The problem of science is presented as an origin problem, is what in Rousseau in ' speaks to them; ' first discurso' ': ' ' sciences and the arts must, therefore, its birth our vices: we would have lesser doubt how much to its advantages, if they had our virtues. The sin of its origin satiated marked in its objetos' ' (ROUSSEAU, 1988, P. 147). But as to determine this origin and the one that Rousseau vices is if relating? The second part of the Rousseau question answers with clarity, how much to the first part we can point a reply from Rousseau. Let us start for the second part. Citing the first speech: ' ' Astronomy was born of the superstition; the eloquence of the ambition, the hatred, the adulao, the lie; geometry, of the avarice; the physics, of an infantile curiosity; all they and the proper moral, of the pride humano' ' (ROUSSEAU, 1988, P. 147).
More ahead, still in the same page it continues: ' ' if our sciences are useless in the object where if they consider, they are still more dangerous for the effect that produce. Been born of the idleness, for its turn they nourish, it, and the irreparable loss of time is the first damage that determines sociedade' forcibly; '. They are many vices that Rousseau enumerates: avarice, adulao, idleness amongst others. The society deepens e, (for more paradoxical than it seems) perfects such vices. in this direction that sciences are efficient instruments of the social inaqualities. Sciences, when promoting the civilization degrade the idle, adulador, desirous man becoming it of applauses, proud, loving of useless things.
Now, as to determine the origin? We will risk a hypothesis as reply, the example of the proper Rousseau. At a first moment, the man when pledging itself in surpassing definitive difficulties produced devices, but soon they leave of being produced by this reason and pass to be made to satisfy desires and futilidades, despertando the vanity. A man starts to judge itself better or superior of what others, are compared with the others, are proud for its anteriority and its presumable superiority. Leaving of this conjectura, we understand that the civilization (civilizatrio progress) originates not when the man produces something, but yes when it passes ' ' produzir' ' vices. science would be an efficient producer, not only of ' ' objetos' ' , but over all of ' ' people-objeto' ' , and this is absolutely contrary to the nature. Therefore, when reading the first speech almost we listen to the shout of Rousseau: ' ' peoples you know, therefore of a time for all, that wanted you to the nature to preserve of science as a mother pulls out a dangerous weapon of the hands of the son; that all secrets that it hides of you are as much others males of defends that you and that your work to be instructed is not lesser of its benefcios' ' (ROUSSEAU, 1988, P. 146). Therefore, science is a weapon that the man chore of form to take it the damage: inaquality of its humanity, the degeneration of its nature, its denaturalization. Ahead of everything what until we reflect here, it seems us that according to Rousseau, the man enters in a vicious cycle: the man produced the civilization; this produces a man disnaturalized to continue fomenting civilization The cited cycle previously if of the one in the scope of a historical construction. To follow we will develop brief consideraes concerning history while science and while sociabilizao process.
