Rousseaus Thoughts About Human Nature - Literature review Example

Rousseau’s Thoughts About Human Nature Jean-Jacques Rousseau is a multi-talented genius – a literary wizard, musician, botanist, philosopher, etc.. It is no wonder that he rose to fame as a central figure in the development of philosophy in the eighteenth century and one of the best known exponents of the French Enlightenment (Dent, 2005). As a political philosopher, Rousseau (1764) unearthed a deep-seated divide between the nature of man and society. This was discussed at length in one of his earliest philosophical works Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, where he elucidated on the beginnings of society and how inequality existed in such a society. This essay showcased quotations displaying Rousseau’s literary wit and philosophical depth such as in Rousseau (2004) with such remarks as: “The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said ‘This is mine,’ and found people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society” (Rousseau, 2005 p.35). In his 1754 discourse proposed by the Academy of Dijon, Rousseau (2007) examined and at the same time, illustrated his misgivings regarding the social order at that time. Rousseau believed that human nature is good and happy. This natural state, however, according to Rousseau did not stay unchanged because man was exposed to evil. Yet, Rousseau was quick to add that such evil which plagued mankind was a result of man’s deviation from his natural state and not because of sin. I agree that man is basically good. From a Christian perspective, God created man from his own image and likeness and breathed life to his creation. A holy God can only create goodness in man. God’s own words from the Bible attested to the goodness of God’s creation. Adam and Eve were created without sin. I also believe that man is happy, by nature. Such happiness is a blessing which came about because of man’s goodness. I should, however, disagree with Rousseau that evil is not caused by sin but by man’s departure from his natural state. Man welcomed evil by sinning and in the process, deviated from his good nature. Rousseau (2007) also posited that men are unequal. This inequality was further categorized by Rousseau as: (1) natural or physical inequality, is made up of differences in age, health, bodily strength, and qualities of the mind or of the soul; and (2) moral or political equality, which is dependent of some form of principle instituted by a common consensus of men. Rousseau sees this category in the form of various privileges enjoyed by some (the rich and powerful) and restricted to many (the poor and the weak). The passage from Acts 17:26, which reads: “And He has made from one blood[a] every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings” (New King James Version [NKJV]). This passage may be construed to mean that God made men neither equal nor unequal, yet different, according to A. U. Santiago (personal communication, 29 October 2008). Further, it has been well-established in Proverbs 22:2 that “The rich and the poor have this in common, the LORD is the maker of them all” (NKJV). Hence, being rich or poor is not an issue which concerns inequality among men. I strongly disagree with Rousseau (2007) in his discourse on equality that: “… Religion commands us to believe that men, having been drawn by God himself out of a state of nature, are unequal, because it is his pleasure they should be so…” (Rousseau, 2007a p.19). God’s image, after whom men were likened when men were created is not just a mere state of nature (Genesis 1:26-28, NKJV). I also disagree that men are unequal. As already established in the aforementioned paragraph, men are neither equal or unequal, yet different from each other. I also disagree that pleasure is the reason why God created everything in the universe. Rather than for simple pleasure, God created mankind and the entire universe as part of his Divine Plan. Rousseau, Cumberland and Puffendorf differed with Hobbes (in Rousseau, 2007a p. 24) in their contention that: “…nothing is more fearful than a man in a state of nature, that he is always in a tremble, and ready to fly at the first motion he perceives, at the first noise that strikes his ears…” (Rousseau, 2007a p.24) Hobbes, on the other hand, sees man as fearless and bent on attacking and fighting every chance he gets. Conditions have not really changed since then. My personal view of the contemporary man is that he is a hybrid of man from the eyes of Rousseau and Hobbes. The arms race, the never-ending struggle for supremacy in arms and military power, is an overwhelming testimony that even the modern man is in a constant state of fear – of conquest, of slavery, of tyrants. This is why man has not stopped arming himself, to the extent of covertly stocking nuclear weaponry. At the same time, Hobbes’ model of a fearless man comes to the fore whenever man’s independence is threatened as the contemporary man sheds off his fear in defence of liberty, justice and equality. The simplicity with which early men lived their lives, as evaluated by Rousseau worked much to their advantages because their “simple, uniform and