Nature gives all creatures of our known world certain commandments. Animals abide by these rules, and man’s intellect is what makes him rebellious when considering these rules. Free will separates humans from nature. Therefore, they are deemed as non-equals. This may be explained further by Rousseau’s own account of “perfectability”. He believes the act of trying to perfect oneself results in the evolvement of man, whereas the animal (savage man included in this sense) can remain the same for thousands of years due to the lack of this ability. Rousseau states the savage man finds nature familiar and comfortable. Perhaps this is Rousseau’s way of stating these men and women were not “enlightened”. This may be implied from the following quote: “How many centuries have perhaps gone by before men were in a position to see any fire other than that of the heavens?”(27) Rousseau then continues to ponder the thought that man had evolved from savage when nature no longer satisfied their desires. Perhaps this may tie into his idea of perfectibility among men. It then may be implied the desire to perfect himself drew the savage man away from the mindset of animals.
Rousseau’s criticism of language may be tied into this as well. For Rousseau feels there is no need for words, and it further alienates the domesticated human from the rest of creation. The origin of language was established solely on the platform of enlightenment thought and not by nature. He believes the only natural form is the cry, or “cry of nature”(31), if you will. Everything else is dubbed as a “conventional sign.” Animals, according to Rousseau, will not have the power to evolve as long as they do not possess the ability to process general ideas with these conventional signs. Without language and the ability to perfect itself, an animal’s life and heritage will remain constant. Rousseau then leaves his readers with the question of whether society was built for language, or if a pre-existing language was responsible for the creation of a civilized society.
“Which is more at peace? Civil or Moral Life?” (34) This is a question presented by Rousseau. It is then followed by a conclusion that a savage man or one with a natural life does not have the ability to do evil since he does not have the mental capacity to decipher what it means to be “good”. Within the early pages of Part Two of the Discourse, Rousseau explains the beginning of a civil society was the very first time a man declared a plot of land to be his. This is opposed to the life of a savage who appeared to be nomadic.
In the following pages of Rousseau’s Discourse, he then contemplates a human’s natural pity, passion, and sensibility in relation to reason. He states ideas and sentiments coincide with one another, and are therefore the ingredients for a lasting relationship. Because of this feeling of the heart provoked by an idea, humans began to loiter together to further evolve domestic interaction. After time passes within these groups of “tightened bonds” (49), opinions of others began to develop within the minds of each and every individual. It may be implied that because a human desires the company of another particular individual, reason is provoked by passion. It may also be implied after reading this statement that this observation may lead to a human caring for how he or she alone is viewed by society as well. As a result of these relationships and feelings, opinions of others have been formed. This ultimately leads to the extinction of innocence.
When reading page 53, Rousseau’s audience is able to understand how the newly opinionated and civilized man’s desire for perfection instigated the progression of culture and the arts. For it does not stop! We are constantly seeking ways to develop language, talent, and the abuse of wealth. Rousseau undoubtedly believes that as a result of this, the ability to be something and appear as something was possible for man. With caring how one views him or herself, a human then develops jealous and wicked tendencies. This leads to “competition and rivalry” (54), and further developing the notion of what it means to be non-equal.
After all this, does the desired perfection by humans indeed have an end? According to Rousseau…yes. Different opinions of others may lead to prejudices, a disunity of men, and an overall disorder which will be responsible for the destruction of all men have worked towards in order to be individuals. For we will all be “tyrants” (68), and moral principles and sentiments will disappear. The inequalities would disappear, but to the other extreme. Rousseau believes this is naturally bound to happen, and philosophers will not be able to come to the rescue. If we remained one with nature as a “savage”, our lives would be tranquil as opposed to “running to our death” (70). We would live for ourselves as opposed to living for the approval or on the judgment of others. The spirit of society remains in existence when life is based on appearance. According to Rousseau, this is certainly not man’s original state. ~ Angela Pokorny
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
My apologies for blogging on half of Part One and half of Part Two. Due to my unfortunate ability to be absent minded and somewhat think at the same time, I did not realize I was assigned certain page numbers to Part Two only. I simply got really into the entire book, and wanted to start with perfectability and how it evovled into the inequality of man until it came full circle : )
I think his idea of perfection leaves a lot to be desired. It seems he believes that humans only achieve perfection when they are doing it in expense of another being. I wonder if he believes that perfection is just something that is relative and it needs to be in comparison to something else because otherwise it seems that perfection develops along side with all of the bad parts of human intellect.
I agree strongly with the point made about the savage man not having the ability to do evil. A savage man lives by insticts, instincts that he or she was born with. These insticts are a key to their survival. A person living a natural life is not tainted by "modern day" evils such as greed, lust, revenge, violence etc. By living a natural life you do what you need to survive and you go on with life. This brings up the question, did enlightenment and human progression take us off the path we were supposed to live? A natural life?
I agree with John that modern life opens up vast array of possible evils men/women can do to one another. On the other hand, I think that savage man, as rudimentary as he was, would nevertheless have desires, temptations and impulses that go beyond mere innocent self-preservation, as Rousseau may suggest, and which inevitably lead to evil actions. The savage men may not be greedy for money, but nonetheless he is evil when steals someone else’s food, as Rousseau pointed out. However, Rousseau premise is that we agree with the notion of evilness having a hierarchy of rank (i.e. enslaving is worst than stealing). I disagree. I think evil is or is not - just as black or white is either one or the other. With evil, what is different is not the level of evilness but rather the degree to which damage/pain different evils affect.
Post a Comment