Kant Valentine

Main points in Rousseau Part 2 (first half)

Characteristics of the savage man.
At what point does man begin to use reason? Foresight? Are they similar enough to be grouped together?
What introduced esteem? Love?
How did inequality come about in the first place?
Consequences of inequality?
Who or what actually started the civil society? (not in the sense of creating property)
Was "most happy" man really the end game? (is civil society preferable?)

Rousseau Entry!

After speaking about the lack of misery that the savage man has, Rousseau states, "In instinct alone, man had everything he needed in order to live in the state of nature; in a cultivated reason, he has only what he needs to live in society" (Rousseau 34 in white book). It seems here that reason is a curse to the pursuit of happiness. A savage man cannot possibly be miserable if he is at peace and at good health, but a civilized man is miserable because he has reason and the ability to question his existence. Also, Rousseau believes that reason is deemed almost useless in time of need. Cleverness seems more useful in the natural environment but is that an innate instinct in savage man?

To delve into Angelica's point a little bit, I do not believe that he aimed this towards a Christian audience or it is very Christian because on page 26 (white book), he states "savage man… will therefore begin with purely animal functions." Christians would not believe that this is the beginning of mankind because Adam and Eve are the parents of humanity and they were made more or less with reason like modern humans. Also, there were no humans before Adam so I believe it would be a difficult argument to say that Adam = developed man because there was no man before him to develop from.

-Fiorentin Nacaj

Rousseau

In regards to Angelica’s question of whether Rousseau was just trying to appeal to the masses since Christianity was the predominant religion of the time or was he a Christian himself, I detected a sense of sarcasm or maybe mockery.  I was confused as to the nature of his intent.  At first, I felt that he tried to appeal to the lords of Geneva in his letter, by vaguely starting out by saying he was lucky to be born into his time period, but going on to say all the different environments he would’ve like to exist in.

I guess Angelica’s question prompted me to remember my own question that I grappled with while I read the preface and part one.

 I also was confused as to whether Rousseau was against all knowledge, because he cites as the source of why we can't know the nature of man because we have accumulated knowledge.

Locke vs. Rousseau

Locke and Rousseau think that civil society comes into place because of property, but it is interesting that they do not agree on the the idea that property should or should not exist. Locke believes that ownership, hence property, is the purpose for man's existence through work, but Rousseau seems to say that property was simply invented because someone put his name on something and called it his. Rousseau believes that "the fruits of the earth belong to all and the earth to no one" (44). It seems that Rousseau says that simply stating this idea would have "spared" many wars. In addition, Locke and Rousseau think that nature provided man with all that man needed, but Locke believes that reason led man to make his property, and Rousseau believes that instinct led man to "make use of [the products of the earth]" (44-45).

So, Rousseau and Locke do not have the same idea as to what property is, but which idea sounds more like what we think property is? I think that we use both ideas of property today because people always attach their name to something they put work into, but it can also be very easy for people to attach their name onto something that they did not work for. Are Locke and Rousseau both right although they do not agree on this point? I think so. But, if we believe that both of these types of properties exist, what is the true definition of how one attains a piece of property? Is it simply putting your name on something? Does it require work? Is it something else?

Also, is Rousseau right? Would wars be spared if we did not have an idea of property? If we did not have property, forty people could try to eat the same apple, and they would end up fighting for that apple, and wouldn't a war start because of the lack of ownership that apple has?

Thoughts on Rousseau

The questions I am choosing to ponder while reading Rousseau include:

Does human being in the state of nature have reason? Why does human being in the state of nature not need language? And finally (because of course we all know I am extremely concerned with this subject) Can human being in the state of nature love others?

Rousseau thinks that the state of nature is freedom. He thinks that modern society disrupted this natural, perfect state. In his ideology, humans don't have reason and that's why they don't have conflict in the state of nature. They simply exist with each other. Once modern society comes along, that's when you get the greed and fear stuff going on. In the natural state, man will only fight for self-preservation.

Why don't they need language? Because they don't have reason. Is this a chicken or the egg type situation? I'm not sure. Did they not have reason and therefore they didn't have language or vice versa? We know that they felt pity for others, but not love...which brings me to my next point.

If Rousseau is comparing humans in the natural state to animals of today, why does he say they never loved?! I know for sure that animals love. And not just because they are domesticated. Lions in packs and other animals have self-preservation for themselves (duh) and love-preservation for others like their cubs and such (new word). We know Rousseau says that man in the natural state feels pity. How far off is love from pity, really? Eventually, these emotions get deeper and we are left with 1) competition 2) self-comparison with others 3) hatred 4) urge for power which all lead us to 'civil society' --- exactly like the one we so humbly live in today.

The role of the divine in Rousseau

In the first part of Rousseau's discourse we talked about the role of the divine in the state of nature and in society. He refers to the "divine will" and the creation of Adam throughout the text and seems to use God as a supporting element to his claims without giving the divine a clear role. Professor Vaught posed an idea that the God that Rousseau describes is one who created nature for man and kind of sat back to watch what we did. If society is so corrupt, according to Rousseau, wouldn't the divine prefer man to stay in the state of nature? Would you say the state of nature is better than modern society? Or perhaps it is just a necessary obstacle?