solitary manner of life which nature prescribed” (Rousseau, 2007a p.21) kept them healthy and strong. As man, however, changed his manner of living, where others laboured relentlessly towards complete exhaustion while stayed extremely idle; or where the rich voraciously served their appetites to the brink of indigestion, and the poor managed to subsist with unwholesome food – brought in sickness, innumerable pains and anxiety to man. Rousseau (1754) also discussed a time when survival was the main reason why mankind lived. Men from the early civilizations are usually alone, lethargic and in continuous danger. Early men think little and are fond of sleeping, but they sleep very slightly to survive attacks from vicious animals. Whenever they do think they are most concerned on how they can attain self preservation. His skills were, therefore, adapted towards survival and self preservation. While the civilized men learned to used his mental faculties more and slept eight hours a day to maintain good health, they can now afford to sleep soundly in the comfort and security of air-conditioned homes protected by automated modern devices to ward of burglars and other criminal elements. Situations did not change much, however. The danger is still very much present and perpetual. Man was, however, victorious in harnessing technology to help him survive and preserve his existence. Rousseau (1754) recognized the superiority of man among other animals in terms of the quality of his intellect. Supplementing this natural mental power is man’s possession a free will, which distinguishes him apart from other animals. With this free will, man chooses or refuses and may deviate from a particular rule prescribed if it will mean self preservation, an advantage, or a chance for self-improvement. On the other hand, the rest of the animals either accept or refuse a situation by instinct. Rousseau was totally in disagreement with some of Hobbes’ propositions that : (1) man does not know goodness because he is wicked; and (2) a bad man is a robust child. Robust is this context may be taken as “strong”. For Hobbes’ first proposition, Rousseau (2005) would have welcomed a restatement from Hobbes that: “the state of nature … which the care of our own self preservation is the least prejudicial to that of others … was the best … to promote world peace, and the most suitable for mankind …” (Rousseau, 2005 p.49) Meanwhile, for the second proposition, Rousseau challenged Hobbes for the burden of proof about the strong man being a bad man. In both respects, I agree with Rousseau. Man is basically good. Some men may have turned wicked because they were corrupted by society. It is also true that some strong men are bad, but there are also strong people who are good. Rousseau (2005), however, explained eloquently why he disagreed with Hobbes on both propositions: “… neither the development of the understanding nor the restraint of law that hinders them from doing ill; but the peacefulness of their passions, and their ignorance of vice…” (Rousseau, 2004 p. 33) Rousseau (1754) believes that man has natural compassion. It is this natural compassion which tempers man’s instinct for survival and self preservation against inflicting injury or harm to other men. I would neither agree or disagree with Rousseau on this aspect. Perhaps, my experience and my readings have not propelled me much back in time. Knowing, however, that early men lived rather simple and solitary lives, it is possible that it is natural compassion which prevented them from dealing with other men in the same way that they dealt with wild animals who attack them or their meager resources. In this day and age, however, it is rather difficult to say that the contemporary man retained this natural compassion when we hear in the news that even infant formula is being intentionally tainted with melamine to make it appear that the milk product has a high protein content. Where is natural compassion when modern man in search of higher profit knowingly laces milk products intended for helpless babies with a poisonous substance? Humans sought union with other humans because of what Rousseau (1754) called physical and moral love. As psychologists refer to man as a social animal who needs the company of other men, I believe most philosophers will agree with Rousseau on this. It is human nature to have feelings of love. Such feelings of love developed into what Rousseau (1754) referred to as two of the finest feelings natural to humans: conjugal love and paternal affection. And thus, the family was instituted. Rousseau (2007) was inclined to believe that the beginnings of society and the institution of laws presented opposite effects : more restrictions for the poor and additional powers for the rich. Such effects tend to destroy man’s natural liberty. With only a few individuals benefiting from the institutions created by man, the disadvantaged majority fell prey to the horrors of fatal strife and war among nations. It was also made obvious in the discourse on inequality that Rousseau resented what has been called as the “right of conquest”. He sees no fervor in creating a right founded under conditions of conquest