Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jacque Rousseau are infamous for their polarized viewpoints on the nature of order and governance. Hobbes even gets a shout out in Rousseau’s piece. Despite their notorious rivalry, it is possible that they might be more alike than what appears on the surface. While Hobbes and Rousseau are infamous for their differing viewpoints, they’re actually more alike than they are different. How are Jean Jacque Rousseau’s “A Discourse on the Origin of Inequality” and Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan not contradictory on the topic of preferability of society? Jean Jacque Rousseau’s “A Discourse on the Origin of Inequality” and Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan are in fact not contradictory on the preferability of society because Rousseau is a …show more content…
This argument has some validity, as Rousseau is extremely transparent regarding his opinions on medicine and civilian health. For example, he states, “At the same time their cures seem not to have been less perfect, for their not having been tortured by incisions, poisoned with drugs, or wasted by fasting” (Rousseau 57). While it is arduous to argue that Rousseau is noncritical of medicine, this argument is insignificant and fails to disprove that Rousseau remains supportive of particular societal technologies. Furthermore, as this piece heavily delves into the foundation of inequality, Rousseau’s distastes for medicine and physiological health are equally rooted in his theories about the inequality humans as it is about state of nature. He mentions, “The great inequality in manner of living, the extreme idleness of some, and the excessive labor of others…the too exquisite foods of the wealthy…the unwholesome food of the poor…” (Rousseau 56). Despite his particularity, Rousseau’s acknowledgment that some outcomes of civility confirms that his advocation for the state of nature is not entirely …show more content…
While Hobbes preaches formation of society to be reasoned by the importance of self-preservation, he also expresses his concern for societal improvement and betterment of human lives. As he describes life outside of organizes civility, he notes the issues that are associated with a lack of human socialization, industry, and others. Hobbes explains, “In such condition, there is no place for industry…nor use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building…no knowledge of the face of the earth…” (Hobbes 84). Activities that bolster human betterment and evolution are not existent in a state of nature. He further emphasizes his advocation for human evolution. He states, “Thirdly…there are very many, that thinks themselves wise, and abler to govern the public, better than the rest, and these strive to reform and innovate, one this way, another that way…” (Hobbes 113). Things like trade, communication, etc. are imperative to human development. Communication allows ideas to spread and develop, inventions and technologies enhance human lives, making life more enjoyable and increasing the likelihood and self-preservation, and more importantly evolution. Rousseau also adamantly advocates for human development. “This is the faculty of self-improvement, which, by the help of circumstances,
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
Hobbes views human nature as the war of each man against each man. For Hobbes, the essence of human nature can be found when we consider how man acts apart from any government or order. Hobbes describes the world as “a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man.” (Hobbes mp. 186) In such a world, there are “no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” (Hobbes mp. 186) Hobbes believes that laws are what regulate us from acting in the same way now. He evidences that our nature is this way by citing that we continue to lock our doors for fear of theft or harm. Hobbes gives a good argument which is in line with what we know of survivalism, and evidences his claim well. Hobbes claims that man is never happy in having company, unless that company is utterly dominated. He says, “men have no pleasure, (but on the contrary a great dea...
After reading Rousseau’s Discourse on the Origins of Inequality, it is imperative that one is not impressed by the blue ribbon attached to this faulty account of society’s development and flaws. While he does make valid points in regards to man’s nature and his progression into the world of civilization, Rousseau’s words can mislead one into seeing progress as a force to be avoided, which would be a shame.
Rousseau, in the Second Discourses, examines the differences between natural and modern man. As used in his writing, natural man refers to mankind unfettered by social norms, morals, obligations, and duties. Modern man, however, is bound by these factors. Conformity with these factors allows modern man to experience virtue, whereas non-conformity results in vices. In the passage in question, Rousseau explores how natural man is better for himself and society because natural man has no moral relationship or obligations to other men and no subjugated inequality. He then offers a solution to how modern man can return to the natural state.
