In my opinion, I think Sophie de Grouchy deserves a place on the syllabus next year, and in the philosophical canon. Sophie de Grouchy was an important salon hostess during the late 18th century. This was during the French Revolution and at the height of the Enlightenment. The Age of Enlightenment was a very significant intellectual and philosophical movement that dominated European intellectualism and changed the course of philosophy and history. Enlightenment philosophies included individual liberty and religious tolerance. These ideas and doctrines were able to be circulated and disseminated at salons in Early Modern and Revolutionary France. These salons were cultural hubs and became birthplaces of intellectual and enlightened ideas. Philosophers and thinkers met at these salons to exchange ideas and circulate their writings. As such, the salons played an integral role in propagating the Enlightenment and revolutionary sentiment. The role of these salons cannot be understated — without these salons, the French Revolution and its impact on history would have been very different.
Sophie de Grouchy was the hostess of a popular salon during this time, at the Hotel of the Mint in Paris, opposite the Louvre. This salon hosted a variety of significant members of the political and literary scene, both French and international. Attendants of Grouchy’s salon include Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith, Olympe de Gouges, and many other prominent philosophers and academics. Grouchy’s salon played a significant role in the rise of the Girondin movement, a political faction during the French Revolution which emphasized the rights of women.
Given this, I believe this is why Sophie de Grouchy deserves a place on the syllabus next year. The French Revolution and the Age of Enlightenment were two groundbreaking events in the study of philosophy. The ideas that emerged from this time period are fundamental to our society today, and have contributed to the formation of modern philosophical movements. As a salon hostess, Grouchy was responsible for the dissemination of these ideas and furthering the influence of the Enlightenment. Grouchy’s salon was very influential and brought together thinkers from across Europe and America. Due to her facilitation of the exchanging of philosophical ideas and revolutionary sentiments that contributed to the French Revolution, Grouchy was an important figure of this time period and deserves a place in the philosophical canon.
Furthermore, Sophie de Grouchy’s only book, Letters on Sympathy, is philosophically significant because it provides clear and unique perspectives on a variety of relevant issues. In particular, Grouchy gives a clear account of the origins of sympathy that is both naturalistic and compelling. Grouchy emphasizes the role of physiology and examines the birth of morality. Additionally, Grouchy analyzes the implications of her theory of the origins of sympathy on economic, legal, and sociopolitical frameworks, and its relationship to the reforms established by the French Revolution. In this book, Grouchy offers a comprehensive and detailed investigation of sympathy and its sociological impacts. This is another reason why Grouchy deserves a place on the syllabus next year.
In my opinion, Sophie de Grouchy should replace Bernard Mandeville on the syllabus. Mandeville’s work has been (in my opinion, fairly) characterized as cynical and untrue. Mandeville’s works, The Fable of the Bees and The Grumbling Hive, revolve around the idea that human actions cannot be separated into higher or lower. Mandeville defines all actions as equally vicious because they are all motivated by self-interest. Mandeville concludes that vices produce publicly beneficial results. To me, this is entirely unfounded, especially given the fact that I take a staunch Marxist, materialist approach to philosophy. Mandeville provides no evidence for his claims that vices stimulate society into action and progress. In fact, by actually looking at and analyzing real events in history, anyone can see that vices, such as vanity and greed, only serve as a detriment to society, not as a catalyst for progress. At what point in human history have vices contributed to the societal good without long-term ramifications? Humans aren’t inherently vicious; greed and vanity aren’t innate, natural human characteristics. Humans are shaped by the material world they live in and interact with. If someone lives in a society that emphasizes greed and other vices as instruments to success, then that produces greed and other vices within humans. If an individual is conditioned to believe that greed is the only way to have a good life, then that propagates greed and viscous behavior. Humans are made greedy and vicious because of the material conditions surrounding them, not because humans are inherently prone to vice.
Mandeville asserts that vice is productive for society and that vice is a necessary condition for economic prosperity. How can we characterize something as productive to society? How can we characterize something as producing economic prosperity? Simply, something that is productive to society is something that benefits the majority of those in the society. After all, how is something supposed to be a benefit to society if it does not benefit the majority? Furthermore, the economy is most prosperous when everyone can ably contribute to it. This is one of the basics of economics — the more people there are to stimulate the economy, the better off the economy is. Those who use vice to get ahead consolidate power within their own hands. The course of human history can be characterized as a struggle by the upper class to maintain societal control at the expense of the masses by using vices, such as greed, to get ahead. Mandeville asserts that vice is a necessary condition for economic prosperity. However, I established that humans aren’t inherently prone to vice — vice isn’t universal to the human condition. Therefore, there will always be varying degrees of viciousness in a society, meaning that there will be individuals who use vice to get ahead at the expense of those who do not. The individuals who do not use viciousness will be inherently disadvantaged in society, meaning that they cannot realize their full economic potential. If the majority of society is in a position where their full economic potential cannot be realized, then how is that economically prosperous? There is no evidence to support the claim that vice is a necessary condition for economic prosperity, and, in fact, there is a plethora of evidence to support the claim that vice is detrimental.
To conclude, I do not believe that Bernard Mandeville should have a place on the syllabus because his philosophy is unfounded and contradictory. Sophie de Grouchy should replace him because of her contributions to the Enlightenment and theories on moral sentiments.
home
introduction
biography
philosophical position and argument
comparison with Adam Smith
closing argument
bibliography