Rousseau In Their Accounts Of Human Nature example essay topic

Aristotle and Rousseau formulate their accounts of human nature in Book I and the Origins of Inequality respectively. Each account analyzes the development of human nature through quite different teleological methods. These philosophers approach various topics quite differently due to their opposing viewpoints on what state humans are most happy with. Despite their different approaches both Aristotle and Rousseau arrive at equally convincing conclusions. The two distinguish humans from animals as well as describe humans as social beings to a certain extent. Human nature is very different for Aristotle and Rousseau.

Both have opposing views in their examinations of what state is most natural for mankind. In book I Aristotle describes that, "The city-state is also prior in nature to the household and to each of us individually, since a whole is necessarily prior to its parts" (1253 a 15). Aristotle views this city-state as the most evolved and best state for humans. The analogy of the acorn and the oak tree is commonly used in this situation. Neither an acorn nor a sapling is the final product in the growth of an oak tree. Understanding human nature, for Aristotle, is study of the pinnacle of human achievement.

To Aristotle the polis is this pinnacle because we strive for something beyond family structure. In other words, Aristotle believes that what is naturally is not chronologically first. Rousseau's teleological analysis of human nature is seemingly in direct conflict with Aristotle's claim that, "Anyone who cannot form a community with others... he is either a beast or a god" (1253 a 25). Rousseau's account would appear beastly to Aristotle, but Rousseau describes the original state of man as, "nothing is so gentle as man in his primitive state... ". (64).

We create extensive political systems and feel as if we escape the harms of nature through the system. Rousseau would argue that creating a political body opens us up for a whole new set of harms. He would in fact claim that these harms are on a much greater scale because no war or oppression would occur without such a system. Aristotle is much more hesitant. He puts no faith in pure human nature without some greater power to rule.

Rousseau is quick to further depict this state as, "maintaining a middle position between the indolence of our primitive state and the petulant activity of our egocentrism, must have been the happiest and most durable epoch" (65). Here, Rousseau wants to distinguish completely primitive and wandering humans from those living in permanent shelters. Aristotle believes man is political by nature. Rousseau on the other hand views man as descending into political society by use of biblical and scientific references. For Rousseau, to understand humans we must scrape away any modern political structure of which we are familiar. He argues that man has essentially remained the same and that, "laws are generally less strong than passions and restrain men without changing them" (77).

To understand human beings we cannot study them while under a set of laws that cloud true nature. The desire to set humans apart from animals exists in both works of these philosophers and there are elements in both that are similar. Aristotle describes a difference between a voice and speech, "no animal has speech except a human being. A voice is a signifier of what is pleasant or painful... speech is for making clear what is beneficial or harmful, and hence also what is just or unjust". (1253 a 10).

The statement "I want money" would describe voice. This is a simple statement that describes something that you want. The statement "I deserve payment for the labor I performed" would be an example of speech described by Aristotle. Speech not only describes what is desired but also justification for the feeling. The element of entitlement is central to Aristotle's distinction between human beings and all other animals. Rousseau has two reasons why humans are to be set apart from other animals.

He first says, "Nature commands every animal, and beasts obey. Man feels the same impetus, but he knows he is free to go along or to resist (45). This ability to waitlist desires is what manifests the soul of humans for Rousseau. Rousseau also describes an element of "self-perfection" that exists only in humans that sets them apart from other creatures.

To understand this fully we can look at the very familiar task of writing a paper. When writing a paper nature would perhaps command one to proceed to the bar and enjoy a few drinks. This desire stirred up by nature can be resisted in humans. The faculty of self-perfection would guide you to the conclusion that the best possible grade would not be achieved with a trip to the local watering hole.

The topic of whether humans are social or individualistic is also of concern in Aristotle's Book I on Politics and Rousseau's Discourse on the Origins of Inequality. It does not appear that either philosopher claims human beings are completely individualistic because both have written extensively on human interaction. It is clear that Aristotle feels humans are inherently very social beings. Rousseau initially appears to claim that man, by nature, is only meant to be an individualistic creature. He writes, "all ran to chain themselves, in the belief that they secured their liberty, for although they had enough sense to realize the advantages of a political establishment, they did not have enough experience to foresee its dangers" (70). Rousseau is very skeptical of any political structure in his utilitarian notion that there will, "always arise more real calamities than apparent advantages" (95).

Although Rousseau's writings have the tone that humans are better off by themselves there is significant evidence against this in the Notes to Part II. "We must not confuse egocentrism with love of oneself... Love of oneself is a natural sentiment which moves every animal to be vigilant in its own preservation and which, directed in man by reason and modified by pity, produces humanity and virtue. Egocentrism is merely a sentiment that is relative, artificial and born in society, which inspires in men all the evils they cause one another" (106). Rousseau mentions the concept of pity naturally occurring.

For pity to exist in the first place there must be some sort of social interaction. Ultimately both Aristotle and Rousseau have little faith in mankind. Aristotle does not trust anyone to exist outside of a political framework. Rousseau has no trust in mankind to develop a political framework where benefits will outweigh costs. Rousseau cannot get away from the fact that humans are social beings to a certain extent.

He uses many examples of the "savages" from North America. In the one example Rousseau writes of a chief brought to Europe. When brought to the European cities he was awkward and did not like this new type of civilization. What Rousseau is neglecting to realize, most likely due to lack of advanced study in this area, is that the Native Americans were more social than he portrays. The tribes did have a form of political establishment that did lead to things such as war and revenge that he is so cautious to guard against. As mentioned previously Rousseau describes the "happiest and most durable epoch" as a balance between the complete solidarity of what he portrays as our primitive state and an advanced political society.

Even in his example of the North Americans, which he portrays as virtually innocent, there was still a certain degree of egocentrism. It is difficult to embrace fully either Aristotle or Rousseau in their accounts of human nature but instead we can agree to certain aspects of each. In modern society we would perhaps be more willing to refute the majority of Aristotle's notions such as his issue of slavery and treatment of women. On the other hand we only need a small injustice to ourselves to acknowledge the need of a political system as he describes. We also tend to see advancement of governments as beneficial and therefore tend to prefer to study the whole instead of the parts. Few would agree with Rousseau's claim that a modern society is the root to all that is bad.

Rousseau believes in mankind's tendency of self-perfection so perhaps it is inevitable that we work, but at the same time he says this is bad. Would Rousseau agree that he would have been happier if he had never composed his political writings? Perhaps it is inevitable that we take up a craft because it is inherent within us even if this leads to things such as inequality and stress.