The first notable aspect I found about Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Discourse on Inequality is that it essentially conceptually counters Hobbes’ ideas about the power of society. In Leviathan, Hobbes’ concepts of natural right, states of nature in which life is nasty, brutal and short, and that the strong have complete power over the weak but that society exists as a way to remedy this. However in Discourse, Rousseau argues that it is society and social relations that spawn inequality, essentially turning Hobbes’ concept on its head. Rousseau states later that society teaches us to be self-aware and reflective, and whilst this can lead to improvement and advancements in technology , it also leads to pride and our realization of strength and weakness.

The argument he sets forth in Discourse is that modern moral inequality, which is spawned by agreement between men, is unnatural and dissimilar to the real nature of man. Throwing Biblical reference out of the picture, Rousseau attempts at guessing what a state of nature for man would look like. He finds very few discrepancies between man and animal, seeing as they are motivated by two key principles: self-preservation and pity. The one thing that does separate man from animal, however, is perfectibility.

It is one thing to have natural abilities in the state of nature; it is another to be aware of them; and it is another to be aware that others are aware of them and that you can use them for mutual assistance or personal gain.

By the end of the discourse, I felt a little disapointed by the fact that the essay didn’t even get into the discussion of inequality until the second part. Mind you, not too big of an issue since I intended on talking more on the conceptions of the body (which is more relevant in the first part). It is unfortunate that Rousseau was a few generations older than Hobbs; after reading both these (Leviathan and Discourse) I would have loved to see some rebuttle of ideas.

If anyone here watches NBC’s Community I think it’d be worth re-watching the “Debate 109” episode after reading both these texts, as the subject of the episode has to do with man being fundamentally good versus evil. Personally, I am more inclined to believe that society does more good than it does evil, but I disagree with Hobbes on our monstrosity in natural state and tend to side with Rousseau’s ideas of being perfectly self-preservable in our natural state. What are your thoughts?

Although I found Rousseau to be a bit confusing and not entirely a clear read (since I did have to re-read some lines more than once), it was a good read. However, I’m not going to say that I fully agreed of even understood all the points that he raised. To be quite honest here, Rousseau’s views somewhat mind boggled me from time to time. I found that upon reading certain parts of his argument, it was hard for me to fully and entirely comprehend what he was trying to convey/ persuade us to believe. Though with that being said, I do still think he raised some very valid and thought provoking points and questions.

As I previously stated above, Rousseau’s argument did indeed confuse me here and there, but in the very beginning, he proposes the question: “How can we know the source of inequality among men if we do not first have knowledge of men themselves?” By clearly outlining the question that he is trying to answer, I think that Rousseau’s thoughts were better laid out for me to understand. This simple question was particularly thought provoking for me and intrigued me greatly.

A Discourse on Inequality clearly demonstrates Rousseau’s belief that the growth of a society corrupts man entirely. He believes that as society continues to further develop and evolve, us as human beings only suffer from this change. That man’s natural happiness and freedom are severed by artificial inequality. Rousseau essentially conveys throughout his claim, that the introduction of private property, is what catalyzed the decline in society as a whole. Rousseau brings up quite a valid point in my opinion, when he asks, “How many crimes, wars, murders; how much misery horror the human race would have been spared if someone had pulled up the stakes and filled in the ditch and cried out to his fellow men: ‘Beware of listening to this imposter. You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to everyone and that the earth itself belongs to no one!”

Imagine a place where everything was shared and selfishness, or amour propre did not exist. A place without pride, or immense self-indulgence. Rousseau clearly comprehends throughout a Discourse on Inequality, his belief that society has taken a turn for the worse. That nascent society was the peak of civilization before modernity and artificial matters took over the simplicity and innocence of the state of nature.

Thus, with that being said, I think that Rousseau raised some great questions. Do I think that they are entirely true? To a certain extent, yes. But in spite of my opinion regarding the way he views civilization and society, Rousseau’s persuasive way of conveying his thoughts made this read quite enjoyable; more enjoyable than I expected really.

While I do not like reading political and philosophical books Rousseau’s A Discourse on Inequality was strangely enough an interesting read. Rousseau’s book is an easier read than many of the other books related to politics and philosophy which we read over the semester and yet it is the easiest one to read out of all of them. Rousseau uses interesting and diverse imagery in order to emphasize the points he is making and those images help to highlight his own character and personal traits such as the idea of the cows which cry when they are about to go to the slaughter house and other animal comparisons (such as when he compares the rich people to wolves) showing the importance that animals played in his mind and his writing. Rousseau also mentions ancient Greece and Rome when he compares how Nature treats them to how the Law of Sparta “treated the children of its citizens”; he also mentions Ceres and the festival “Thesmophoria” which is festival in honor of Ceres (or Demeter in Ancient Greece) I learned about in a Greek/Roman myth class and it strange that he mentions this particular festival because it is an all female ritual which was held near the seat of male power in Athens. Since Rousseau does not really mention women throughout his essay it is interesting to note that one of the only times that he does reference them (in any way) he talks about a ritual which showed a strong female character in a patriarchal society being worshiped so near the male seat of power.

