The issue examined is whether the revival of the sciences and arts has contributed to improving or corrupting morality.

Rousseau questions which side to take and contrasts being a respectable man who knows nothing with learned scholars.

He acknowledges the difficulty of criticizing sciences before a learned assembly and praising ignorance before a famous Academy.

Despite these contradictions, he is not discouraged because he is not attacking science but defending virtue before virtuous men.

Rousseau holds that integrity is more precious to good people than erudition is to scholars.

He questions what he has to fear: the enlightenment of the assembly is to be feared only in terms of discourse construction, not for his views.

He notes that equitable sovereigns have ruled against themselves in doubtful cases, making a fair and enlightened arbitrator a good judge even if he is judge in his own case.

This reasoning reassures him and, combined with the reward of championing truth, motivates him to speak his views.

Rousseau believes the true reward of his stance will be found within his own heart, regardless of external success.