1. Many have said Rousseau idealized the ‘Noble Savage’ (although he doesn’t use the term). In what sense is Rousseau’s ideal for man the ‘natural man’? Would he criticize the ‘mountain men’ or the ascetics and hermits who go off on their own?
In many ways Rousseau extolls the virtues of a simple lifestyle without government or even strong interpersonal relationships. Contrary to Hobbes's stat of war, Rousseau's view of the natural state of things is that people will peacefully sustain themselves. His justification of this is that, back when people were all 'savages', there would have been plenty of resources to go around, and each individual would have had the capability to provide for themselves. Therefore, there was no motive for one to take property or enslave another, for that would have required more effort than simply gathering resources for oneself. However, when a civilization arises, so does a dichotomy between the weak and the powerful. Now the powerful have the means to control the weaker, and an established system of inequality is born. Rousseau points out that this is disadvantageous for both parties, as the weak are taken advantage of and the powerful become reliant on the support of the weak and/or slaves.
Rousseau sees natural man as living contentedly, but the downside is that it is impossible to make any major progress in areas such as art and technology, as there is no means of communicating such inventions from one generation to the next. That being said, I don't think he would criticize hermits for seeking a contended existence, particularly if they are escaping a society that is fraught with inequality and injustice.
No comments:
Post a Comment