Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s natural man is a creature characterized by self-pity and self-preservation. Rousseau speaks towards his natural man’s kind and virtuous being, but also makes mention of his need for survival. While Rousseau expresses a clear and firm sensitivity toward animals in his text, in his Second Discourse he does not make a solid case for vegetarianism.
Rousseau begins his discourse through a conceit regarding the difficulty of reconstructing the primitive man faultlessly. Much like the corroded status of Glaucus, over time man evolved to a barely recognizable state, and because of this Rousseau is only able to provide his judgment of the natural man (Rousseau 91). Some may believe that Rousseau makes a case for vegetarianism in his discourse, but any suggestion of vegetarianism seems to be less of what he intended to allude to and more about his personal stance. It is evident that Rousseau’s obvious compassion towards animals may have interrupted his main ideas about natural man.
Natural selection gave man the necessity of adapting in order to sustain life. As stated before, Rousseau’s natural man has no intention of harming his environment, except for cases in which he must do so in order to survive. Natural man may have originally begun in the most primitive of states as an herbivore, but was unable to stay put in a state of nature that is always changing.
For as prey is almost the unique subject of fighting among carnivorous animals, and as frugivorous ones live among themselves in continual peace, if the human race were of this latter genus it clearly would have had much greater ease subsisting in the state of nature, and less need and occasion to leave it. (Rousseau 188)
Had man been a true part of the fru...
... middle of paper ...
...ends to destroy or upset it,” (Rousseau 113). Rousseau adds that man acts as a free agent, which contrasts the typical animal, but overall it is suggested that each organism acts in his best interest of survival.
Rousseau’s natural man did not intend to harm his community, but in necessity of survival, he may have been considered a detriment to his environment. Based on Rousseau’s text, natural man was mainly omnivorous, devising the essential fusion of survival. Rousseau is empathetic towards animals, but does not suggest a solid case that the natural man was a solely herbivorous creature. Natural man used his resources in order to preserve himself, and never actively harmed his environment.
Works Cited
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The First and Second Discourses. Ed. Roger D. Masters. Trans. Roger D. and Judith R. Masters. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1964. Print.
In this essay I will be assessing the extent to which Rousseau and Wollstonecraft work contributed to the development of social thought and focus on the key ideas both of these researchers encountered, jean- Jacques Rousseau remains an important figure in the history of political philosophy and moral psychology, Rousseau views often very negative seeing philosophers as the past- hoc rationalizers of self interests, as apologist for various forms of tyranny, and as playing a role in the alienation of the modern individual from humanities natural impulse to compassion. The major concern that dominated Rousseau’s work was to find a way to preserve human freedom in a world where humans are increasingly dependent on other for the satisfaction of
Freud proposed that we have to constantly suppress our instincts, and he lists three ways we can do so. The first, powerful deflections, “…to make light of our misery…” such as participating in science. Secondly, substitutive satisfactions such as making art and sublimating our desire for sex into that art. Lastly, we can use intoxicating substances like drugs to make us insensitive to our instincts (Freud, 41). Rousseau, however, says the civil state transforms, “…him from a stupid, limited animal into an intelligent being and a man” (Rousseau, 27). This means that once we enter into the social contract we completely leave behind our instincts and replace them with morals and justice.
The Social Contract and the Leviathan by Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes, respectively, contextualizes man’s struggle to escape a brutish, short life within the state of nature. Man is confined in a lawless world where the words mine and thine are interchangeable, and where there is no regard for private possession; this indifference even extends to the right over someone’s body. And while there are those who revel in freedom from the synthetic chains of law, the reality of life in the state of nature- a life of constant war and distrust for one’s neighbor- trumps any short lived joys or monetary gains. Although it may seem like there is no hope for man in this state, Hobbes and Rousseau presents us with a way to escape this tragic
Olson, Kirby. "Gregory Corso's Post-Vegetarian Ethical Dilemma.(Gregory Corso)(Essay)." Journal Of Comparative Literature And Aesthetics 1-2 (2004): 53. Academic OneFile. Web. 4 Dec. 2013.
In this section, Adler corrects the teachings of Rousseau, Hobbes and Locke and their arguments about the state of nature. One teaching Adler disputes goes by the name of “the state of nature”. This phrase, when used by Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau signifies a condition of human life on earth in which individuals live in isolation with complete independence. The second thing Adler disputes is that human beings were dissatisfied with living in a state of nature, that they decided to put up with it no longer and to agree upon certain rules for living together under some form of government that eliminated their isolation. Adler’s argument is that these three treat the state of nature as if it was a historical reality and not a thought experiment. He argues that society and government have grown over time because humans are naturally social
Christopher McCandless, a young American who was found dead in summer of 1992 in wild land in Alaska, wrote in his diary about his moral struggle regarding killing a moose for survival. According to Jon Krakauer’s Into the Wild, Chris had to abandon most of the meat since he lacked the knowledge of how to dismantle and preserve it (166-168). Not only did he have a moral dilemma to kill a moose, but also had a deep regret that a life he had taken was wasted because of his own fault. He then started recognizing what he ate as a precious gift from the nature and called it “Holy Food” (Krakauer 168). Exploring relationships between human beings and other animals arouses many difficult questions: Which animals are humans allowed to eat and which ones are not? To which extent can humans govern other animals? For what purposes and on which principles can we kill other animals? Above all, what does it mean for humans to eat other animals? The answer may lie in its context. Since meat-eating has been included and remained in almost every food culture in the world throughout history and is more likely to increase in the future due to the mass production of meat, there is a very small chance for vegetarianism to become a mainstream food choice and it will remain that way.
