A possible concern, or tremendous question, regarding Rousseau's Second Discourse on Inequality is found in the idea that natural man now occupies an unnatural state. How is it that the difference between the Savage man and the sociable man is so great that "what constitutes the supreme happiness of the one would reduce the other to despair?" (Pt. II P. 57). Considering Rousseau's obvious preference to the state of nature and distaste of modern man, we must certainly not regard modern man as more natural than the Savage. He, the sociable man, as someone who may "live only in the opinions of others" does so to the detriment of his nature, which is to "live within himself." These mutually exclusive qualities seem to deny us the possibility of defining the sociable man as natural, but then what are we left with- that is, how has nature produced something unnatural?
Unless we simply say that it is wholly 'natural' because nature is indifferent to the repugnance that causes us to call our present state unnatural, we are left in a tough position.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It seems that if man has a radical capacity to socialize, that this has to be part of his nature. If man isn't naturally social, then the fact that man has developed such a complex society and dogs or cats or dolphins haven't becomes problematic.
ReplyDelete