Rousseau Vs. Marx
...civilized men, ruined humanity." The philosopher challenges Thomas Hobbes' theory of the wicked nature of man, arguing that it is not man's nature but society and the pleasantries of civilization that have weakened and demonized mankind: "It appears, at first view, that men in a state of nature, having no moral relations or determinate obligations to one another, could not be either good or bad, virtuous or vicious" (279). The nature of man, therefore, is naturally untainted and based on compassion- a basic, innate virtue. Man's nature is neither good nor evil, neither wracked with steadfast competition nor satiated of philanthropy. Man simply uses instinct, not intellect and reason, to survive. Compassion, Roussea argues, is evident as the only characteristic of man that civilization has yet to erase. For instance, both man and animal cringe at the sight of murder or the deceased of one of its kind. Through the recognition of others in society, falsification of differences, and needs of possession, Rousseau concludes that "the state of nature, being that in which the care for our own preservation is the least prejudicial to that of others, was consequently the best calculated to promote peace, and the most suitable for mankind" (280).
Rousseau deduces that in civilization, or under domestication, as man grows more sociable, he also "grows weak, timid, and servile" (279). For the survival of the human species in nature, man needed to develop keen athleticism, learn to deal with famine and thirst, practice agility and intellect. Just as a horse in the wild is stronger, robust, and more vivacious than one bred in the stall, a human given the advantages of a civilization at birth is bound to have muted capabilities. Both horse and human, "by becoming domesticated, lose half these advantages; and it seems as if all our care to feed and treat them well serves...
View Full Essay
