Discourse on Inequality, by Jean-Jacque Rousseau, was at first difficult to read due to the sentences that seemed to go on forever. However, after the dedication I found the book to more or less be easier to read as I got use to the way Rousseau wrote. If there were one line in Rousseau’s Discourse on Inequality that I could talk about it would be the one about fences and how the first guy convinced people that the land was his. (Having problems locating the line, will update when I find it). At first I thought it was quite funny. The thought of a person constructing a little fence around him and say that the enclosed land is his is somewhat amusing to me. However the more I thought about it the more there was too it. I guess I never really did think about it too much before, but nowadays we buy property, which may not even be on actual ‘land.’ And the price of such a place is determined by its location and aesthetics? Maybe I’m wrong though, what do I know about property? Anyways it is just interesting to look at this and later to what Rousseau says about the animals in nature.
            I personally really enjoyed the layout of the book. Rousseau’s note about the notes of the book left me with the impression that he really did know people. I can’t say if it made him feel more or less credible, but I thought the way he put a disclaimer, telling people it is okay to skip the notes part of his book made him seem like he knows people.
            I thought his points, in the first page of the Preface, were very interesting on the topic of what civilized and savage people are and which is better. Made me think back to Columbus for a bit. It was an interesting thought because these people who are to read his book, who I am going are religious and like Rousseau do not object any falsities to it (wish I could phrase that better). It is interesting because I never thought about how it was after exile and Eve eating from the tree of knowledge that we as people become “civilized” (again, wish I could phrase this right). Not that I thought about the Bible often before studying it.            Lastly, more of an observation than anything else, everyone seems to like to mention Sparta in their books on politics. Too bad we didn’t read Sparta’s thoughts on the world and everyone else’s systems of government. (Do they have a book like that? I wonder.)

In A Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau does bring up some good points regarding the natural man and is able to point out some flaws in Rousseau’s argument.  However, some of Rousseau’s argument is based on a very romanticized version of Native American culture, leading me to find it difficult to agree with all of his points.

One of the things Rousseau does is that he refutes Hobbes argument.  He points out that Hobbes says that man is “naturally evil because he has no sense of goodness.”  Rousseau counters this point with the point “one could say that savages are not wicked precisely because they do not know what is to be good.”  This ties in back to our discussion on what makes a monster.  Some definitions in class have us discussing how society has no monsters, but defines monsters through a mixture of cultural values and socialization.  This perspective makes sense if we look at cultural relativism and ethnocentrism.  If we look at cannibals from our own western values, we’d say they are evil, but a cannibal would look at our values are evil.  Additionally, if we look at The Tempest it could be said Caliban only became a monster after he met Prospero and that from our society, Caliban’s urges are monstrous, but they were brought forth by Miranda.  So in a sense, Rousseau has a point here

However, there are also times Rousseau is wrong.  Downright wrong.  He makes some references to the Native Americans as noble savages, independent people without society.  But, contrary to belief at this time, Native Americans such as the Iroquois, the Souix and the Inuit, actually have very highly developed societies.  The Iroquois were actually very advanced and created a treaty that is thought to have been the forefather of the constitution used by the United States.  Additionally, one of the greatest aspects of Native American life, WAS it’s community, was how man and women depended upon each other and how their traditions (essentially laws) regulated their actions.  So if Rousseau argues laws create passions that prove detrimental to man, explain those societies, that were  working perfectly fine until the Europeans came over.  Who knows if they would have failed later on, but they were working fine.

I look forward to comments and the lecture.

After putting down Rosseau’s Discourse on Inequality, I’ve come to the conclusion that while I disagreed with a great deal of it, I still found it interesting and enjoyable. What I really loved about the entire argument is that half of the entire text’s focus on Man in his natural state is completely off-topic from the Dijon Academy’s initial questiont. Yet we’re spending a great deal of time studying and analyzing a thesis that was once deemed completely irrelevant. So who knows, maybe taking a few liberties with our thesis’ for some of our essay questions isn’t such a crime after all, eh Jon?

Anyways, what really stuck in my mind was how much Rosseau idealizes the concept of a “savage” man. It’s very easy for him to romanticize a period which predates all written history, right? It’s touching to envision mankind as humble, and peaceful without war and murder. While it may be compelling today for it’s connection to Darwin’s theory of evolution and our relation to animals, it still lacks what we and the Discovery channel deem as life “within nature.” To simplify both this blog, with little relevance to the text, let me contrast Rosseau’s vision of primitive man our closest living relative, the Chimpanzee.

Now while Rosseau believes that without civilization and language to support it, complicated emotions like jealousy, hatred and envy are impossible to convey. Rousseau believes that art and civilization corrupt man from his peaceful, non-violent and simplistic ways, to which I reply “Bullshit”. Chimpanzee’s are capable of demonstrating all these complex emotions, to which Rosseau would believe that not even primitive man were capable of. I once did a project on Jane Goodall’s travels to Gombe National Park in Tanzania and learned about her discoveries among the chimpanzee’s living there. She would recall witnessing females of the troupe discovering other females bearing offspring from the same male chimp (In other words “Baby Mama Drama”. This would lead to the females brutally attacking and murdering the infant offspring as a means of no gains other than retaliation representing what some would call jealousy or hatred. Furthermore Chimps and most animals are far from peaceful.

