Rousseau and Revolution

Excellent point, Don. And quite consistent with my observations that the writers of this particular wiki article neither know French, nor understand French philosophy particularly well. Possibly, they simply don't WANT to understand French philosophy particularly well! French philosophy and culture have a realism and cynicism that are both foreign and distasteful to Anglo-Saxon optimism and romanticism. So, Rousseau's disgust with conventional society really isn't very palatable to the conventional Anglo-Saxon mind. I think this wiki article is very much attempting to whitewash Rousseau's actual views, which were, actually, rather more in accord with the "myth" of the noble savage, than opposed to it. It's just the opposite of the Robinson Crusoe myth, of the perfection and superiority of European Culture during the "Enlightenment", the eighteenth century, more or less. If you've ever really read the whole of Robinson Crusoe, it's really a myth of the all powerful capitalist entrepreneur -- Crusoe actually sets up massive business enterprises from his island, greatly improving everything as he goes! Now, this is far from what really happened to Alexander Selkirk, the model for Robinson Crusoe. Actually, he was able to survive for several years, in modest comfort, but, that's about it. Impressive in a way, but, hardly the model for European Capitalist Imperialism created by Daniel Defoe. Now, what Rousseau is doing is simply observing that modern society as frequently destroys and corrupts, as it creates and nurtures. And, therefore, putting aside the conventions of modern society may, indeed, be the only way to achieve true progress, at least at times. He recommends trusting to "natural instinct" and "natural intuition", as opposed to following social convention. He is a supreme non-conformist, in other words. Out with the old, in with the new! Change, in itself, is a good thing. And, these ideas helped to form the basis and wellsprings for the American, French and Russian Revolutions. Indeed, the very reason Rousseau does NOT use the term "Noble Savage" tends to confirm his very belief in it! You see, the French are simply too realistic a people to associate being of the upper, noble, aristocratic, ruling classes with ethical behavior, virtue or goodness. They know better! Those at the top of society who control it are often the most vicious members of society. And, the French are well aware of this, while the English, in their implicit conservatism and social conformity, always associate nobility, being a nobleman, being of the upper or ruling classes, with virtue itself. So, in French, the term "Noble Savage" -- "sauvage noble" -- is, effectively, meaningless.