Could we return to a state of nature?

@Amerie phil,

In my reading of Rousseau - and bearing in mind that such as it was, it was in about 1979 - I always felt that he was criticizing the socially-conditioned and constructed notion of the good and the true, which he felt was complete artifice. In some ways his harking back to the slyvan state of the noble savage represented man 'before the fall', still at one with nature, perfectly spontaneous in all his actions and judgements, and uncontaminated by the hypocrisy of society with its self-interest, conceits and vested interests.

So the 'cheapening of virtue' comes about by defining it in socially-acceptable terms. We seek to impress only our peers, the 'rugged honesty' of the natural human has been submerged in conceits.

Hey I was a hippie once. I know exactly where he is coming from.

@Deckard,

Quote:

Deckard;114484 wrote:
Interesting, in the Rousseau's Discourse on Arts and Sciences, he paints Socrates as a sort of noble savage. Socrates walking around questioning the civilized and thereby revealing how little their arts and sciences were really worth.

Here's a weird quote that may reveal more about Rousseau's personality than Socrates' or France's.

And here is the only mention of inequality in the Discourse of arts and Sciences.

The man is pointing out what should be obvious to any reader in anthropology, and it is that the economy of our age, of money is entirely dis-similar to the economy of honor, which is still at work in the world...

Aristuppus said as much of Socrates in his day..You must understand that primitive peoples are ethical, and it is from such people and their behavior that we have the word...Socrates was trying to form a new ethic based upon reason, which may someday yet give us world government, but in his day was proof that gentile institutions were dying with nothing to replace them...Equality essential to democracy was made superfluous by enequal wealth... And it is unequal wealth that destroys all primitive societies because it makes people jealous of what they have and have not, and so destroys unity...

Quote:

Is there any truth to such a statement?

(Keep in mind these ideas are developed further and in different directions in the Discourse on Inequality which I have not commented on here.)

Oh well; looks like I put the bottom on top of the top again...

@Fido,

It is interesting to note that while the priests and priestesses of selfishness pet and praise greed with one hand they scold and condemn envy with the other. We all have our favorite vices and greed and envy are just that, vices. If you claim one to be a virtue you claim them all.

It would seem they want their cake and eat it too, but that is always the way with greed.

@Deckard,

If greed is natural then so is envy and society was right to keep both repressed...People were greedy of their honors, and others envious... But all could have their honor, and it was the expectation that they were honorable so that mankind has always dealt with honorable people... What is the hope of our economy, that there is some underlying honesty as the base of all our transactions, is no less than all past human relationships...People needed confidence, so they gave brides...One people meant a greater level of trust...And just as people accepted the need for vengeance they also sought peace with an affection we cannot understand....

@William,

kennethamy;114101 wrote:

Of course not. To think that people are equal in either talent or virtue is a fantasy only someone like Rousseau could come up with. No one believes that is true. Or even has any truth in it.

William;114103 wrote:

Sometimes Ken, your ego truly amazes me? NO ONE, huh?
William

kennethamy;114117 wrote:

Of course not. Even children know that some people are stronger than others. Some are more intelligent than others. Some are nicer than others. Some are richer than others. Some know more than others. Who doesn't know that? What has that to do with me or my ego?

For anyone to use "No One" in this context, would offer that they are speaking for all and no "one" can do that. In the context that most use "equality" is selfish as they effort to define talent, truth, intelligence and virtue from there own personal platform caring little about what those mean to others.

As you use strength, intelligent and wealth as some kind of cornerstone as to what you think them to be as many do, is wrong when we compare ourselves to others and what we, the "I", think them to be.

Those who live in their own little "I" world use them in regards to status to empower themselves over others due to a lack they, themselves have.

It matters not how little of how much others offer as long as it is their all and should not be considered and they must be allowed to offer it for it is all for them to do so and they should not be judged by another of "how much" that is. To do so displays an arrogance and purposeful ignorance to what it is others offer and believe what they offer has any utility.

Use what you say in reality and tell another that you are "stronger, more intelligent and talented and observe what the response will be if you don't use power to enforce it. Of course it takes power to do it and make it stick.

Only the most profane and vain would do such a thing; and thinking it is observable too in all the manners which we communicate visibly with each other.

It is not the ego that considers others and the thought that others might be of different thought, it is power that does that and control as one attempts to use what he thinks is more to enslave others when they have so much less of good to offer. They have to use power, malignant intelligence and wealth to do that.