or violence. As early as 1754, Rousseau unearthed a duo of the very synonyms that govern today’s international politics: rich and strong, as well as poor and weak. From the assessment of Rousseau, the earliest constitutions which took the form of covenants performed among the covenors were imperfect, limited and unstable. Leaders were chosen to help followers protect their most-cherished possession – liberty. Ancient and modern politicians, however, earned their places of notoriety in the political history of the world as leaders chosen to protect liberty but turned out to be the same instruments by which such liberty is curtailed and worst, completely snatched from the people. To name of few, there were Fidel Castro, Julius Caesar, Adolph Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Mao Tse Tung, Ferdinand Marcos, Joseph Stalin, and Suharto. Rousseau (2005) also differed with John Locke on the concept of absolute government, paternal authority and civil society. Rousseau (2005) contended that “… gratitude is a duty which ought to be paid, but not a right to be exacted” (Rousseau, 2005 p. 84) to stress his point that paternal authority is the main strength of civil society, instead of the argument proposed by John Locke that civil society owes its origins from paternal authority. Speaking of beginnings, Book 1 of Rousseau (2007b) is a foundational work on the education of Emile during infancy, the beginning of a person’s life. However, although Emile was considered by Rousseau, himself as his “most penetrating and foundational work”, Rousseau believes that it is not a discourse on education (Dent, 2005 p.81). I quite agree with Rousseau that Emile is not actually a treatise on education. Dent (2005) proposed that Emile is a philosophical work expounding that man is naturally good. I also agree with Dent on this proposition. Rousseau (2007b) shared significant sensible advise on how infants should be treated. He cautioned against petting the child, or rocking and singing the baby to sleep. He also underscored the need for the child to be breastfed by his own mother. As Rousseau puts in in Book 1 of Emile: “When a child cries he is uneasy, he feels some need which he cannot satisfy; you watch him, seek this need, find it, and satisfy it. It you can neither find it nor satisfy it, the tears continue and become tiresome. The child is petted to keep him quiet, he is rocked or sung to sleep; if he is obstinate, the nurse becomes impatient and threatens him; cruel nurses sometimes strike him. What strange lessons for him at his first entrance into life!” (Rousseau, 2007b p.45). Dent (2005) commenting in Book 1, indicated that: “… of more importance are Rousseau’s reflections on the significance of a child’s cries and the way these are responded to by those around them, most especially in instances where the child is reacting to failing to have their desires satisfied or to finding their actions impeded” (Dent, 2005 p.86). Book 5, on the other hand, tackles the last years of Emile maturing under the tutelage of his mentor. Rousseau (2007b) begins Book 5 by asserting that what men and women have in common are equal, but what in matters where they differ, men and women are incomparable. I agree with Rousseau on his description about the differences between men and women, specially on the part where he explained that in some aspects between men and women, the incomparability is brought about by the fact that one complements the other. The portion of Book 5, however, where Rousseau contended that woman is made to please man and that woman are meant to be subjugated by men, connotes chauvinism. I totally disagree. In this day and age of women’s liberation and women empowerment, the chauvinistic philosophy of men being superior to women, is rather out of place. Even in the 18th century, where Enlightenment started to bloom, the idea of men subjugating women defies what Rousseau do not accept as right of conquest. Reflections on the works of Rousseau revealed that his philosophical ideas in the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, which was referred to in Dent (2005) as the Second Discourse, recurred in his other writings, particularly Emile. These are indications that Rousseau was consistent in his works with respect to the philosophical arguments he is espousing, of which my favorite is “the natural goodness of man”. REFERENCES Dent, N. J. H. 2005. Rousseau. New York: Routledge.p.86. Rousseau, J. J. 1754. A Discourse on a Subject Proposed by the Academy of Dijon: What is the Origin of Inequality Among Men and is it Authorised by Natural Law? Retrieved October 30, 2008 from http://www.constitution.org/jjr/ineq_01.htm Rousseau, J. J. 2004. Discourse on Inequality. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing. pp. 21, 33. Rousseau, J. J. 2005. A Discourse Upon the Origin and the Foundation of the Inequality Among Mankind. Sioux Falls, SD: NuVision Publications, LLC. pp. 35, 49, 84. Rousseau, J. J. 2007. Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. Minneapolis, MN: Filiquarian Publishing, LLC. pp. 19, 24. Rousseau, J. J. 2007. Emile: On Education. Charleston, SC: BiblioBazaar, LLC. p.45. Read More