Another facet of Rousseau’s essay I found particularly interesting was the idea of the tree being pictured in the mind. Rousseau points out that the second imagination enters all general ideas become “particular” – then they are no longer one out of a large number, instead they become unique. Upon further htought it is almost impossible for two people to imagine the same tree (although now it is less impossible because of media and films, if I were to mention the White Tree of Gondor I’m sure almost everyone could imagine the same tree, but even then it would be dependent on how you remembered the same tree) with exceptions and yet even if the trees were almost the same something or the other would be different because of perspective and the person imagining the tree. Rousseau’s idea that imagination changes things is fascinating and something I feel like we all live with and forget to really think about on a daily basis. How unique our imagination really is.

Rousseau sets out on a task to explain the most fundamental questions we ask ourselves. That oh so familiar phrase, “why do bad things happen to good people?” this questioning of fairness and equality is tackled philosophically by Rousseau. While I do think that the ideas he conveys are very original and intriguing  I cannot say that I am convinced. Rousseau appears to create and utilize conjecture as his basis for the book. As one who attempts to interpret everything through a scientific perspective, I have some issues with what he states. I will say that he is ahead of his time scientifically speaking, however, he does not base any of his claims on evidence of any sort. He bases his many points and arguments around what he seems to believe and what could be possible. This, although interesting, disconnects me from his argument as this mere idea is proven wrong in today’s scientific knowledge.

Rousseau also appears to make a distinction between humans of his day and humans that reside in a natural habitat. This idea is that man would be naked, removed of all of his tools, weapons, and clothing. I strongly believe, however, that by removing items such as clothing, weapons, shelter, etc, you no longer present humans in a natural light. This is the exact opposite of natural; it is the perversion of humanity. By dictating what humans may have, it eliminates the purity that accompanies nature.

Consider a bee hive for example. One would be fully inclined to consider this as part of nature (I assume that Rousseau would agree with this statement as well). However, this bee hive is similar to a city, highly populated with humans. This is to show that a city is quite similar to a bee hive, the only difference is the complexity. A bee hive has structure and function similar to a city, but lacks in the complexity that human brains can create. This shows that there is no severing from the natural world, the natural world is everything around us, humans have simply learned to manipulate nature, not destroy it. It would appear as though Rousseau is guilty of the gripes of human emotion in his distinction of what nature is.

I really enjoyed reading Rousseau’s thoughts on the origin of inequality, and the way that his ideas differed with those presented by Hobbes. Though I didn’t find the discourse particularly easy to read or even fully comprehend, Rousseau made it clear that he did not believe that political and social inequality was in human’s nature. He believed that physical inequality is natural, which eventually led to some people collecting more resources than those physically weaker than themselves. In order to protect their possessions, those with the most ‘stuff’ created laws to protect their resources from those who are not as well off, which marked the creation of political and social inequality. Until our minds began to grow and advance, social inequality was not in our nature. After social stratification began, humans tried to legitimize inequality by creating laws and sectioning off property.

Hobbes felt that in nature, humans were violent savages, whereas Rousseau believes that we became more savage as we progressed and grew as a race. I’d say that I was more compelled by Rousseau’s ideas. I thought it was interesting when he explained his feelings on laws. He was convinced that laws helped create certain evil passions, and that if humans in nature could be good without laws, then maybe it is laws themselves that make people bad.

Though I know that many people in the class have been arguing for books written by authors from more diverse areas or periods of time, or more books written by women, I’ve found all of our readings to be pretty interesting and mind-opening. After never really reading about philosophy, coming into this class and learning about people’s differing opinions on society has been a very interesting experience. I look forward to starting up class again and I am excited for the second semester to begin.

Well, we’re back into the swing of things. I hope everyone had a great break! Book number one of term two is done and we’ll soon be writing our essays. But for now let’s just focus on Rousseau.

            I thought this text was a good start to the term. I got into it fairly quickly and the only real trouble I had with the language was when I got frustrated at the run-on sentences that lasted for a paragraph. But other than that, all was well. Rousseau quite nicely explained what the “object of this discourse” was right at the beginning, and there were no points at which I felt I couldn’t follow his logic. All-in-all, I really enjoyed reading it. I still had disagreements of course, but that didn’t really interfere with the fact that I found his opinions quite interesting. I got really intrigued when Rousseau was talking about pity, around page 101. He asserts that pity is enough to stop cruelty and, as he says, save an old man from being robbed. I realized, reading that, that I’ve never given much thought to the power of pity. It certainly can be a powerful emotion, but is it really enough to be able to prevent murder or robbery if a person, alone and deprived of food, saw another person eating something they’d been unable to acquire? I feel like pity would play a small role.

            Part two was much more interesting than the first I felt. Part one was really just setting the stage for what he wanted to say about oppression and inequality once he was done clarifying terms and setting himself apart from Hobbes. This is when Rousseau starts to look less optimistic about humanity as he describes when certain vices came into play, and much is to blamed on society. (side note, it reminded me of our talk of monsters). Rousseau comes to define the “savage man” and the “civilized man” quite differently than is usually thought, as the civil man is made out to be more savage than the savage man himself. He talks about civilized society, and the different forms of government that can be established. At this point I was strongly curious about what he would think of Canada. We talked about what Hobbes’ opinion would be, could he come forward in time, which is why I think it’d be very interesting to do the same for Rousseau. Are we close enough to a state of nature for Rousseau?