No "one" can speak for all and it is in that courtesy we offer to others to speak without the repercussions of what power imposes that we will find that synergy that will be created by that all and the good we all can offer.

No one can claim less guilt when it comes to "I" thinking! We all are guilty and have our transgressions. We are guilty because it is a survival mechanism and we need it because so many are doing the same thing, even children as you noted. They didn't arrive that way, they were taught to be that way.

Ken, the ego sucks, big time. I had one once and ditched that bastard and it was then I started observing others and came to realize how so very important they were in my life and what my life represented and learned to be so grateful from what I was learning from them and thanked them for it and both benefitted from that.

William

@William,

kennethamy;114254 wrote:

William;114614 wrote:

Ken, the ego sucks, big time. I had one once and ditched that bastard and it was then I started observing others and came to realize how so very important they were in my life and what my life represented and learned to be so grateful from what I was learning from them and thanked them for it and both benefitted from that.

William

You mean you don't believe what some people are more intelligent, taller, stronger, know more, are nicer, think more clearly, etc. than others? Of course, I don't merely mean that some people have all these talents and virtues, and others have none of them, although there are cases in which that is true too. My ego has nothing to do with it. I did not claim I was one of the talented and virtuous people. How did I pop up here? I am just pointing to an obvious truth. I am just the messenger of tiding. Your attitude toward the tidings is up to you.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;114616 wrote:

kennethamy;114254 wrote:

some people are more intelligent, taller, stronger, know more, are nicer, think more clearly, etc. than others

This is true. People are not equal in this sense. The question is do any of these various unequal talents, qualities, abilities etc entitle their possesors to unequal shares of the resources, opportunities and benefits of society? And also how does this relate to Rousseau's state of nature (or Hobbes' or Lockes' or whoever else came up with a version of the state of nature. Are there any other important versions of the state of nature that should be mentioned?)

@Deckard,

Deckard;114639 wrote:

kennethamy;114616 wrote:

This is true. People are not equal in this sense. The question is do any of these various unequal talents, qualities, abilities etc entitle their possesors to unequal shares of the resources, opportunities and benefits of society? And also how does this relate to Rousseau's state of nature (or Hobbes' or Lockes' or whoever else came up with a version of the state of nature. Are there any other important versions of the state of nature that should be mentioned?)

The question is do any of these various unequal talents, qualities, abilities etc entitle their possesors to unequal shares of the resources, opportunities and benefits of society?

I did not say so. And no one accused me of it. What I was accused of was saying that people have; various unequal talents, qualities, abilities. Apparently, my ego caused me to say such a thing. Does yours cause you to say such a thing? (My arguing such a thing would commit the naturalistic fallacy).

@Amerie phil,

Nature treats everyone as equal. The differences, as it appears, is transitory. To believe that forms, concepts and possessions are attributes of qualities, abilities and talents and thus invoking or justifying the principle of distinction is an anthropic blunder caused by psychological factors bearing upon a mind, and can be sourced to societal preferences and hierarchical structures.
Inequality is superficial, created by the mind and confined to the mind.

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Jackofalltrades;114659 wrote:

Nature treats everyone as equal. The differences, as it appears, is transitory. To believe that forms, concepts and possessions are attributes of qualities, abilities and talents and thus invoking or justifying the principle of distinction is an anthropic blunder caused by psychological factors bearing upon a mind, and can be sourced to societal preferences and hierarchical structures.
Inequality is superficial, created by the mind and confined to the mind.

My friend; you are clumping together a bunch of ideas and drawing a conclusion from them that is more emotion than thought...

For example, forms, concepts, and possession are the same as attributes, qualities, abilities, or talents...All these notions is each a facet of form, or concept...Human beings find it is necessary to make distinction which naturally exclude the middle -in the search for truth...We define reality with our forms, and that definition must be true as a matter of survival...Then, of course, we build social forms out of our understanding...And there it is essential to have forms that tell truth...It is possible we may have as much justice as we can define and unlikely that we will have more that we can define...Same with truth and all the virtues...We must judge our own material condition against our conception of reality as a whole... If for all our labor and sacrifice, and for all the accumulated sacrifices of mankind we are no better off than slaves, and if our dreams and desires are no more than dirt to those who would walk on them, then clearly, our social forms are not working, or are not built with any acceptable difinition of truth... Truth is the only fact powerful enough to bring down a failed social form... And we should return to natural social forms in our relationships...

