A Better Question.

Whether or not the smaller details of Rousseau's account of human nature are trivial. Any objection to his arguments can be found on a lower level. One must consider the very base of Rousseau's argument which undoubtedly that of human nature. He argues that our nature is to do away with what he considers to be unnatural desires and to focus on the equalities that come naturally. By supporting this view, one must necessarily consider human nature to be that which does not actualize our rational potential. This is backwards. Rather than emphasizing the gap between society and human nature, we must close that gap. It is human nature to reach towards rationality and therefor society. I'm assuming that there is no such thing as a society without rationality based on the fact that any willing exchange of goods/services MUST be a rational one. Of course there can be irrational exchanges but if so, I would not call that a society.) Once that debate has been settled, we can begin to ask ourselves whether or not Rousseau's unnatural inequalities are necessary when we do aspire towards actualizing humans rational potential; a question I find much more worthwhile.

Personal thoughts - It's funny how I think Hobbes and Locke overestimated human rationality but I think Rousseau's account greatly underestimates that rationality. Is there a median philosopher?