wers these re-stated arguments by use of his own examples of Greek and Roman statesmen. Soon the debate became centered not on whether knowledge is good or evil but rather whether Cicero was a hero or a philosopher. It is in this degeneration of the argument that the true disagreement between Rousseau and Bacon surfaces. Neither Rousseau nor Bacon and his supporters could win this type of argument because it did not take into account their fundamental differences on the nature of knowledge.Rousseau believed that knowledge was not natural. Rather, a simple life filled with activity and governed by a sense of duty most closely approached the natural order. Knowledge was dangerous for it broke man's ties with society and with other men (Discourse, p. 25). Further, knowledge stood between man and his use of his inherent goodness (Discourse, p. 23-24 and Letter to Malesherbes II). Lastly, knowledge led man away from God (Discourse p. 18 and Observations, p.40-41). In contrast to Rousseau's view was Bacon's belief that knowledge was both natural and God-ordained: ["'Lord God of heaven and earth, thou has vouchsafed of thy grace to those of our order to know thine works of creation and the secrets of them, and to discern.... between divine miracles, works of art, and impostures and illusions of all sorts '"] (New Atlantis, p. 459). Indeed, even the name of Bacon's fantasy university- the College of the Six Days Works- reflects his belief in the Godliness of knowledge. To further justify the naturalness of learning, Bacon does some nifty gymnastics with the phrase 'let there be light.' Those that traffic in knowledge are called Merchants of Light; those who penetrate most deeply the secrets of nature are called Lamps (New Atlantis, p. 489). Certainly, no agreement could be found between these radically disparate views. Nor could Rousseau and Bacon agree on the validity of a world predicated on either view. For Bacon, a world without knowled...
