Why is Rousseau grouped in to the Enlightenment when he claims

just because rousseau critiques the tradition doesn't mean he's not part of it

>>9657344
But wouldn't it be more accurate to group him with the romantics and other anti-enlightenment figures?

>>9657304
There are definitely some scholars and thinkers who believe Rousseau is better categorized as 'counter-Enlightenment,' so you're onto something here.

>when he claims that any society, regardless of how rationally it's organized, will corrupt the natural goodness of man?

Rousseau doesn't fall under my area of expertise, so it's entirely possible I'm the one in error here and hopefully somebody better informed replies to your thread, but it doesn't seem to me this is quite what Rousseau claims. Primitive man is naturally good primarily because there is the absence of corrupting influences and mechanisms, and because the pre-civilized society is a exceptionally moral one. In fact, according to Rousseau even though man in his natural state doesn't exist in a Hobbesian perpetual state of war, this natural state is still a solitary, asocial one, where men have no interest in advancing any kind of positive Good or directing the will beyond merely self subsistence. It is only through civilized society that positive moral projects become possible, even if the very same changes open up (more often) opportunities and ideology for immoral acts.

>>9657426
>and because the pre-civilized society is a exceptionally moral one.

meant to type "and NOT because the pre-civilized society is an exceptionally moral one."

>>9657426
So Rousseau says that primitive man is basically negatively good (I.e. he doesn't do bad) but that a civilized society makes him do positive good?
I've only read the social contract so I'm not particularly lnowledgable on him either

>>9657449
Pretty much, although to nitpick for a more accurate nuance it's that civilized society grants Man the opportunity to do Good via acting in accordance with reason and freedom (aka where the parallels with other Enlightenment thinkers is clearer), while also doing the same in opening up potential for immoral acts as well. The main text for this is his Second Discourse. Even in that work though you're still correct in that Rousseau is often at odds with the other foundational ideas and thinkers of the Enlightenment. For those specifics if you're interested hopefully someone else better informed replies here or you can try asking on /r/askphilosophy.