@Jackofalltrades phil,

kennethamy;114644 wrote:

I did not say so. And no one accused me of it. What I was accused of was saying that people have; various unequal talents, qualities, abilities. Apparently, my ego caused me to say such a thing. Does yours cause you to say such a thing? (My arguing such a thing would commit the naturalistic fallacy).

Personally, I don't think you've said anything egotistical in stating that people are not equal in talents qualities abilities etc. I was agreeing with you. People are not equal in this sense. This is a tough fact for some people to accept but I, for one, am able to accept it.

I was attempting to move on to the question of what these inequalities should mean for the organization of society which I think is the real question even for Rousseau.

Individuals have unequal talents, abilities, qualities

I am asking if this fact should have any bearing on the manner in which the resources and benefits of society are distributed. Or should instead, the resources and benefits be distributed equally. Or perhaps by some other criteria such as need as in "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"

@Deckard,

Deckard;114683 wrote:

Personally, I don't think you've said anything egotistical in stating that people are not equal in talents qualities abilities etc. I was agreeing with you. People are not equal in this sense. This is a tough fact for some people to accept but I, for one, am able to accept it.

I was attempting to move on to the question of what these inequalities should mean for the organization of society which I think is the real question even for Rousseau.

Individuals have unequal talents, abilities, qualities

I am asking if this fact should have any bearing on the manner in which the resources and benefits of society are distributed. Or should instead, the resources and benefits be distributed equally. Or perhaps by some other criteria such as need as in "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"

Yes, that is a good question. John Rawls, who was (and maybe is) the most influential philosopher of politics and society in the 20th century, argued that if neither virtues or talents are up to the person, they should not be counted in distributing the world's goods. I don't think much of this argument.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;114686 wrote:

Yes, that is a good question. John Rawls, who was (and maybe is) the most influential philosopher of politics and society in the 20th century, argued that if neither virtues or talents are up to the person, they should not be counted in distributing the world's goods. I don't think much of this argument.

I gotta ask. Why don't you think much of Rawls' argument?

@Amerie phil,

Surely it is important that people are treated equally by the law, and provided with equal opportunity in terms of education and employment. This does not neessarily presume that people are all the same or have all the samec qualities, talents or abilities; but regardless they should be afforded equality by the state. In practise, in many societies, including the US, there are enormous disparities in social equity caused by the fact that your access to education, legal representation, or medical treatement is determined in a large part by your income. (The latter of these is what the Health Bill is attempting to address although I don't want to divert the thread into current politics, as it is being discussed elsewhere.)

It seems to me that a lot of conservatives believe that wealth is an indication of merit, while poverty signifies its absence, and that in the free market everyone gets what they deserve. However this seems to always ending up with the very wealthy getting the greater share - the rich getting richer, and the poor becoming more numerous. (Probably this will be dismissed as a caricature but I hold there is some truth in it. The 'concentration of wealth' since the Reagan revolution is empirically demonstrable.)

Social democrats, on the other hand, believe in distribution of equity through mechanisms such as tax and access to education and health services.

It would seem to me that Rosseau would naturally be claimed by the social democrat side of politics - would he not?

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;114688 wrote:

It would seem to me that Rosseau would naturally be claimed by the social democrat side of politics - would he not?

Well yes of course. However, Rousseau's ideal of the free individual in the state of nature uncorrupted by societies rules strikes me as something faintly libertarian and laissez faire especially if societies rules obstruct free trade. Was the noble savage a capitalist? Well the capitalist does rely on society's rules about private property and I'm pretty sure Rousseau's noble savage didn't have private property. Hobbes' savage was a maniac. Was Locke's savage was a capitalist imbued by the creator with the inalienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of property?

@Amerie phil,

I suppose you're right. My comparison was a bit misleading in that Rousseau was imagining a state prior to, and corrupted by, the emergence of large scale social institutions. But I think the 'trajectory of his thought' could be taken to culminate in a laissez-faire approach to economics, combined with the Small is Beautiful ethos of Schumacher and the anti-corporatist ideal of David Korten.

But then again, that might just be my own romantic idealism.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;114688 wrote:

Surely it is important that people are treated equally by the law, and provided with equal opportunity in terms of education and employment. This does not neessarily presume that people are all the same or have all the samec qualities, talents or abilities; but regardless they should be afforded equality by the state. In practise, in many societies, including the US, there are enormous disparities in social equity caused by the fact that your access to education, legal representation, or medical treatement is determined in a large part by your income. (The latter of these is what the Health Bill is attempting to address although I don't want to divert the thread into current politics, as it is being discussed elsewhere.)