John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau, following their predecessor Thomas Hobbes, both attempt to explain the development and dissolution of society and government. They begin, as Hobbes did, by defining the “state of nature”—a time before man found rational thought. In the Second Treatise[1] and the Discourse on Inequality[2], Locke and Rousseau, respectively, put forward very interesting and different accounts of the state of nature and the evolution of man, but the most astonishing difference between the two is their conceptions of property. Both correctly recognize the origin of property to be grounded in man’s natural desire to improve his life, but they differ in their description of the result of such a desire. Locke sees the need and purpose of society to protect property as something sacred to mankind, while Rousseau sees property as the cause of the corruption and eventual downfall of society. Although Rousseau raises interesting and applicable observations, Locke’s argument triumphs because he successfully shows the positive and essential effect of property on man.
In his “Discourse on the Origin and the Foundations of Inequality Among Mankind,” Jean-Jacque Rousseau attributes the foundation of moral inequalities, as a separate entity from the “natural” physical inequalities, which exist between only between men in a civilised society. Rousseau argues that the need to strive for excellence is one of man’s principle features and is responsible for the ills of society. This paper will argue that Rousseau is justified in his argument that the characteristic of perfectibility, as per his own definition, is the cause of the detriments in his civilised society.
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...
Hobbes’ theory on the condition of the state of nature, and government are not only more applicable today but his reasoning is far sounder than that of Rousseau. These concepts were significantly conditionally reliant. What Hobbes imagined was not a pre-societal period, rather he ...
In Rousseau’s book “A Discourse On Inequality”, he looks into the question of where the general inequality amongst men came from. Inequality exists economically, structurally, amongst different generations, genders, races, and in almost all other areas of society. However, Rousseau considers that there are really two categories of inequality. The first is called Natural/Physical, it occurs as an affect of nature. It includes inequalities of age,, health, bodily strength, and the qualities of the mind and soul. The second may be called Moral/Political inequality, this basically occurs through the consent of men. This consists of the privileges one group may have over another, such as the rich over the poor.
While the writings of Karl Marx and Jean-Jacque Rousseau occasionally seem at odds with one another both philosophers needs to be read as an extension of each other to completely understand what human freedom is. The fundamental difference between the two philosophers lies within the way which they determine why humans are not free creatures in modern society but once were. Rousseau draws on the genealogical as well as the societal aspects of human nature that, in its development, has stripped humankind of its intrinsic freedom. Conversely, Marx posits that humankind is doomed to subjugation in modern society due to economic factors (i.e. capitalism) that, in turn, affect human beings in a multitude of other ways that, ultimately, negates freedom. How each philosopher interprets this manifestation of servitude in civil society reveals the intrinsic problems of liberty in civil society. Marx and Rousseau come to a similar conclusion on what is to be done to undo the fetters that society has brought upon humankind but their methods differ when deciding how the shackles should be broken. To understand how these two men’s views vary and fit together it must first be established what they mean by “freedom”.
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.
...ons on what kind of government should prevail within a society in order for it to function properly. Each dismissed the divine right theory and needed to start from a clean slate. The two authors agree that before men came to govern themselves, they all existed in a state of nature, which lacked society and structure. In addition, the two political philosophers developed differing versions of the social contract. In Hobbes’ system, the people did little more than choose who would have absolute rule over them. This is a system that can only be derived from a place where no system exists at all. It is the lesser of two evils. People under this state have no participation in the decision making process, only to obey what is decided. While not perfect, the Rousseau state allows for the people under the state to participate in the decision making process. Rousseau’s idea of government is more of a utopian idea and not really executable in the real world. Neither state, however, describes what a government or sovereign should expect from its citizens or members, but both agree on the notion that certain freedoms must be surrendered in order to improve the way of life for all humankind.
The main critics of Thomas Hobbes’ work are most often those with a more optimistic view of human nature. However, if one is to really look at a man’s actions in depth, a self-serving motivation can always be found. The main problem with Hobbes’ claims is that he does not account for the more Darwinian perspective that helping one’s own species survive is at the same time a selfish and unwar-like act. Thus his conclusion that without a governing body, we are essentially at war with one another is not completely true as years of evolution can help disprove.
In 1762, Rousseau authored The Social Contract. However, his views were not similar to Hobbes. Hobbes’ social contract dealt in a contract with a society and its government, while Rousseau believed in the right for people to create their own government – a great difference from Hobbes’s views. Thomas Hobbes spoke on the idea of society without governments: “war … of every man against every man.”, and that society would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Similar to Locke, Rousseau believed a government will always manifest power given to them by their people, so the consent of society should be regarded by the government.