Rousseau Pt. II

On the contrary, nothing is so gentle as man in his primitive state, when, placed by nature at an equal distance from the stupidity of brutes and the fatal enlightenment of civil man, and limited equally by instinct and reason to protecting himself from the harm that threatens him, he is restrained by natural pity from needlessly harming anyone himself, even if he has been harmed. For according to the axiom of the wise Locke, where there is no property, there is no injury.

Rousseau here claims that the original cause for violence was the introduction of property, and that beforehand, man was tranquil and peaceful to his fellow man. However, if one looks at the state of nature of other non-human animals, it seems that violence is a natural part of most of their lives. Does Rousseau assume something that seems not to be true? Or is he referring to the middle stage in his idea of human development? If so, did the forming of communities cause one to claim property, or did the claiming of property begin the communal process?

Why lament the inevitable?

...all the subsequent progress has been in appearance so many steps toward the perfection of the individual, and in fact toward the decay of the species. (pg. 65)

Emerging society gave way to the most horrible state of war; since the human race, vilified and desolated, was no longer able to retrace its steps or give up the unfortunate acquisitions it had made, and since it labored only toward its shame by abusing the faculties that honor it, it brought itself to the brink of its ruin.  Horrified by the newness of the ill, both the poor man and the rich man hope to flee from wealth, hating what they once had prayed for. (pg. 68)

Savage man and civilized man differ so greatly in the depths of their hearts and in their inclinations, that what constitutes the supreme happiness of the one would reduce theo ther to despair.  (pg. 80)

...it (inequality) derives its force and growth form the development of our faculties and the progress of the human mind... (pg. 81)

Sorry for the mass of quotations, but I think that they collectively drive home what I understood to be  Rousseau's point.  Yes, the human race has endured a "fall" from a most ideal condition to one of vice and folly.  This fall was in the form of progress, however, and thus must be to some advantage.  Rousseau emphasizes the stark contrast between savage and civilized man.  The condition that he details throughout the discourse is not only unattainable, but also unsuitable for modern humans. Is it then worth lamenting?  I think that his discourse is just that; a discussion of the simultaneous fall and rise of the human race over time.  Inequality is an inevitable effect of progress "that reigns among all civilized people" (pg. 81).  Why dwell on what cannot be fixed?  (Or, does anyone think that it can be fixed??)

Rousseau Part II

"The first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, took it into his head to say this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society." pg 60

"It is labor alone that, in giving the cultivator a right to the produce of the soil he has tilled, consequently gives him this rigth, at least until the harvest, and thus from year to year. With this possession continuing uninterrupted, i tis easily transformed into property." pg 67

I'm interested in how Rousseau defines and describes the invention of property. He appears to take a very strict view - property is bad because it leads directly to the rules of justice (bottom of 66) and revenge. But I wonder if Rousseau would like the idea of socialism - in which there is not property but there is society - or if he would say that is unfeasible, given human nature. And what other implications might arise from this description of property? Do men not own their bodies/minds? So wouldn't the concept of property already be implanted in them?

I also have another question, which might relate more to Part I. What is the purpose of Rousseau's savage man? I think it was Aristotle who said that everything has a puprose unique to itself and distinguished between all other animals and man by man's talent for reason or philosophy. Therefore, according to Aristotle, man's highest purpose was to philosophize. What would be the purpose of man in Rousseau's state of nature?

Inevitability in Rousseau

[Things in this state could have remained equal, if talents had been equal, and if the use of iron and the consumption of foodstuffs had always been in precise balance. But this proportion, which was not maintained by anything, was soon broken. The strongest did the most work; the most adroit turned theirs to better advantage; the most ingenious found ways to shorten their labor.   p. 67]

[It is clear that Rousseau sees society as an assembly of artificial men (see Brennan's post), but I would like to look at the inevitiability of man becoming artificial. Rousseau states that things could have remained equal if the consumption of foodstuffs had always been equal. But it would seem that this is impossible - all men are not equal in abilities, and (as he notes), without some body enforcing equality of production and consumption on the populace, the strong will naturally obtain more. Rousseau's option of how things could have remained equal seems impossible: only outside of society, in the natural state, can we have equality. I think Rousseau has done a pretty good job showing that the origin of inequality is society; I don't think he's done a great job of presenting a solution. I know this wasn't the point of his discourse, but then again, he admits he's not 100% sure what the point of his discourse is.

My question is: Rousseau claims that society is an assembly of artificial men, and that inequality naturally follows from the creation of society. Tracing his progress of mankind, he presents each step as a sort of inevitable progression from the previous advance. He claims that inequality is artificial since in the state of nature "inequality is practically non-existent." Does he believe that mankind could have avoided inequality? Also, we can understand that the the great list of wrongs he lists in the last paragraph of the book are the result of society. Is society inevitable, (and therefore these wrongs inevitable for mankind)? Does that which seperates man from the animals fate man for unjust society?]

Rousseau Part Deux

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.

Artificial Human: Good, Bad, or Just Redundant?

Here is the final stage of inequality...
Here everything is returned... to a new state of nature...
--p. 79

...no attentive reader can fail to be struck by the immense space that separates these two states [the natural and the civil]...
why, with original man gradually disappearing, society no longer offers to the eyes of the wise man anything but an assemblage of artificial men and factitious passions which are the work of all these new relations and have no true foundation in nature.
--p. 80

It is enough for me to have proved that this is not the original state of man, and that this is only the spirit of society, and the inequality that society engenders, which thus change and alter all our natural inclinations...
Moreover, it follows that moral inequality, authorized by positive right alone, is contrary to natural right...
--p. 81

How does artificiality fit in with Rousseau's sense of what it means to be human? Rousseau seems to take liberty to be an essential part of what it means to be human (cf. p. 74, "...a man is not born a man."). But from this liberty eventually but inevitably spring its abuses (cf. p. 75, middle paragraph; cf. p. 77 "For the vices..."). Especially in the last few pages as quoted above, this "new state of nature," in which the essence of mankind engenders its inequalities, is increasingly portrayed as artificial, unnatural, and without basis in 'natural man.'

So perhaps humankind and 'natural human'-kind are inherently divided by this "immense space"; perhaps humans as they are now are inherently artificial beings. What does this mean for us? Artificiality does not seem like a good thing, especially when it enables such horrors as a person agreeing to "plunge my sword... into my pregnant wife's entrails." Our capacity for thought enables these terrors, but it also enables love. Just as a savage would neither cede his or her liberty nor seek revenge, neither could he or she be capable of protecting his or her family as a modern person would.

So what are we left with? Does Rousseau want us to accept our state as it is? His development of man (pp. 60-63) demonstrates a Hume-esque interest in judgment by experience; this methodology suggests to me that Rousseau's priority could be to present the truth about humanity as it is. But then there is this sense from his tone that he takes this artificiality to be a lamentable thing; that savage man, for all his inhumanity, is somehow preferable. We gain something from the crossing of the gap, but with that gain comes inequality and other vices.

So does Rousseau think it's good to be who we are? Is this separation from nature, this artificiality, this humanity, this "ardor for making oneself the topic of the conversation" a bald fact about the human race as we are? Is it a development worthy of praise and gladness? Is it a tragic, lamentable loss?