Hobbes argues that it is crucial for man to strive to live in a society in order to avoid the State of Nature, “an unbearable state of utter distrust [where] men are equal to one another and there is no power able to force men to cooperate.” In order to live well, he stresses the importance of not only belonging to a society, but to a society in which a “Sovereign must have absolute authority.” Hobbes also suggests that everything man does “is motivated solely by [his or her] desire to better [his or her] own situations,” thus concluding that man’s self interest comes before all else.
After reading about Rousseau and his ideas, I believe that he would argue with many of Hobbes’ beliefs. Firstly, Rousseau says that any “man who stands in the dependence of another is no longer a man.” This statement can reasonably leave one to infer that Rousseau would not agree with Hobbes’ adamant belief that a “Sovereign must be ceded absolute authority if society is to survive.” Rather, he would disapprove of the existence of a society in the first place. Rousseau believes that when a man enters into a society he or she will lose his or her identity as a man, and rather become merely a citizen. To Rousseau, a society means a loss of freedom and independence. Those who succumb to the fake façade of a society are surely bound to become corrupted.
Though Rousseau believes that “the individual human being and his or her happiness [ought] to be prized above all else,” Rousseau would probably find Hobbes’ pessimistic notion that all men are innately selfish to be both offensive and a result of that individual’s encounter with a corrupt society. Rousseau is very much an advocate of “the inner goodness in [each man].” However he does recognize that each man will suffer from moments of weakness and “become unjust and wicked in [his or her] actions.” Rousseau suggests that when a man enters a society he becomes transformed and can easily become carried away “by the passions and prejudices of men.” As individuals, man is “free and good” but when influenced by the pressures of society, man is prone to lose sight of his or her moral compass.
-Leann
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Leann,
ReplyDeleteI think that when Rousseau stated that "the individual human being and his or her happiness [ought] to be prized above all else" he did not take into consideration that each human being differs in what makes them happy (perhaps this is because of his theory on universal personality). Since Rousseau believed that all human being were innately similar, he assumed they all preferred (or would prefer, given the option) the anti-social life that he led. In my opinion, this is not the case. If we are to prize self satisfaction and happiness above all, then dwelling in society is the right choice for me.
It is extremely interesting to me that Rousseau had such a high view of the innate moral character in men, seeing as he himself was a man of questionable character. Maybe this is a case of the phrase "those who can't do, teach" but I find it somewhat disheartening the the champion of the goodness of men abandoned his own children in an orphanage. This hypocrisy sheds new light on his philosophy, and makes me wonder whether he was simply blithely unaware of his faults, or was hoping that society, rather than his true nature is what caused him to act.
ReplyDeleteI agree Virginia, many of Rousseau's actions contradicted the words he preached. He was know for stressing the natural goodness of man as well as the corrupt nature of institutions, yet as you mentioned, he put his five (i believe it was five not two) children in an orphanage, which at the time,was supposably comparable to a dog pound. However, despite the fact that he himself did not uphold his principles, should not suggest that his principles are unrealistic. Though he has no right to judge others, Rousseau's flawed character should not speak for man's character in general. His hypocritical actions only show that he himself had difficulty acting as a moral man, not that being moral is impossible. Rousseau was simply the creator of his beliefs, not the role model who upheld them.
ReplyDeleteI don't think we should condemn Rousseau for some of his actions. Everyone has problems here and there. Maybe he planned his ideas for an ideal society to follow. I agree it's a little weird for him to live his life contrary to his beliefs, but maybe he adopted his principles after putting his children in an orphanage. As for Hobbes, I feel like he was afraid there would be absolute chaos if there wasn't an absolute authority controlling society. I don't think one ruler was in control of a society which always was trying to advance their own self-interest.
ReplyDelete