Also, does anyone think Rousseau was strictly Christian or simply appealing to Christian beliefs because that was the predominant religion at the time? His vague incorporation of the divine makes me wonder if the latter was true.

Angelica

Thoughts and questions on Locke and the idea of property in its representational form (money)

[Obligatory okay so,] With Locke we have all established that it is the utilization of nature/natural materials that transforms things into possessions; or as Locke might have preferred, property. We also saw that the loophole in all of this, or way to possess more than you could possibly use, was through money, as precious metals and bills do not spoil (spoiling being the key method of determining whether or not something was wasted). My question, then, is:

Is it wrong, in the Lockean way, to accumulate massive amounts of money?

Or in other terms, is it wrong to focus so much on accumulating massive amounts of money that you disadvantage others? It is not so much the actual act of saving money that I am concerned with, but with the consequences of doing so.

Or maybe, was Locke worried about the morals of it all in the first place? Or did he only care about whether or not someone had acquired something naturally/through trading and as long as money does not spoil, it would be fine?

I remember someone in class saying that having "too much" does not really happen since money can be passed down after death.

But yeah if anyone had any thoughts, that'd be cool

Cliff

Key Topics in Rousseau Discourse on Inequality (Preface; Part 1)

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?

Reading questions: Rousseau's Discourse on the Origin of Inequality (the first part)

1. What's the import of the Letter to the Republic of Geneva? How does it relate to the issues concerned in the Discourse proper?
2. Why is it difficult to grasp the original of human nature?  Is it even possible?
3. Why do we need to know what the human being was in the state of nature in order to grasp "natural right" (40)?
4. Is Rousseau's question after the original of human nature a problem for us, given our dramatic advances in scientific and technical knowledge?
5. Why are natural and moral inequality not the same for Rousseau? What would it mean for a concept of right if they were?
6. What are the four main characteristics of human being in the state of nature?
7. How are perfectibility and freedom related to one another?
8. Does human being in the state of nature have reason?
9. Why does human being in the state of nature not need language?
10. One of the issues that we discussed in class last week concerned love? Can human being in the state of nature love others?

Presentation Points on Kant

What role does nature play on the actions of human beings?
Human beings make progress as a whole, not as individuals.
Reason allowing men to create by moving away from instinct, which is what separates them from animals.
Kant's idea of transforming resources, which connects to Locke's idea of property.
Antagonism being a paradox that allows society to form and allows human beings to get closer to nature's end.
Antagonism existing between societies.

FYI: To improve your listening skills

Probably not a good tactic ...

If you want to know how to listen better in class, you may want to read this.

Jordan Scott Introduction

Hi! My name is Jordan Scott. I'm a sophomore in LSP moving to Gallatin to study journalism, film and fashion. I'm a huge movie and television buff (Downton Abbey and The Mindy Project are currently ruling my life, and I have just finished all three parts of the Godfather). I currently intern at Cosmopolitan Magazine in the features department. The American Red Cross is my passion and I believe one of the greatest organizations our world has to offer. I am the secretary of the Red Cross Club here at NYU.

Recently I traveled to Abu Dhabi for a Global Issues Network Conference. In three days, my group and I had to create a sustainable action plan to alleviate poverty in the Daravi slum in Mumbai. The conference was absolutely incredible, and I feel we truly did come up with a plan that is implementable. More than anything, I had my eyes opened to other cultures and ways of living, as I was the only American in the entire conference. I made friends from 12 different countries, and they were all smart, talented and seriously inventive people that I think I'll be friends with for life. I'm sure we will meet up again soon in India to really bring our plan into action.

Sam Thornton Introduction

Hello, my name is Sam Thornton. I am a sophomore in Liberal Studies, but I am going in to Gallatin next semester. I plan to concentrate on music, but I still need to decide on other interests to include into my concentration.

For me, I encounter intellectual experiences all the time. College has greatly increased the number of instances, but I have always learned a lot from those around me. Specifically, I remember learning about the negative aspects of the music industry from my cousin. He was in the indie-pop rock band "Portugal. The Man" until internal conflicts caused him to leave. Money changed the way the members thought about the music, and certain members wanted more money than other members claiming rights to the profit. This taught me about how money can seriously effect people even if they weren't expecting the issue to break friendships and relationships. I am scared to continue into the music industry; however, if I am faced with the issue of money, I hope I won't let it affect me or people I care about.

Reading questions on Kant's "Idea for a Universal History ..."

Some of these questions are not explicitly answered in the text.

1. Why can we not perceive a rational purpose in the actions of human beings?
2. How would a purpose in nature govern human actions?
3. How is antagonism a natural purpose for Kant? 
4. Is there a difference between a natural purpose and a natural instrument?
5. Does Locke think that antagonism, or the state of war, is a natural purpose?
6. Give your own examples of both aspects of man's unsocial sociability.
7. What constitutes a just civil constitution for Kant?
8. Why is human being an animal that needs a master?
9. How are states and individuals like one another, according to Kant? 
10. What contemporary international body is like the organization of states that Kant describes (hint: it's not the US)?
11. Does Kant also believe private property plays a important role in history (like Locke)?
12. In what sense does Kant think that humans are rational beings?