It seems to me that a lot of conservatives believe that wealth is an indication of merit, while poverty signifies its absence, and that in the free market everyone gets what they deserve. However this seems to always ending up with the very wealthy getting the greater share - the rich getting richer, and the poor becoming more numerous. (Probably this will be dismissed as a caricature but I hold there is some truth in it. The 'concentration of wealth' since the Reagan revolution is empirically demonstrable.)

Social democrats, on the other hand, believe in distribution of equity through mechanisms such as tax and access to education and health services.

It would seem to me that Rosseau would naturally be claimed by the social democrat side of politics - would he not?

Social, political, sexual, and economic equality are all just forms, social forms... The equality is by agreement, and in spite of the agreement we must recognize that people take their natural avantages and turn them to greater social advantages as we speak... It would seem ludicrous to speak the truth here, and say people are not equal, but identical...All humans are identical...Do you see how stupid that sounds, and yet that is the case because we all share the same identity... Since we are individuals, one counts the same as the other, as one, a unit... Cows are identical too, and hardly equal either, unless we say each cow, as a cow, is one cow, and one equals one... Would it be worse to say we are all equal, and unidentical, which would be false, and could never be true... Our manor of using the words is wrong and cannot express the truth of the matter without some help...A man is a man, and a woman is a woman... That is identity, so it is true to conclude that we are identical, but unequal; but since identity means a certain basic equality, -that we are...

---------- Post added 12-27-2009 at 11:00 PM ----------

jeeprs;114706 wrote:

I suppose you're right. My comparison was a bit misleading in that Rousseau was imagining a state prior to, and corrupted by, the emergence of large scale social institutions. But I think the 'trajectory of his thought' could be taken to culminate in a laissez-faire approach to economics, combined with the Small is Beautiful ethos of Schumacher and the anti-corporatist ideal of David Korten.

But then again, that might just be my own romantic idealism.

You two, and Rousseau had it wrong...Primitive peoples were far more under the control of their institutions... Think of it: What made the primitive was the want of technology... What gave them the power to survive the viscissitudes of life were superior social forms... Their economy was one of honor... Their communities were all gentile.... And their governments were all democratic, -which was the political expression of equality...For the most part, such people worked less, and enjoyed more of life than we do in our age of failed institutions and high technology...But we have something they never had, for which we will suffer every degradation and poverty... We have the conception of ourselves as individuals, and having that, have lost all communal support for rights...

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;114706 wrote:

I suppose you're right. My comparison was a bit misleading in that Rousseau was imagining a state prior to, and corrupted by, the emergence of large scale social institutions. But I think the 'trajectory of his thought' could be taken to culminate in a laissez-faire approach to economics, combined with the Small is Beautiful ethos of Schumacher and the anti-corporatist ideal of David Korten.

But then again, that might just be my own romantic idealism.

Come to think of it, Rousseau was more or less contemporary with the physiocrats from whom we get "laisez faire". The letting things go back to nature type of approach was in the air. I'm looking around for something substantial that talks about Rousseau's opinion of the physiocrats and vice versa but haven't found anything yet. (Well, most say that Rousseau opposed physiocrats but I need details.) We can say at least that both arose from the same general milieu. I'll check out Korten and Schumacher if I ever get back from the 18th century.

@Deckard,

Deckard;114687 wrote:

I gotta ask. Why don't you think much of Rawls' argument?

To begin with, I don't think the premise is true. For another, I think Rawlsianism is just another argument for coercive utopianism. What this country is now saddled with for the next three years (and no more, I hope).

@Deckard,

Deckard;114683 wrote:

Personally, I don't think you've said anything egotistical in stating that people are not equal in talents qualities abilities etc. I was agreeing with you. People are not equal in this sense. This is a tough fact for some people to accept but I, for one, am able to accept it.

I was attempting to move on to the question of what these inequalities should mean for the organization of society which I think is the real question even for Rousseau.

Individuals have unequal talents, abilities, qualities

I am asking if this fact should have any bearing on the manner in which the resources and benefits of society are distributed. Or should instead, the resources and benefits be distributed equally. Or perhaps by some other criteria such as need as in "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"

Good point. There's a reason that the skull is hardest bone in the body. The brain is more important than the pinky. If we think of societies as organisms, they too are subject to natural selection.

Philosophy Forum

Could we return to a state of nature?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know