Rousseau

[MM6]

Jean Jacques Rousseau, the french philosopher, theorised that human beings are fundamentally "good" when in the "state of nature" (the state in which all the other animals are in, and humans were in before civilization and society). [his famous phrase "the noble savage"] Moreover he hypothesised that "good" people are made unhappy and corrupted by their experiences in society. He saw society as corrupt and artificial and believed that the society can only result in the continuing unhappiness of human beings.

However in a later life he reversed his thinking and contended that humans are brutish when in the natural state, as they are without laws and morality. It is only within society that humans develop what he termed the "social contract".

Is it only our societal laws that keep us from anarchy? Or do we have a fundamental desire within us to co-operate. Has this co-operation, in fact been the reason for our success as a species? I believe it has. I think it is our desire for co-operation that has lead to the creation of our laws. It is not because of those laws that we co-operate.

[myron myron]

In my opinion, Rousseau's only coherent contribution to political philosophy is the concept of "the social contract."

Per the following quotes, Rousseau was a bit confused about democracy, private property, and human nature:

"It is unnatural for a majority to rule, for a majority can seldom be organized and united for specific action, and a minority can."

"You forget that the fruits belong to all and that the land belongs to no one."

"Our greatest evils flow from ourselves."

"Most nations, as well as people are impossible only in their youth; they become incorrigible as they grow older."

"Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains."

I have no opinion on the accuracy of Roussau's following statements:

"The English think they are free. They are free only during the election of members of parliament."

"The English are predisposed to pride, the French to vanity."

Perhaps some Brits can enlighten . . .

[Topic Of Gossip]

I think if you lump humans in as just another member of the animal kingdom, and not some 'special entity' i.e. higher than all the other creatures on the planet, then I don't think the labels 'good' or 'bad' really come into it as Rousseau states.

You could ask the questions... "Are lions good or bad?" Or... "Are meerkats good or bad?" What about elephants, antelope, dolphins and ants? All of these creatures have been known to kill stuff given their different physical and mental 'weaponry' e.g. big sharp teeth and claws; huge mass; cunning and guile etc. But each species is also known to nurture and take care of their young.

Every species is trying to eek out a living for themselves on a planet with scarce natural resources and limited real estate. That's where the conflicts and battles usually arise. Self preservation and continuation of the species means that at some level co-operation becomes inevitable. To what degree that co-operation takes depends on the species.

Humans tend to be co-operative when they see an advantage in it for themselves e.g. banding together to fight a greater foe for instance. I don't think humans are naturally altruistic.

Left to nature I don't think humans would behave that much differently to the meerkats really, with regards to being anarchic. 'Society' tends to develop naturally, especially amongst mammals. Over the years we've just added more laws and rules than the other species, as our societies have become more complex, and with the ever increasing population size of our individual 'tribes'.

[MM6]

I think in Rousseaus original thinking he took an almost religiously moral standpoint - in that he was asking whether society corrupst human beings, who left in their natural state [we can argue what that is but I think he means living closer to nature, off the land, more rural, less artifiicial, almost like a garden of eden state] they are more true to their real natures. It is with societies mores and constructs that humans become hampered and constrained and "unnatural". He reversed this thinking in later life but really what I wanted to discuss was not Rousseau's ideas in themsleves, but taking them as a starting point to formulate ideas - and TOG got that on the button. Humans will co-operate when it benefits themsleves - as most animals will. This has to be an evolutionary advantage therefore it has survived. Naturally altruistic? Up to a point, yes, I think we have developed that facility but when push comes to shove we will save ourselves and those of our loved ones. I had a long night, my brain is fuzzy today. Need a drink of water, thanks for the replies guys

[Gypsum Salt]

Damn!

I thought this thread was about CLOUSEAU













Gypsum

[Rugar]

What an interesting Thread.

Rousseau's antrhopology seems quite optimistic and odd, the same goes for Locke. If we are talking about philosophical antrhopologies, Spinoza and Hobbes are good. I think we the social contract is how we shold operate within government, but for different reasons than Rousseau.

Granted, political philosophy isn't my specialty. But I do like Kantian antrhopology!

[MM6]

Damn!

I thought this thread was about CLOUSEAU


Gypsum

I love the Pink Panther films

Does Your Dog Bite?

[elliott20]

I think socialization is very much but the natural result of people having to live with one another. after all, if we go with the whole "winner takes all", survival of the fittest concept, that just means that we'll have 1 winner and 99 losers out of every 100. that's a lot unhappy contenders. to better their chances.

[08pooled]

Is it only our societal laws that keep us from anarchy? Or do we have a fundamental desire within us to co-operate. Has this co-operation, in fact been the reason for our success as a species? I believe it has. I think it is our desire for co-operation that has lead to the creation of our laws. It is not because of those laws that we co-operate.

I would agree.
I think that the social contract is the heart of any any government. Like John Locke and Thomas Jefferson said: when the government breaks the social contract, it is the citizens right and duty to throw off that government and create a new one. Kings of old relied on divine rights and S*** like that, but ever since the late 1600's, the social contract theory has obliterated the divine rights theory-and it explains government much better then divine rights ever did. I also think that if the peasents actually receieved an education, then the social contract theory would have been formed much earlier.