This is precisely the stage reached by most of the savage people known to us; and it is for want of having made adequate distinctions among their ideas or of having noticed how far these peoples already were from the original state of nature that many have hastened to conclude that man is naturally cruel, and that he needs civilization in order to soften him. On the contrary, nothing is so gentle as man in his primitive state . . . he is restrained by natural pity from needlessly harming anyone himself, even if he has been harmed. (64)
Despite the advice to work hard to see behind Rousseau's words and find his true motives, I was unable to do so since his words are so loaded and loud. I believe last class we thought one of Rousseau's claims is that man cannot help thinking of different possibilities/scenarios than reality, mainly because he is a naturally speculative creature. But section II seems to advocate, not just speculate, a different scenario than the status quo. I don't believe he wants to abandon society all together; he seems to indicate that the "happiest epoch" lived in a past society constituted of humans in an intermediary stage between the savage and societal man (p 65) (perhaps stage 2 of Patt-man's three-stage hypothesis). But the passions of greed and pride that corrode us today are a conditioned product of society, not human nature. Contrary to Hobbes, he thinks that the social advancements we have made through reason have led us away from the primitive compassion of nature. Like in Montaingne's "Of Cannibals," the natural man would immediately think it absurd that we allow for "a handful of people to gorge themselves on superfluities while the starving multitude lacks necessities" (Rouss 81).
In response to one of Brennan's questions below, I believe Rousseau thinks our advancement was accompanied by a tragic loss - or perhaps our advancement was a lamentable loss.
No comments:
Post a Comment