Support NeoGAF

[Socreges]

S/N = State of Nature

Describe Rousseau's state of nature ('Discourse on the Origin of Inequality') by
way of comparing (and contrasting) it with the Hobbesian and Lockean states of
nature. While you're at it, make sure you explain the philosophical significance
of these differences between R., on the one hand, and H and L, o*n the other. In
your essay, stress should fall on Rousseau.

I've got pages of notes and a reasonable idea of each person's S/N. But I'm having a lot of trouble synthesizing all the information into a cohesive paper.

Any comments or suggestions? GENERAL = GOOD.

 

[Socreges]

I didn't think so. But maybe if I make this less ambiguous. Here's what I've written so far:

Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s state of nature is one of total simplicity. Men lived on the Earth in solitude and featured the most modest of minds, void of any reason. Immediately, even in this simplest of definitions, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke clash explicitly with his suggestions, supposing very different origins. Their states of nature feature constant interaction between human beings and this distinction inevitably gives root to why the philosophers feel so differently. Hobbes felt that men were initially in a constant state of war with each other due to the lack of social binds, and Locke proposed that each man was his own judge, jury, and executioner during interaction with other persons with no third party to take control.

Comments, criticisms, or suggestions?

 

[belmakor]

That seems like something of a strange way to have to present the essay, because Locke and Hobbes are so far apart in their thinking, I'm not sure you can just compare Rousseau to some sort of combined Locke and Hobbes version of how mankind exists socially.

Anyway, did you have any specific questions about the subject?

 

[BigJonsson]

I actually studied all 3 of those thinkers this year extensively...but I am not doing schoolwork during summer time

 

[Socreges]

That seems like something of a strange way to have to present the essay, because Locke and Hobbes are so far apart in their thinking, I'm not sure you can just compare Rousseau to some sort of combined Locke and Hobbes version of how mankind exists socially.

Anyway, did you have any specific questions about the subject?

Nope. That's what makes it so difficult.

Essentially, I've got to detail Rousseau's S/N while touching on how Hobbes or Locke differ. But I'm missing that one sentence that just pulls everything together. He doesn't expect pure essays, though. Just nice prose and an obvious understanding of the material.

BJ, work not necessary! Come on! Any thoughts? (you've gone to bed, though, and I'll have handed it in by the time you wake up )

 

[belmakor]

Well, basic state of nature according to Rousseau is that people were better off without society. We'd be happier not living with all of the problems he believed society caused, and that living in society stunted our growth both scientifically and artistically.

Locke was basically the first libertarian. People gathered together to create society to improve the overall wellbeing of the group. People kept their word, and could generally be trusted, even if you were suspicious of their motives.

Hobbes is the precursor to fascism. People were basically violent, unruly and destructive. You can't trust anyone. Life without some sort of dominant figure in charge was basically seen as being solitary because you were afraid of someone else killing you otherwise.

The weird thing about Rousseau is that he started off his philosophical career by stating that people were basically good, but corrupted by the society that existed around them. Then, with writing "The Social Contract" he made an about face. Basically stating, like Hobbes, that the state of nature was brutish and lacking in morality.

 

[Socreges]

It's funny that you didn't say anything I didn't know, but it's exactly what I needed. A nice summarization of each person. I'm having trouble collecting my thoughts. Although, do you think you could discuss Locke's state of nature?

The weird thing about Rousseau is that he started off his philosophical career by stating that people were basically good, but corrupted by the society that existed around them. Then, with writing "The Social Contract" he made an about face. Basically stating, like Hobbes, that the state of nature was brutish and lacking in morality.

...he did? We were never asked to read it, but still touched on certain chapters. The impression I got was that it is impractical to revert back to the state of nature, but he suggests that we form a city where everyone works for the common good and there is no sense of mine or yours. Where he really began to fall apart for me was when he suggestion that a single religion was needed to keep everyone in line and of one mind. That there had to be a general will that was determined by the majority and it would become your will; if you had voted the other way, you were wrong and had to realize that. It's fucking bizarre.

But that's getting way off-topic. I can't include anything like that in my paper - I just enjoy talking about it.

 

[Socreges]

Where do you think Locke stands on state of nature vs civil society? Maybe I didn't read enough, but he doesn't seem to choose which is better.

Essentially:

S/N = man takes everything on himself - good - however, state of war may happen. therefore, a third party and society is necessary.

 

[belmakor]

Well, Locke's state of nature was a lot like the American frontier at the time. Property rights existed, and for the most part it was peaceful. Generally people were able to handle conflict resolution of their own accord. Resolving conflicts usually involved justice being imposed upon those commiting foul acts, which would end in having peace restored.

Ya, he did. This why the general will of the majority had to take over and control people. Otherwise the need for a state religion that imposed the will lacking in the government he proposed wouldn't be needed. Not only that, but any alien to said society, would have to be forcibly converted or "banished" to the state religion. Anybody that completely stepped out of line with the majority way of thinking could be killed. This ended up being one of the reasons the French Revolution was so bloody.

 

[Socreges]

I think it was:

If you don't follow the rules, they banish you.

If you pretend to follow the rules, while truly thinking differently, that makes you a deceiver, and they must kill you.

I guess in Rousseau's city we would be able to read people's thoughts!

 

[Socreges]

4:33 am

I am done. GOOD LAAAHHHHHD I AM DONE. Not the longest paper by any means, but the sheer ambiguousness of what I was trying to accomplish made it into a knife slowly driving through my brain. I may only get a few hours sleep, but it will be the best few hours ever.