In the Discourse Rousseau tries to explain his thought on "the natural state of man" . He points elaborates on man's mental ability to protect himself, care for others and how he evolved morally and environmentally. In this essay I will attempt to answer question one section A, I will discuss and analyzed Rousseau's argument on the changes of man from his natural state to his present of inequality. There has been a long age argument on if man was created by a higher power and if he was, there has been different versions of the creation story on how the first man came to be. Rousseau's theory discredits the biblical creation story and without giving his own version of the early man, he then focuses more on his state of creation as supposed to how he was created. Rousseau believes that ,man was somewhat innocent an morally equal but he has is now gradually corrupted over the years. One could not but wander what proof Rousseau had, leading him to believe that man has not been corrupted from the start. Since no one in the present day and in time of Rousseau really experienced the state of being "a savage man" there is no concrete evidence that man has not always been as the present state (selfish and competitive). That man never felt …show more content…
He argues that if a man pities his peer he will not attempt to harm him. In the long run a peaceful community is created at the state man is "morally" equal , in other words there is no superiority to others. Rousseau claims that the introduction of property and technology inspired man to become competitive and as a result inequality started to take shape and affected the moral of
Rousseau writes that humanity is a mixture of good and evil. There are people who follow the education of nature and become self-reliant individuals. There are also those who tamper with nature and deprive individuals of their freedoms. They are the evil ones. Rousseau held such a position because he was raised much in the manner he wrote of, with no formal education until his twenties. His work is a production of the Enlightenment. Although he was unaware of psychology, his views on how to educate and raise a child are studied in current theories of human development. Rousseau had a mixed view if humanity was good or evil.
While Aristotle believes that this implies that men are better than women and the horribly disfigured (or slaves), Rousseau feels humans have evolved so much over their history that “civil” humans are naturally superior to hunter-gatherers. Aristotle thinks that it’s natural for humans to use those who are inferior. Rousseau disagrees with that. He states, “It is impossible to make any man a slave, unless he is first reduced to a situation in which he cannot do without the help of others: and, since such a situation does not exist in a state of nature, every one is there his own master, and the law of the strongest is of no effect.” Unless somebody is severely disfigured (in an unnatural way), in Rousseau’s eyes they could never be a slave.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau has been referred to as the father of the romanticism movement due to his philosophical writings challenging the status quo at the time. To help set the cultural scene surrounding him, he lived in Paris just prior to the French Revolution where turmoil was in the atmosphere. During this time in France’s history monarchs reigned, the Catholic Church was the leading religion, and those who were considered commoners were viewed as less than human. I believe Rousseau’s environment led him to ponder and write about assumptions regarding human nature, the government’s role in relation to humans, types of will people have, and educational methods. His works had some comparative and contrasting features
Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a great philosopher who lived in the Enlightenment. He was a very influential philosopher and “Thinker” he has written many books including The Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. Rousseau’s theory was in essence that humans were created naturally pure and innocent but over time and new technologies become more evil. He had thought that in the very first light of man he was completely innocent, a being who had no intention to harm anyone else. However as time progressed and the growing capacity for man increased and the
Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a man of philosophy, music, and literature. His philosophy was that humanity will do what’s best for the state as a whole, rather than the general “every man for himself” philosophy. He says that while we do have a piece of that individualistic philosophy, it is when they are in a healthy state that they value fairly the collective good for everyone around them, and express the general sense of good will. Rousseau believes that people will recognize that the will of all is the common good, but that in itself raises the questions as to the validity ...
Jean-Jacques Rousseau was known for his thoughts that humans are basically good and fair in their natural state but were often corrupted by the shared concepts and joint activities like property, agriculture, science, and commerce (Schmalleger, 2012). He felt that the social contract started when civilized people agreed to establish governments and systems of education that would correct the problems and inequalities that were brought on by civilization (Schmalleger, 2012). Rousseau believed in the formation of a social contract where the government system would fight off the corruption that was brought out. He felt that human rights should be applied to laws (Schmalleger,
Rousseau thinks the behavior of savage man is unaffected by others. These individuals have no "moral relationship or known duties" (128) to others or to the world. Their actions are "neither good nor evil" (128) because they are not bounded by social rules, which dictate how people should act and think towards each other and the world as a whole. That is, a person does not have to worry about what others think of him or his actions. Rousseau further believes that savage man has "neither vices nor virtues" (128) because he has no commitments or relationships. One flaw with modern society, which is not shared by savages, is that people are concerned with their reputation, morality, and how others perceive them. They get caught up in the pressures of trying to conform to the expectations of others. Their personalities consequently change, almost to the point of non-recognition. In their quest to achieve material things, modern man misses or forgets the essence of who he really is.
