangements were thought of as mere external expedients by which these nonsocial individuals might secure a greater amount of private happiness for themselves. Nevertheless, these statements convey only an inadequate idea of the true significance of the movement. In reality, its chief interest was in progress and in social progress. The seeming antisocial philosophy was a somewhat transparent mask for an impetus toward a wider and freer society—toward cosmopolitanism. The positive ideal was humanity. In membership in humanity, as distinct from a state, man’s capacities would be liberated; while in existing political organizations his powers were hampered and distorted to meet the requirements and selfish interests of the rulers of the state. The doctrine of extreme individualism was but the counterpart, the obverse, of ideals of the indefinite perfectibility of man and of a social organization having a scope as wide as humanity. The emancipated individual was to become the organ and agent of a comprehensive and progressive society.
The heralds of this gospel were acutely conscious of the evils of the social estate in which they found themselves. They attributed these evils to the limitations imposed upon the free powers of man. A such limitation was both distorting and corrupting. Their impassioned devotion to the emancipation of life from external restrictions which operated to the exclusive advantage of the class to whom a past feudal system consigned power, found intellectual formulation in the worship of nature. To give “nature” full swing was to replace an artificial, corrupt, and inequitable social order with a new and better kingdom of humanity. Unrestrained faith in Nature as both a model and a working power was strengthened by the advances of natural science. Inquiry freed from prejudice and artificial restraints of church and state had revealed that the world is a scene of law. The Newtonian solar system, which expressed the reign of natural law, was a scene of wonderful harmony, where every force balanced with every other. Natural law would accomplish the same result in human relations, if men would only get rid of the artificial man-imposed coercive restrictions.
Education in accord with nature was thought to be the first step in insuring this more social society. It was plainly seen that economic and political limitations were ultimately dependent upon limitations of thought and feeling. The first step in freeing men from external chains was emancipating them from the internal chains of false beliefs and ideals. What was called social life, existing institutions were too false and corrupt to be entrusted with this work. How could it be expected to undertake it when the undertaking meant its own destruction? “Nature” must then be the power to which the enterprise was to be left. Even the extremely sensationalistic theory of knowledge which was currently derived itself from this conception. To insist that mind is originally passive and empty was one way of glorifying the possibilities of education. If the mind was a wax tablet to be written upon by objects, there would be no limits to the possibility of education by means of the natural environment. And since the natural world of objects is a scene of harmonious “truth,” this education would infallibly produce minds filled with the truth.
