Skip navigation

Monthly Archives: November 2014

Discourse on Inequality

Rousseau mentions that a state’s purpose to ensure the people’s freedom, yet this freedom seems to be in a way constrained by the presence of a government or the society itself. He also mentions how the freedom can be corrupted as the society develops into a place possible for a person’s dominance over others. I find his insight very enlightening, that society itself, and the laws and others that come with it, reduces one’s freedom, though these societal constraints are viewed as reasonable for those who made the laws.

The existence of society creates a division between people, and as people continue to evolve away from “savage men”, inequality arises and becomes a problematic phenomenon that continues to deteriorate. A modern man’s freedom is compromised, because not only is he enslaved by his own needs and passions, but also by others who dominate and exploit.

It is interesting that Rousseau shows how, compared to a primitive man, a modern man has less freedom. When a person relies on others, his or her freedom is imprisoned by such reliance. Perhaps the fact that modern society highlights achievements and recognition makes a modern man less free that his primitive counterpart. In a state of nature, one does not have to consider the opinion of others, but in a modern environment, a sense of belonging is important, for humans, as a species living in communities, solitude is unbearable. In this situation, the paradox that Rousseau describes comes to light. While one seeks freedom, his or her freedom is restrained by the dependence on others.

Hobbes “Of Man”

(I shall summoneth my unguided train of thoughts on Hobbes, which is likely to be,  according to, well, Hobbes, disharmonious and lacking consistency and pertinence.)

From my understanding, what Hobbes is trying to say is that humans are utterly selfish beings who would do anything for self-preservation. This egocentricity, apparently, stems from our nature. Perhaps humans are born insecure, and this insecurity propels us to take actions to gain control over our surroundings. To achieve a “man’s conservation”, i.e. to protect oneself, one must do so by “augmentation of dominion of [other] men” (Hobbes 75).

In a war of every man against every man, “nothing can be unjust” (Hobbes 78). I never realized that justice and injustice are merely products of subjectivity. A man’s justice may be another’s injustice, especially in a state of war in which both sides present their respective distorted justifications. If justice is influenced by one’s desires, then what would become of a society? Would it slowly degenerate into a state of anarchy?

But mankind are plagued by the ‘fear of death” (Hobbes 78).

Desire for peace is only due to this fearfulness, which makes me think of human’s selfishness. And this goes back to the idea of self-preservation. To self-preserve, humans must compete against each other and achieve mastery over others – a process which is likely to instigate a war of conflicting justice and injustice – until they feel their lives threatened by fear of death that they choose peace as the best alternative to war.

And so Hobbes got me thinking and confused all over again, though I appreciate how he manages to explain almost every single aspect of our state of being, of our mentality, of our thoughts, and of our physical sensations.

 

Spam prevention powered by Akismet