The former, a product of the human empathy and responsible for the preference of seeing no harm come to other living creatures so long at the latter is maintained. Together these maxims form the basis of the savage man’s natural state and, by extension, his tenancy of gentleness towards his fellow man (121). The civilised man, in contrast, comes to be as a result of “perfectibility”. Perfectibility, according to Rousseau is an innate human attribute to want to learn and better oneself, particularly to overcome obstacles in one’s environment. Rousseau’s description of perfectibility implies that the conditions of one’s environment have a direct influence over their character and that one can therefore deduce that regardless of man’s natural gentleness, he can develop the capacity to be cruel if so prompted by elements in his environment. Such a prompt comes as man looks to collaborate with others out of mutual self-interest. Rousseau notes that, “their connections become more intimate and extensive … there arose on one side vanity and contempt, on the other envy and shame … Men no sooner began to set a value upon each other, and know what esteem was, than each laid claim to it … It
In his Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau hypothesizes the natural state of man to understand where inequality commenced. To analyze the nature of man, Rousseau “strip[ped] that being, thus constituted, of all the supernatural gifts he could have received, and of all the artificial faculties he could have acquired only through a lengthy process,” so that all that was left was man without any knowledge or understanding of society or the precursors that led to it (Rousseau 47). In doing so, Rousseau saw that man was not cunning and devious as he is in society today, but rather an “animal less strong than some, less agile than others, but all in all, the most advantageously organized of all” (47). Rousseau finds that man leads a simple life in the sense that “the only goods he knows in the un...
One of the interesting things about Rousseau was that he had different views then previous philosophers, such as Hume and Locke, on the state of nature. In Rousseau’s point of view humans in the state of nature would be most like a noble savage. What this means is that Rousseau believed that in the state of nature humans are naturally good, and are lead by basic appetites or sentiments. This would also be a prehistoric place where humans would not have discovered rationality or morality. This mainly applies because Rousseau believes that these prehistoric humans made, as later discussed, decisions based on sentiment and not on reason, thus since morality requires the ability to chose between right and wrong it would be impossible to be moral. Rousseau believes that evil starts to occur when civilizations are created. This is mostly due to increasing amounts of dependence on others and the need of unnecessary luxuries. In fact another possible reason that this evil arises and what sets prehistoric human apart from other animals is the need for self-improvement. Thus the prehistoric human would live in solitary state, in complete autonomy, and as his own sovereign. Along with this he would not strive for anything outside their imme...
Rousseau came to the conclusion that the best way to examine the inequality in society is to examine the beginning of mankind itself. He tried to imagine the early state of man assuming there was ever actually a state where man existed only with the nature, in a solitary, and primitive lifestyle. He did not however revert as far back to the idea of the Neanderthal man to examine the ideas man held and where they came from. Instead, he looked at a state where man looked, and seemed to have the same physical abilities as he does today. Rousseau also concedes that a time where the ideas of government, ownership, justice, and injustice did not exist may not have ever existed. If what many religions tell us is true, then, in mans beginning, he was from the start, handed down laws from god which would influence his thinking and decisions. Through this, the only way such a period could come about would have to be through some catastrophic event, which would not only be impossible to explain, but consequently, impossible to prove. Therefore, imagining this state could prove not only embarrassing, but would be a contradiction to the Holy Scriptures.
“Man was/is born free, and everywhere he is chains” (46) is one of Rousseau’s most famous quotes from his book. He is trying to state the fact that by entering into the restrictive early societies that emerged after the state of nature, man was being enslaved by authoritative rulers and even “one who believes himself to be the master of others is nonetheless a greater slave than they” (Rousseau 46). However, Rousseau is not advocating a return to the state of nature as he knows that would be next to impossible once man has been exposed to the corruption of society, but rather he is looking for a societ...
Rousseau theorized that the “savage” in the state of nature was not selfish, like Hobbes idea, but rather it arose as a result from the person’s interaction with society. He argued that people naturally have compassion for others who are suffering and that the civil society encourages us to believe we are superior to others. Therefore, the thought of being more powerful will cause us to suppress our virtuous feelings of kindness and instead change us into selfish humans.
Shklar, J. (1969). Men and Citizens: A study of Rousseau's social theory. Cambridge: Cambridge UNiversity Press.
Rousseau's society has a very controlling government with a lot of power that could be damaging if given to the wrong people.... ... middle of paper ... ... His views are very optimistic, assuming that no one would take advantage of the power given. Some might even label him as wanting utopianism.