{"id":385,"date":"2015-11-02T22:28:52","date_gmt":"2015-11-03T05:28:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/a1lieblang\/?p=385"},"modified":"2015-11-02T22:28:52","modified_gmt":"2015-11-03T05:28:52","slug":"rousseaus-faulty-critique-of-hobbes-natural-man","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/a1lieblang\/2015\/11\/02\/rousseaus-faulty-critique-of-hobbes-natural-man\/","title":{"rendered":"Rousseau’s faulty critique of Hobbes’ natural man"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the <\/span>Second Discourse<\/span><\/i>, Rousseau founds many of his arguments in opposition to Hobbes\u2019 arguments about the state of nature. However, both of their concepts on the state of nature are based on completely different grounds. Rousseau also has a na\u00efve interpretation of Hobbes’ natural man, which serves the theory that Rousseau did not fully understand Hobbes. <\/span><\/p>\n

Firstly, while Hobbes\u2019 and Rousseau\u2019s arguments are founded in their perception of the state of nature, their presuppositions on what the state of nature actually is are radically different. For Rousseau, the state of nature can be interpreted literally, or as a period in time. His \u2018nascent\u2019 men are supposed to be actual human beings that lived within a specific time period of human evolution. This also implies, as Rousseau himself does, that humans today cannot revert to this \u2018nascent\u2019 state, and can only mimic it. Hobbes\u2019 state of nature differs quite greatly, and not just because of moral principles. Hobbes\u2019 state of nature, civil war, is not a period in time, nor has it ever actually existed. He argues that it is merely the point which men can potentially revert to in the absence of law and order. It is therefore impossible for Rousseau to base his arguments upon Hobbes\u2019 when their definitions of the state of nature itself are different.<\/p>\n

Secondly, Rousseau misinterprets Hobbes\u2019 argument about men in the state of nature almost entirely. He states as follows, \u201cHobbes claims that man is naturally intrepid and seeks only to attack and fight\u201d (82). The first problem with his interpretation comes with the use of the word intrepid. Intrepid is defined as someone who is fearless and adventurous, which is the opposite word Hobbes would use to describe his natural man. Hobbes\u2019 natural man is actually \u00a0in a perpetual state of fear, because without someone upholding peace, he cannot be assured that other people won\u2019t kill him. Rousseau also thinks that Hobbes\u2019 natural man seeks only to attack and fight, which is not the case either. Men merely do not see any constraint on killing one another, but are not naturally inclined towards homicide.<\/p>\n

While there are many more references to Hobbes in <\/span>Second Discourse<\/span><\/i>, there is a clear issue with Rousseau\u2019s critique of Hobbes. These two issues highlight why Rousseau\u2019s perception of the state of nature according to Hobbes should be interpreted with skepticism.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the Second Discourse, Rousseau founds many of his arguments in opposition to Hobbes\u2019 arguments about the state of nature. However, both of their concepts on the state of nature are based on completely different grounds. Rousseau also has a … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":35091,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-385","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/a1lieblang\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/385","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/a1lieblang\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/a1lieblang\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/a1lieblang\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/35091"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/a1lieblang\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=385"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/a1lieblang\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/385\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":387,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/a1lieblang\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/385\/revisions\/387"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/a1lieblang\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=385"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/a1lieblang\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=385"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/a1lieblang\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=385"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}