What
characterizes man in his natural state?
Pity and Self-preservation exist prior to reason.
Do animals
partake in Natural Right/Law?
Development of
man v. Development of animal
Passions as the
source of human growth and development
Good v. Evil in
Savage Man
Is crime a
result of law?
The fifth question you ask about "Passions as the source of human growth and development," I found particularly interesting because of what we just discussed in class regarding "need." I find it interesting in modern society how we live to validate our passions with our fellow human beings. I see this in regards to relationships, talents, and everything else that helps us understand ourselves and our accomplishments in a more solid way. I think the expression of passion was the first thing that "pushed us to reason" in regards to who we are as a person and how we want to define ourselves (pg. 20). Although both are complex ideologies in what Rousseau defines as the state of nature in which no one has a concept of self worth, it's hard for civil society today to imagine any motivation without the incentive of establishing self worth. Today, we have relationships to validate our ability to be loved and pursue grand careers to prove our academic and intellectual dominance over society. We perfect our skills as singers, dancers, and musicians to prove to the world the extent of our talents and validate our self development in our crafts. So does this mean that people only develop self worth by proving their dominance over others? And would these egotistic endeavors exist without the outlets of civil society that give us the language and reason to pursue loving relationships and prove our talents? The pursuit of passions and search for self worth are the things that people in civil society live for with the presence of language and reason, but what did human beings live for in the state of nature without these understandings?
ReplyDeleteIn reply to your third question (Do animals partake in Natural Right/Law?) :
ReplyDeleteRousseau has argued that an animal is as much a sentient being as any human. This means that animals are "endowed with certain unalienable rights" (ha) in so far as they should not be harmed unnecessarily, and "man is subject to some sort of duties toward them" (Rousseau 14 [white book]). The key word here, however, is unnecessarily. Rousseau––as far as I can tell––would not object to the slaughter of animals for food (within reason)––one might get away with saying that he would have eaten kosher foods. While he does seem to believe that animals are capable of pity in some way, he does not believe that they are self aware. This means that they have not risen out of the state of nature, and thus have not achieved the tri-fecta (language, reason, civil society). In essence, animals are entitled to certain natural rights, but can in no way be considered present-day man's equal.
In response to your first point- What characterizes man in his natural state?
ReplyDeleteWhen I think of what Rousseau means by natural state it is actually funny. I think the natural state of man is when he is camping out in the wilderness, off the beaten path, with no connection to society and only nature around him. But on a more serious note, Rousseau believed that a man is totally free when in the state of nature. He also believes that centuries of development have the real nature of man "dull". On page 53 of the blue book Rousseau says, "Savage man, left by nature to instincts alone, or rather compensated for the instincts lacking". He means that if a man is left alone in nature his level of instincts will raise and he will not become dull.
In response to your first question about the characteristics of man in his natural state, I believe that the most crucial point Rousseau is trying to make is that anyone living in civil society, or present day, cannot live without being highly and negatively influenced by the opinions and judgements of others and the constant hunger to climb up the social or economic ladder, even if it means having to step on others they once considered friends--men become "artificial men" because of these actions (69 white book). Rousseau states that "savage man breathes only tranquility and liberty; he wants simply to live and rest easy...the citizen is always active and in a sweat, always agitated, and unceasingly tormenting himself in order to seek still more laborious occupations" (69-70). I could not help but apply this statement to society today; especially nowadays when job competition is increasing by the minute, people are scrambling to get their hands on any opportunity that will "satisfy" them and make them "happy." Rousseau argues that this application or concept of happiness will eventually bring us to our own demise.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the second statement 'Pity and Self-preservation exist prior to reason':
ReplyDeleteIn order to fully understand this statement, I feel that the definition of these two terms should be clarified. 'Pity' is the act of feeling sorrow and compassionate towards others (dictionary.com). Whereas 'Self-preservation' is when humans put their personal concerns before others. Rousseau believes that both these two concepts occur before reason in a man. It is almost as if the state of nature is a time where everything is transparent and there is 'nothing false' (Rousseau p.18). However, would one not think that in order to even begin to feel pity towards others or feel a sense of self-preservation, their minds should be capable of reason in order to think of these ideas? Becoming a rational being is as a result of obtaining the knowledge of reason. So, surely a man without reason would not be able to understand the emotions that surround pity and self-preservation?
