Rousseau's Discourse On The Origin Of Inequality
In the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, Rousseau describes the state of nature and the origin of chance events that gave birth to a civil state, where men build social relationships and developed reason. His description of state of nature is very different from that of Locke and Hobbes, as he believes that state of nature is actually better than the civil society. According to Rousseau, civil state is the culprit behind destroying the rudimentary man. It is surprising to note that Rousseau prefers state of nature over civil state, where savage humans live amicably. Rousseau indirectly criticizes Hobbes’ way of examining original man’s traits that developed because of living in a society. Through his thought experiment, Rousseau tries
…show more content…
Man never progresses because he lacks the ability to solve problems. By taking step aback, Rousseau is not assuming that humans were once solitary, whereas in Hobbes’ version, people did have social interaction, but only government was absent. However, in absence of reason, humans do have emotions like pity, which helps them live in harmony. With everything well balanced, savages are happy within themselves, making inequality hardly noticeable. Even though he thinks that the state of nature never existed and never will, Rousseau’s preference for the savage human over civilized human is fascinating because this implies that Rousseau does not want the humans to develop. However, when we look at the modern society, humans are oppressed at every moment in contrast to the state of nature. Today, as Lincoln said, democracy is defined as for the people, by the people and of the people. Is the power really in people’s hands? Or are they politically enslaved by the leaders they voted to represent them? As Rousseau says, laws are just made by the rich, here political leaders, to secure their power and position, keeping the weak, the citizens, in the illusion of
Man never progresses because he lacks the ability to solve problems. By taking step aback, Rousseau is not assuming that humans were once solitary, whereas in Hobbes’ version, people did have social interaction, but only government was absent. However, in absence of reason, humans do have emotions like pity, which helps them live in harmony. With everything well balanced, savages are happy within themselves, making inequality hardly noticeable. Even though he thinks that the state of nature never existed and never will, Rousseau’s preference for the savage human over civilized human is fascinating because this implies that Rousseau does not want the humans to develop. However, when we look at the modern society, humans are oppressed at every moment in contrast to the state of nature. Today, as Lincoln said, democracy is defined as for the people, by the people and of the people. Is the power really in people’s hands? Or are they politically enslaved by the leaders they voted to represent them? As Rousseau says, laws are just made by the rich, here political leaders, to secure their power and position, keeping the weak, the citizens, in the illusion of