Abstract EN:

IN HIS REFUTATION OF DE L'HOMME, DIDEROT OPPOSES THE SAVAGE AND THE CIVILIZED STATES. THERE ARE MANY REASONS FOR THIS : HIS CONTRIBUTION TO THE HISTOIRE DES DEUX INDES ; HIS REFLECTION ON THE CIVILISATION IN RUSSIA, WHERE HE WAS STAYIND AT THE TIME; AND THE FACT THAT HELVETIUS'S BOOK IS PLAINLY PARTIAL TO CIVILIZED CONDITION. BOTH PHILOSOPHERS THINK THAT HAPINESS LIES IN A CONDITION NEITHER IN THE SAVAGE NOR IN THE CIVILIZED CONDITION, BUT SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN. FROM THERE. THEY DIVERGE. HELVETIUS THINKS THAT MAN MUST BE CONTROLLED BY EDUCATION AND BY LAW; HIS POSSESSIONS, BEHAVIOR, EMOTIONS AND EVEN HIS THINKING MUST BE CONTROLLED. IN THIS THEORY, POLITICAL POWER (THE LEGISLATOR, THE SOVEREIGN) PLAYS AN ESSENTIAL ROLE. THE MAN WHO IS NOT CONTROLLED IS AN AGGRESSIVE SAVAGE. AND THE SAVAGE IS INFERIOR TO THE CIVILIZED MAN. ON THE CONTRARY, DIDEROT THINKS THAT THE SAVAGE without EDUCATION AND LAWS, IS AS WORTHY AS THE CIVILIZED MAN. THUS EDUCATION MUST BE BASED ON INNATE TENDENCIES AND TALENTS, AND ENABLE THEM TO FLOURISCH. TO MUCH CONSTRAINT IN EDUCATION CAN BE DESTRUCTIVE. LAWS SHOULD NOT BE TOO LIMITATING FOR THE SAME REASON; THEY MUST PREVENT AN INDIVIDUAL'S LIBERTY FROM INFRINIGING UPON THE LIBERTY OF OTHERS: SO THE SOVEREGN MUST BE THE FIRST TO BE CONTROLLED. HELVETIUS CHOOSES THE ACQUIRED INSTEAD OF THE INNATE, CULTURE INSTEAD OF NATURE, CONTROL INSTEAD OF