While animals may be majestic, enchanting beautiful etc., the truth is they can sometimes kill without hesitation. Rosseau believes that man would never purposefully murder another in the wild, he would only clash for resources or females, with little resentment afterwards. Wrong. A long time ago I told by a zookeeper that a man foolishly feeding a chimp had unintentionally led to a brutal murder. In the wild there is always an alpha male among the chimps, a position not too different from tyrant. In this way there is a very simple hierarchy that applies to all members of the troupe. The alpha male always eats first, and get’s his “cut” or potion of the meal. End of story. Now this isn’t too different from mankind’s invented tax system isn’t it? Maybe the IRS is simply natural.  By feeding a chimp a small snack it led to what many would call a crime. This particular one attempted to circumnavigate this system and (selfishly) eat this acquired food for his own without giving his due’s to our tyrant chimp. Now it wasn’t long before the alpha male discovered this act, and proceeded to grip the younger chimp to the local reservoir pond and drown him in front of both his troupe and a crowd of spectators. Why did he do this? To assert dominance, and demonstrate clearly what is “his” and what is owed to him by all. Rosseau believes that this complex assertion of property and taxation requires several levels of development with language and cultivation. I guess for chimps it’s simply innate, as it most likely is for us.

It’s easy for Rosseau to embellish and romanticize the alternative to civilization. Life is complex in society, we often find ourselves wishing for better alternatives to slaving away at our job to buy food and furnish our houses, only to be robbed by the tax-man. We often wish that life were easier and things such as love and mating were simplified at times, to which we fall to the fallacy of believing the “grass is greener” on the other side of the fence. Animals and Man, no matter what state, are complex and emotional creatures with common problems. Life outside of society’s walls offer a simple life, but comes at the cost of watching family members die of disease, starve and freeze during harsh climate conditions, and being abandoned without hope when something as simple as a knee fracture, or broken bone could mean certain death. Let’s all not fall for a simplified and enticing theory. Civilization may have fostered it’s own complexities and cumbersome conditions, but life’s a lot easier in here then out there in the cold where anything and everything goes.

Well, to start off, I think that A Discourse on Inequality has been one of my favourite reads for ArtsOne so far. I found that many of my personal opinions regarding humanity and society rather closely matched the opinions of Rousseau, and in general, I found the work to be one whose theories closely match the actuality of society.

In comparison to pessimistic Hobbes, Rousseau had a far more positive view on human nature. I completely agree with his opinions regarding the nature of the first man. I personally think that the first man was no different from the animals that surrounded him, except in the fact of his higher levels of thinking. I doubt that the first man was all too concerned with greed and power, due to the burning necessity of survival. Whereas Hobbes would state that this desire to live sparked savage nature, I rather agree with Rousseau that the fear of pain ignited compassion within humans, not beastliness. Maybe I’m a bit of an idealist, but it pains me not to agree with Rousseau’s theory of compassion.

What I found most interesting about the work was the section on language. Language has always been one of those aspects of human society that I can never wrap my tiny brain around. How did we go from an entirely speechless language to one filled with so many complex methods for expressing thoughts? I found that Rousseau’s theory concurs with the majority of theories out there, that we started simply and worked our way up, but this is something that still baffles me. The entire prospect of the origin of language is something I find so fascinating, and so intriguing that I can barely comprehend it. Although Rousseau’s theories aided slightly, I still am amazed at the origins of speech.

I do agree mostly with Rousseau’s theory of society corrupting the individual, but I still find it slightly hard to swallow. This is because where did these feelings of greed, pride, and everything negative that Rousseau states is an outcome of society stem from? There must be a portion of the human being that is naturally predisposed to these feelings. Society is merely a concept, it could not have implemented ideas in our heads from the very beginning, and thus there must be some aspect of humans that possesses these negative attributes. The way society is structured simply draws them out.

I read “A Discourse on Inequality” back during the last week of Term 1 classes, in November. Since I’m writing this blog post from memory, what I write (the impressions I had of this text, what I found memorable) will be what I ultimately took from the text. Rousseau essentially sums up the soul of his argument on page 67, when he wrote “the more we acquire new knowledge, the more we deprive ourselves of the means of acquiring the most important knowledge of all; and, in a sense, it is through studying man that we have rendered ourselves incapable of knowing him.”

What I gather from this bit here is that Rousseau is, in a way, condemning society. Rousseau believes that the more sophisticated societies usually end up giving advantages to the stronger and more intelligent members, while the weaker are taken advantage of by the stronger. When Rousseau used the word “knowledge” in the above text, he meant “society.” He also meant the more humans tried to protect themselves by forming alliances and banding with other humans in ways which we now called “forming a society,” what we’re really doing is ridding ourselves of our “primitive state” (67). I don’t think Rousseau believes society is good for humanity. We’re much better off living as one with nature. That way, we aren’t led astray by the thought of acquiring materialistic possessions and wealth as we would in society. I think Rousseau treasures humanity in a ‘pure’ state; that is, a state that isn’t contaminated by the temptations that society offers, so he’s scornful of the growth of civilization.