Rousseau is firstly justified in his claim that perfectibility led to the abolishment of the gentleness of natural man and resulted in a competition
Both Hobbes and Rousseau have different even opposing views on the topic of the natural state of man. These views play a major role on their beliefs and reasoning for why man needs society and government. These beliefs can be easily summarized with Hobbes believing in an inherent selfishness and competition in man, whereas Rousseau’s views on things is far more positive, believing that man is far happier in his natural state, and the root of his corruption is the result of his entrance into society. Rousseau’s theory is based on a state prior to the formation of society and any form of government. Thomas Hobbes, the founding father of political philosophy and who was in great opposition to the natural state of man, emphasizes that all people are selfish and evil; the lack of governmental structure is what results in a state of chaos, only to be resolved by an authority figure. Hobbes’s initial argument of natural state, in human nature, proves how society is in a constant state of destruction, mentally and physically, if not under controlled or command. Although Hobbes’s opinion was morally correct, Rousseau believes that all people are born in a state of emptiness, somewhat of a blank state and it is life experiences that determine their nature, society being a major driving force for people’s ill-will and lack of moral sensibilities. Hobbes, overall, is proven correct because all people need to be directed in order for society to properly function.
Jean Jacques Rousseau in On Education writes about how to properly raise and educate a child. Rousseau's opinion is based on his own upbringing and lack of formal education at a young age. Rousseau depicts humanity as naturally good and becomes evil because humans tamper with nature, their greatest deficiency, but also possess the ability to transform into self-reliant individuals. Because of the context of the time, it can be seen that Rousseau was influenced by the idea of self-preservation, individual freedom, and the Enlightenment, which concerned the operation of reason, and the idea of human progress. Rousseau was unaware of psychology and the study of human development. This paper will argue that Rousseau theorizes that humanity is naturally good by birth, but can become evil through tampering and interfering with nature.
According to Jean Jacques Rousseau, human beings are bestowed with the blessings of freedom during their individual genesis on this fruitful planet, but this natural freedom is immensely circumscribed as it’s exchanged for the civil liberties of the State. He indicated that the supplanting of natural freedom is necessary for the obtainment of greater power for the greater collective community, but the prospect of obtaining superlative capabilities comes with the price of constraints. Yet this notion of natural freedom conflicts with Thomas Hobbes rendition on the state of nature because he illustrates that nature, interface through savagery. According to Hobbes, mankind has endorsed and embraced natures temperament, because this system of truculency and servility that nature orbits adversely affects the nature of mankind, resulting in mankinds affinity for greed, and brutal ambition. Inspite of their conflicting perspectives on the state of nature, both support and explicate on the idea that the preservation and proliferation of mankind as a whole is best achieved through their belief, and withholding the policies of a social contract. The intention of Leviathan is to create this perfect government, which people eagerly aspires to become apart of, at the behest of individual relinquishing their born rights. This commonwealth, the aggregation of people for the purposes of preventing unrest and war, is predicated upon laws that prohibit injustice through the implementation of punishment. Essentially in the mind of both Rousseau and Hobbes, constraints are necessary for human beings to be truly free under the covenants and contracts applied to the civil state at which mankind interface through.
In the “natural state”, Rousseau suggests that we should strip man of all the “supernatural gifts” he may have been given over the course of time. He says we should “consider him, in a word, just as he must have come from the hands of nature, we behold in him an animal weaker than some, and less agile than others; but, taking him all around, the most advantageously organized of any.” He presumes that man’s needs would be easily satisfied. His food was easily gained, as wa...
The charge of sexism on Rousseau and the badge of feminism on Wollstonecraft render their arguments elusive, as if Rousseau wrote because he was a sexist and Wollstonecraft because she was a feminist, which is certainly not true. Their work evinced here by the authors questioned the state of man and woman in relation to their conception of what it should be, what its purpose, and what its true species. With an answer to these questions, one concludes the inhumanity of mankind in society, and the other the inhumanity of mankind in their natural, barbarous state. The one runs from society, to the comforts and direction of nature; the other away from nature, to the reason and virtue of society. The argument presented may be still elusive, and the work in vain, but the point not missed, perhaps.
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
Rousseau’s version of the social contract depends on his characteristics of “the state of nature”. Rousseau once said “Man is born
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...