In response to the questions you posed:
DeleteI see where you're coming from with this argument of reason as a requirement for pity and self-preservation. I, however, think otherwise, as I feel Rousseau is pushing that these faculties are instinctive. With reason, I'm sure said faculties develop further, but in the state of nature, I believe that they are still present. For example, I feel that even a creature lacking reason would recognize suffering – like that dog that helped that other, wounded dog cross the street (http://www.animalplanet.com/tv-shows/weird-true-and-freaky/videos/dog-rescues-dog-on-highway.htm).
Self-preservation, according to Rousseau, changes when reason is introduced, as it becomes an egotistical focus as opposed to an instinct. In the state of nature, man preserves himself from immediate danger – threats to this well-being. I feel that this defense against threat is largely instinctual in the state of nature, whereas, in the rational state, self-preservation becomes not so much an instinct as a desire to put oneself before others.
In response to the first question and to expand a bit on Celine’s comment: when I read Rousseau in my SFII class last year, my professor described him as the grandfather of hippies. At his most basic level, he kind of is, preferring nature over government and advocating peace (or pity, in his case) over violence (and this would be reason). In the natural state, man is characterized by self-preservation but also by pity, which allows man to dislike seeing others suffer. In civil society, where man possesses reason, reason allows man to rationalize events that wouldn’t fly in the state of nature, making violence and cruelty more justifiable. He’s not even that big of a fan of perfectibility, which exists in the natural state but is what made man want to better himself and eventually form a civil society. Different from Hobbes, who thinks that men are naturally wicked and therefore need civil society to keep them from killing each other, or Locke, who thinks that nature is just an instrument designed to help man achieve their final end of civil society, Rousseau believes that man was perfectly fine living on his own in the state of nature.
ReplyDeleteAnother point that provides evidence of Rousseau being a hippie: he acknowledges man’s need for physical sexual desire but sees moral love as a construct that only came to be because of civil society. The inclination to commit to one person and, more importantly, have that person commit to you arises out of the idea of property, which only exists in civil society. Basically, the hippie notion of free love over standard monogamy.
A comment on "Passions as the source of human growth and development" :
ReplyDeleteLocke seamlessly reconciles the relationship between labor and personal acquisition in his Treatise of Civil Government. Subsequently, Locke discusses the social construct of economy; to store perishable goods within the barter system calls for the utilization of a monetary device, or currency. What Locke does not directly address, however, is greed and its place within the State of Nature. Rousseau touches on the origin of the greed of man in his Discourse.
Rousseau begins with a simple formula for the essence of man, beginning with the Savage, who's only capabilities able to employ are his senses of will and aversion, innately stemming from his two basic natural responses, desire and fear. What allows man to transcend the bounds of this simple dichotomous lifestyle is the introduction of perfectibility, or the Savage made rational human through introduction of the passions. However, once all of man's faculties were discovered and perfected; once the human, who is innately independent of his fellow man, engaged in civil society became "subject…to all of nature and particularly his fellowmen" (Rousseau, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, p. 54.).
Secondly, Rousseau makes his most important claims regarding greed within the new, capable man, "Consuming ambition, the zeal for raising the relative level of his fortune, less out of real need than in order to put himself above others…"( Rousseau p. 54). The perfected savage combined with Lockean monetary preservation leads almost certainly to a passion for dominance; to become blinded by not only self-preservation, but a lifestyle of excessive expansion. There now exists a new dichotomy in civil society, rich and poor, dominant and subservient.