Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Hobbes and Rousseau: States of Nature
Me again…In class we have discussed many different ideas on the “state of nature”. First we read about Hobbes’ beliefs on that state of nature. Hobbes states this condition would be nasty brutish and short, relating to his over all theme of telling society to grow up, and face the harsh reality of the world. According to Hobbes it was more or less a state of war. Words would have no meaning because people could do whatever they wanted, and therefore lie to others. As a result, no one would trust anyone, and it would essentially be every man (or woman!) for himself (or herself!). There would be absolutely no contracts meaning everything is everyone’s. This relates to our modern society, in that we still lock our doors and are taught from an early age not to talk to strangers. On the other hand, Rousseau presents a very different idea of the state of nature, in which humans would be physically fit, healthy, and spiritually and mentally lacking nothing that we have today, including reason. He says that people would only be unequal based on natural states, such as sickness and disease, but overall people are equal in their humanity. He also says that we naturally have “amour de soi”, or sympathy for others, in which we naturally relate to others and feel their pain. It is because of this global society that we live in, which enables us to detach ourselves, and have “amour propre” or in other words, not feel bad for the millions suffering around the world. So what I have been wondering is whether it is just natural for us not to trust each other, as Hobbes would say? Or is it that we naturally do sympathize and understand each other, but it is the modern society we have created that enables us to have “amour propre” ? I think to say that at one time, in the state of nature, we were all untrustworthy, lying, barbarians would be far to extreme. Also, I personally think that, with the exception of a few sociopaths, we all do have this innate “amour de soi”. I think that in the state of nature, natural law rules our interactions with others, in that we are all guided by what we naturally know as right versus wrong and that we can relate and understand others, which I guess would be a more Rousseau way of thinking. Thoughts anyone?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I also agree more with Rousseau than I do with Hobbes. Hobbes has a far more pessimistic view of the state of nature. People generally have a sense of what is right and what is wrong and we are not barbarians. Though some of this was taught to us when we were little (like saying please and thank you), some is guided by our innate sense of right and wrong. Like Rousseau's example with the horse when the horse felt sympathy for the dead horse. We have this same innate sense
ReplyDeleteI'm going to pick on Elise here, but this applies to everyone equally:
ReplyDeleteIt is important to understand the philosophers prior to agreeing and/or disagreeing with them. That is, make sure that your comments are relevant to the text in question, not a strawman version of the philosopher.
For example, Elise here states two things which support her disagreement with Hobbes. I'm going to examine each insofar as they adequately (read: academically) relate to the subject.
First, she says that Hobbes is "pessimistic." Hobbes would not understand this statement. For him it is equivalent to stating that Einstein's Theory of Relativity is "optimistic." He is describing matter and language insofar as we can know them, as opposed to those (like Descartes or Rousseau) who (according to Hobbes) are describing matter and language insofar as they would like them to be.
Second, Elise claims that we have an innate sense of right and wrong. She supports this using Rousseau's text, and his reference to the horse when describing our innate experience of pity, through which he derives his conception of amour de soi. This is a more legitimate characterization of the disagreement between the two philosophers (and, thereby, of Elise's ability to agree with one and disagree with the other) because it specifically cites the text as support. If she wished to shore up the argument, she could talk about Hobbes' materialistic conception of the world which precludes anything like "innate senses," although this would further show the specious nature of the claim that Hobbes is thereby "pessimistic."
Although you should feel free to speak your mind and be opinionated on the blog, make sure that you do so in a manner that is directly relevant to and based upon the text. In other words, feel free to say, e.g., that given Luther's radical anti-Semitism, he is an idiot. But you need to explain why and how this is the case rather than merely asserting that it is the case. Otherwise this is a subjective opinion. For opinions lacking justification to be valid, the opposing opinion would need be equally valid--according to the same principle (or lack thereof).
Although this may sound like a stereotypical protracted philosophical description of kids in a sandbox (e.g., "You're an IDIOT!" "No, YOU'RE an idiot!"), the importance of argumentation becomes all-too-evident all-too-quick when one regards more serious matters (e.g., racism).
-W.
I agree with you that you think the Hobbes way of thinking is too extreme and would actually be very scary to experience.. but I feel that our world is a combination of the two philosopher's ideas. And even though we live in a commonwealth there are still elements of the state of nature around us. For example if I saw someone who was hurt on the side of the side of the road in the middle of the day I'd probably stop and call an ambulance or something for them because of the idea of "amour de soi," but if it was late at night in a sketchy alleyway and someone called over to me asking for directions saying they were lost I'd probably be a little bit more wary about them and not be quick to trust them.. I think it would definitely depend on the situation that was at hand to categorize it as like Hobbes or like Rousseau.
ReplyDeletedidn't mean to say on the side of the road twice..
ReplyDeleteI think Hobbes' response to the amour de soi would be to say, "grow up". How can you know that this idea exists? While I may agree that there is some answer to this, I'm not sure Rousseau gives a good enough explanation. Rousseau hasn't given any method of breaking free of the Cartesian circle. This may not matter to him, but it does to me. I'm hoping Kant can shed some light on this question.
ReplyDeleteI would say that lack of trust in the world described by Rousseau is when society somehow perverts "amour de soi." Since "amour de soi" is our own recognition of our self in another which leads to sympathy when that other is pained. However if we fail to recognize our selves in others than we dive into the unfamiliar, thus we cannot ensure that those around us are good.
ReplyDeleteI guess my question is how can we be sure this amour de soi actually exists?
ReplyDeleteI would say we can know it exists because we base all our actions on the satisfaction we get from them because we consider ourselves above all other things. Every decision we make we consider ourselves in the outcome. The fact that we act in this self serving manner is evidence that there is a love of the self.
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't intend to imply that we are self serving but that we first love ourselves which we can see by the manner of our actions, and then we love others through self recognition.
I agree, and so would Hobbes, that humans have a natural love of the self. This is why we are naturally greedy and self-serving. Hobbes would argue that we need the laws of a commonwealth to stop ourselves from acting on this greed. But Rousseau's "amour de soi" is about sympathetically feeling the pain of another. My question is still how do we know that we naturally have this sympathy? How do we know that this sympathy doesn't actually come out of the laws of the commonwealth?
ReplyDeleteI think Ben asks a good question. I do not see how we can be completely positive that "amour de soi" exists (even in Rousseau's example with the horse). The horse seems to be the best example he can give of logical proof and even that is not a very sound argument
ReplyDeleteI think Ben's question is a hard one. Rousseau says that when man "becomes sociable and a slave, he grows weak, timid and servile..." I feel like this is some way comments on this thought. When we commit to society from this state of nature, we focus on amour de soi because it becomes an after-effect. In the state of nature, self-preservation is the "chief and almost sole concern," while in society, there is less emphasis on it, and we are left with more time and ability to sympathize with others and whatnot.
ReplyDelete