Early modern philosophical views Hobbes and Locke people are naturally

Early modern philosophical views hobbes and locke

This preview shows page 6 - 8 out of 23 pages.

Vs. Early modern philosophical views (Hobbes and Locke) – people are naturally aggressive and hostile, state of nature is a state of feuding and hostility To solve humanity’s problems, we need sincerity and to get in touch with our feelings (because at our core, our feelings are good) Lockean world leaves people with dissatisfaction – there’s more to life than making money or attaining comfort/security Rousseau’s point isn’t that nature is better than society – but that our natural selves are better than our current selves Going to the woods doesn’t revert your soul back Improving/reverting your soul requires putting amor propre (vanity) back in the bottle But it’s not that easy – can’t just not care what people think about us Nature is the ideal, but not counseling a return to nature How you get to society Not a tale of progress or conquering nature Tale of decline, corruption People are naturally good and happy and independent, and now we’re miserable and enslaved
Image of page 6
How did we get here? Nascent/savage/hut society Loose social interactions eg. To agree to work together to hunt, etc First big change: when people form small, familial societies (nascent societies, savage societies, hut societies) Limited division of labor in these societies – men hunt, women gather Families still largely self sufficient No private ownership of land How savages were when discovered by Europeans Golden age between primitiveness and corruptive society “Happiest and most durable epoch” Least subject to revolutions, best for man – only left it by fatal accident One step forward before dozens of steps backwards People don’t have to work too hard, don’t have to compete or have conflicts “Like being at a party all of the time” Where parental and romantic love first arises But along with these, come envy and ambition Amor propre arises when you care what people think of you Origin of inequality doesn’t have to do with property Has to do with who comes to be regarded/preferred/loved People want to be seen as the best Inequality isn’t bad because it’s unfair, it’s bad because it corrupts us Metallurgy and agriculture Next stop on the way to society Iron and grain ruined us Increases property and prosperity and therefore competition Changes distribution of labor – leads to division of labor so people are dependent on others for their livelihood Leads to more leisure time which increases competition over leisure activities like dancing, painting etc Advantages that are negligible in the state of nature matter more – eg skill with iron working Natural inequalities much more important Private ownership of land develops Need people to help you farm etc → bosses and employees, hierarchy Full, ugly development of amor propre Inequality of wealth is important because: With wealth, you can outbalance other inequalities
Image of page 7
Image of page 8

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 23 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes