Human And Savage Man Rousseau Analysis

1005 Words5 Pages
Nature of Human and Savage Man Thomas Hobbes is a philosopher who wrote Leviathan and claims that men are equal when they were in natural condition. Jean Jack Rousseau is another philosopher who claims men are composed of two classes when the state was established: poor and rich. At first blush, Hobbes and Rousseau is appearing too different since they have been. Namely, However, equality causes evil in Hobbes ' theory. However, in Rousseau 's inequality, there is benevolence. Their assumptions about the state of nature have huge differences. They are the almost antithesis of each other. According to my approach, the human can not be as bad as Hobbes ' claim. However, there is not sufficient reason to contract in Rousseau 's…show more content…
Hobbes ' doctrine describes human in nature with respect to his desires. Humanly behaves according to aversion and appetite. If we ask why equality cause diffidence, Hobbes says all men desires the same thing. Moreover, he did not give any characteristic which provides to consider others during the steps which go to contract to the state. None the less, he mentioned three essential personal trade of savage men: free will, perfectibility and compassion. Free will should be examined especially to compare Rousseau 's and Hobbes ' perspective because, Rousseau classified freedom as natural, civil, and moral. Moral freedom included giving up one 's impulsions so there is a contrast between Rousseau and Hobbes. Rousseau claimed man to be free, you must able to give your impulsions. Otherwise, you will become a slave of your appetites. As a summary, Rousseau emphasizes how important it is to control your appetites. On contrary Hobbes, emphasize appetites are essential part of human nature. Moreover, Rousseau defined savage men by mentioning compassion. (Rousseau , p. 29) Rousseau said that compassion is natural characteristic of humans. He explained compassion is a natural sentiment by mentioning self esteem. (Rousseau, p.29) Whereas, Hobbes, human have not any empathy or interesting others. Although Hobbes does not describe bad nature of man, he does not refer any good specialities. He describes man self centered. In fact, I assume that Rousseau thinks that human is moral all the time. However, he claimed that human is not moral, although is not moral. He is amoral. I am closer to Rousseau in this argument. Moreover, according to me human has moral behavior more in nature condition. All of our behaviours ' origins are nature. In addition to that people can control their appetites by support of moral sentiments. Compassion is only one of
Open Document