Rousseau also made it clear in the beginning that he wanted to live in “a state where the delectable habit of meeting and knowing one another made love of country a love for fellow citizens rather [than] a love for the land” (57). From this sentence, I don’t think Rousseau believes it’s possible for people to have a love for their fellow citizens and a love for the land. Or maybe I’m misinterpreting his text… (remember, I’m typing up this blog post about a book I read a month ago!) and Rousseau believes that if a person is consumed by a greed or lust for the ownership of the land, then they gradually place a love for their citizens as secondary. Either way, Rousseau doesn’t have a high opinion of humans. He thinks they’re greedy and easily led astray as though we were all Eves in the Garden of Eden, with numerous serpents slithering in every corner. Society, then, is the serpent. Man in the so-called “primitive state” is Adam and Eve when they were in the Garden of Eden.

And that’s what stood in my memory after little more than a month of reading this text.

After reading this and Leviathan, I have an itching desire to clarify the subject that all these big thinkers are needlessly complicating—that of “natural law”. Now, I can’t speak for what those philosophers are trying to do with the term, but for me, the definition of this concept is one so simple that it can and should be considered obvious. So here we go.

In order to define natural law, it is necessary to understand that it is made up of two parts—the “natural” and the “law”. Putting the natural aside for now, the definition of law is apparently controversial in philosophy. Some think of it as limitations and/or regulations, some as things you can’t do no matter what, and some as things you can choose to do or not do. In this context, I will use a slightly modified version of the second; my definition of law, then, is an absolute rule that cannot in any circumstances be disobeyed or broken in any way, shape, or form, and one which is not affected in any way, shape, or form, by magnitude. We cannot disobey the law of gravity, and neither can planets. We cannot disobey the laws of motion, and neither can giant robots.

Personally, I do not think that law is a hard thing to define. Where the problem comes, however, is when people look at laws created by society and laws enforced by the world and think of them as the same thing—they are not. Law, when used by itself, is nothing more than a word and has no meaning whatsoever; it is only when another word comes in front of it that it becomes significant. This relates (ironically, I suppose) to the natural law of relativity (gravity and motion are also natural laws) which requires a reference point for anything that has the word “absolute” in its definition. Thus, a societal law—one created and enforced solely by society—is one which is absolute and cannot be broken for anyone who is a member of that society. Should a member of that society break it (killing, stealing, etc.), they will no longer be a part of that society and become a criminal. This applies regardless of whether the lawbreaker is convicted or not. If he is convicted, he is a publicly recognized criminal; if he is not convicted, he is a criminal masquerading as a citizen. Thus, someone who breaks a society’s law is ousted from that society regardless of what anyone might think or pretend; note, however, that as societies are generally indecisive, a law reform might change the status of a criminal into that of a citizen or vice versa.

With societal law now clarified, let’s get to the not indecisive natural law. Just as no member of a society can break a societal law and still be a part of that society, no member of nature can break a natural law and still be a part of nature. So, what defines a member of nature? Putting aside that “state of nature” business that Hobbes and Rousseau love to go on about so much, I put it to you that so long as we are living in this universe, we are members of nature. What defines living in this universe? I can answer metaphysically, but that would be nauseating both to read and write, so I will answer physically—so long as you are utilizing your five senses (sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch) to interact with your environment, you are living in this universe, and no amount of skyscrapers or social gatherings or video games can change that. Thus, should one break a natural law, they will be ousted from nature; but considering what defines a member of nature, is it physically possible for us to not be one? No. Although it is possible for someone to be alive and not a member of society, it is impossible for someone to be alive and not a member of nature (death is a metaphysical subject, so I’ll leave it alone). Therefore, a natural law is one that more or less adopts the basic definition of law itself—an absolute rule that cannot in any circumstances be disobeyed or broken in any way, shape, or form, and one which is not affected in any way, shape, or form, by magnitude. I won’t elaborate on the actual natural laws here, but I will state them so that you can think about how obvious they are. The two core natural laws are the law of causality and the law of relativity. The three human laws are the law of causality, the law of relativity, and the law of normality, which is a sociopolitical version of the law of gravity. Sounds obvious, doesn’t it? It’s supposed to be.

When I hear about the never ending quest of philosophers to discover the great laws of the world, I do not think that they are actually looking for laws—I think that they are looking for insights. Laws are the basic concepts from which everything stems; building blocks which are existent in every part of their contextual relatives. Hobbes and Rousseau didn’t look for these obvious building blocks, however; they searched for patterns in the structures created by these blocks. They desired to uncover secrets in these structures which are absolute and would lead them to the goal that all philosophers aim for, and there’s nothing wrong with that—I just believe that it shouldn’t be advertised as a search for natural laws when science has already found most of them.

Oh, and I enjoyed reading A Discourse on Inequality.