Monday, November 16, 2009
Reply to Rousseau-Inequality of Man
Rousseau differentiates between two kinds of inequalities: that of the natural or physical aspect of man and of the moral or political. He speaks about there being no point in asking whether the people in power and from wealth are stronger in mind and body as well as wisdom and virtue. One point that he raised perplexed me. He said, “Perhaps this is a good question for slaves to discuss within earshot of their masters, but it is not suitable for reasonable and free men who seek the truth” (p.16). Why is it not suitable for free men who are seeking the truth to question this as well? He keeps comparing a civilized human to a savage one. Because a savage human does not act upon reason but instinct provided by natural law, just like an animal would, he is incapable of acting upon vice or virtue because these are concepts that do not touch him. In Rousseau’s opinion, this makes the savage more equal among each other, because no one has the sense to rule over someone else as if they are totally aloof from their fellow savage. They have no perception of death so therefore it cannot impact their thoughts or actions that take place during their lives. But, I do not believe that civilized people are incapable of possessing the potential to be equal as well. The ability to reason that we are granted is both a gift and a curse and it all depends on how each person wants to use it. I feel it is our duty as reasoning and logical beings that have such a leg up on all the other creatures on earth to constantly question our actions. Therefore, I believe that it is false that it is not suitable for a free man seeking the truth to question our modes and behavior within power.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
It is hard to understand how savage men are being compared to animals. That an animal can actually have advantage over man. No matter what aren't all humans natural first? Whether or not if we are civilized or savage, man is always equal. It was said that savage men live with beasts and must adapt to a certain level. We as humans must all adapt a certain way to our environment, which doesnt make the savage man more civil it makes us all more civil and equal.
Rousseau sates that the civil inequality is like a pox on civilization. He also claims that men in original state didn’t have inequalities. We changed dramatically through time: modern humans are not the same as we were in the original state.
So what Rousseau essentially does is he traces the human nature back to the origin and finds that we were all equal. Social inequality came in a lot later, and became a reason of discourse as well as a base of the new kind of society – the modern one.
"Because a savage human does not act upon reason but instinct provided by natural law, just like an animal would..." I see the relationship between the behavior of humans in the state of nature and the behavior of animals as we know them presently; however, I believe that the humans Rousseau describes in their primitive state are perhaps even less evolved than some of the animals we observe in nature at present. As crazy as that may seem, the only characteristic affiliated with humanity before the emergence of reason is "natural aversion to suffering" (along with "natural plenty," but that is indicative of the land, not the occupants). That being said, it can be argued that either: 1) animals today have evolved beyond basic instinct, or 2) savage humans in their natural state were too simple to possess the capacity to function off of instinct, otherwise more attributes could have been contributed to them, such as seeking comfort and protection among others, despite having full capabilities to hold their own (resembling the development of bonds).
Following along with characteristics of humans in their natural state, I disagree with Rousseau's belief that love did not exist in the state of nature. Perhaps reptiles that lay eggs do not have the magnitude to love, but nature reveals that mammals can develop attachments, and admittedly it can be argued (by vegans/PITA of course), that even fish have feelings. Who says "love" has to have boundaries or make sense anyway? Even with how evolved humans are at this day and age, some of us still can't figure out what love is, because we have been cursed with mind complexities responsible for confusion and receiving "mixed signals." In this case, I believe that love would have been more clear and distinct among humans in their natural state, because, instinct or not, it would be purely a feeling- not the jumble of jargon, the "label," and the goofy Hallmark cards it is today.
While Craig is clearing championing rationality over empiricism, he is ignoring Rousseau’s relatively sound, logical narrative of human history—Although Rousseau clearly bases his thesis and supplementary arguments on the particular lens through which he views human existence, he nonetheless recounts the progression from man in his natural state, through man in civil society. Perhaps Rousseau uses such an anecdotal rhetorical device to suggest that, in spite of the shortcomings of civil society, man’s development to such a point was natural. The first man to use a tool did not do so as a result of some external force, nor did the first man to enclose property and claim it as his own. Although it is clear that such progressions stem from pride (which Rousseau suggests is morally abhorrent), using tools and enclosing property are the manifestations of man’s interior. What Rousseau critiques is not man’s sense of rationality, but instead the social consequences of such rationality. Conversely, it is only without rationality that retards social development and, consequently, the complexities and conflicts that result.
Post a Comment