The Discourse on the Origins of Inequality is one of Rousseau's most influential works. It is first of all his attempt to explain the difference between "natural" and "artificial" sources of inequality--the ones mandated (in his account) by nature vs. the ones created by society. Unlike many writers of his time, he does not hold that differences of rank and status in society reflect some kind of difference in natural endowment. Ultimately, he holds that property is not natural, but an institution of society that brought many evils with it.
But we also find in the Discourse a lot of Rousseau's other ideas about society and nature. To prepare for a discussion on February 23, please respond to one of these questions by February 16 (just in order to leave the following week open for you to focus on your essay on Frankenstein).
1) Rousseau contrasts humans in society with "men in a state of nature." What is this state of nature?
2) Rousseau holds generally that "natural man" is happier than man in society. What does he mean? Why?
3) How important is the idea of Freedom to Rousseau's vision of society and nature?
4 comments:
When Rousseau uses the phrase "men in a state of nature" he means contrary to men of civilized society; men of nature are completely natural and posses nothing other than instinct, they are as they were born. This is similar to what we would call cave man or like a wild animal versus a housebroken pet. Man without ideals, learned knowledge, independent thoughts and feelings, etc.
Man of society differs from the man of nature in that the former has "faculty for self-improvement", they feel the need to become different and better and change. But it is this "faculty" which is the source of "all misfortunes of man" because it makes man a bully to himself and to nature. The natural man, however, has no 'faculty', and works in very few ways- seeing and feeling, willing and not willing, fearing, and desiring. The Natural man doesn't know the difference between evil and good, and isn't, himself, virtuous or vicious so he is unable to be either, saving a lot of pain for himself and for his society. Natural man is happier because he is more free without the constraints of a corrupt society.
Rosseau in contrasting "men in a state of nature” and those in society, is defining the origins of evil. Individuals in the state of nature, or noble savages, are those who only provide for their physical needs. The savages are independent from wickedness because of the ignorance of vice and disinterested in progression. However, the individuals of society are evil because of self-imposed vices, namely science and arts; that are set in order to progress society. Mary Shelley was clearly influenced by the works of Rosseau. The question remains, which character is the noble savage? Frankenstein is a man of society, stuck on progressing the scientific knowledge of mankind. The creature could be suggested to be the noble savage. The daemon begins his life attending to just his physical needs and is free from the vices of society. Although the creature is neither born of nature or continues with nature as the daemon quickly obtains knowledge and desire to be with society. Perhaps Shelley is commenting on the infectious and fated nature of the noble society.
from MICHAEL HYMAN:
Rousseau holds generally that "natural man" is happier than man in society. What does he mean? Why?
I believe he refers to the natural man as childlike, free of the ism and schism of the world, a being with a clean slate out side of the normal. Therefore one who is happy and more likely to live a life of virtue. The natural man is in tune with the sensation around him without bias and that gives him joy. By living in a nature state we are good, it is not until curiosity , society and culture comes into our lives, that we began to question ourselves and happiness. This state puts us into a continuous state of flux’s therefore we cannot or ever be able to find peace with in, hence the society man.
Post a Comment