Koganti Rikky Roy - Discourse On Inequality The original state of nature From the beginning, Rousseau distinguishes clearly

between two types of inequality: natural and political. Natural inequality would consist of differences in physique, intelligence and talents. Natural inequality is genetic and unpreventable (in Rousseau's time at least). The latter, however, is 'established by the consent of men.' (Part 1, 77) It is in trying to uncover the origins behind this political inequality that Rousseau undertakes the spectulative task of 'pinpointing that moment.. when.. nature was subjected to the law.' (Part 1, 77) In order to do this, Rousseau first tries to postulate the original state of nature accorded to primitive men. Rousseau views promitive men as independant and self-sufficient in a completely natural environment. The primitive man lives together with Nature, which provides him with all his needs. Rousseau states that 'once the need [For physical love] is satisfied, all desire is extinguished,' (Part 1, 103) and if primitive men had the state of nature he conjectures them to have, mating for them would be the current day equivalent of a one night stand. The two sexes would never cohabitate for a prolonged period of time, perhaps only for the duration of their passion. Another important point Rousseau asserts is that primitive men, lacking civlization, have no moral knowledge, nor do they need it as 'it is the ignorance of vice that prevents them from doing evil.' [Part 1, 99] Rousseau contends that it is more profitable to be ignorant and free of vice than to possess and use the knowledge of virtue. Rousseau has an ambivalent belief towards society here; it can perpetuate virtue but on the other hand, it is also the source of vice and social (political) inequality. Roussea also spectulates primitive man to be 'consigned by nature to instinct alone.' [Part 1, Page 89] Savages follow their instinct unlike the civilized man. When men receive impulses from nature, they use reason to resist them and to choose another option. However, this very same reason is what creates vice, according to Rousseau. He, like Hobbes and Locke, believes the passions to be more basic than reason so whatever senses and rationality civilized men posseses about his environment is derived from

the passions. However, while Hobbes believes the most fundamental passion to be self-love or selfpreservation, Rousseau claims such worries have no place in his depiction of the state of nature. In fact, the fundamental passion is pity and Rousseau claims that 'all the social virtues...flow from this quality alone.' [Part 1, 100] Pity arises in everyone as an 'ommate repungnance against seeing a fellow creature suffer,' [Part 1, 99] but the action that arises from this passion differs between the primitive and civilized man. A primitive man would show compassion whenever Nature confers pity for another being to him but a civilized man, with the aid of reason, has the choice between helping that fellow being or protecting himself. Like Rousseau says, the civilized man could simply say 'Perish if you will; I am safe' [Part 1,101] and flee. However, he could also do good instead by helping his fellow man. Still, the choice is his. That is why, Rousseau claims, all social virtues and vices can be derived from pity. A savage, on the other hand, has no reason, only instinct, and would thus go to the aid of the sufferer; an act of virtue in modern society. Thus, in the original state of nature, social inequality could not exist. In fact, no vice existed and all humans were equal. It was when reason came in being that society emerged, through a combination of reason and pity. But how did reason emerge? First, there had to be language and thought. In several parts of the book, Rousseau brings up concepts similar to that of the chicken and egg dilemma. Did the chicken come first or the egg? In Part 1, he asks us to consider the following paradox - 'If man needed speech in order to learn to think, they needed still more to know how to think in order to discover the art of speech.' [Page 93] It is impossible for either speech or thought to exist without the other, according to Rousseau. But this is supposing that thought can only occur through speech. Rousseau says that 'general ideas can only be introduced into the mind with the assistance of words,' [Part 1, 95]. However, what of pictures? Tigers and other predators hunt different animals via different methods. I doubt instinct enabled them to hunt intelligently. If animals can only obey Nature's impulses, a tiger would immediately leap upon its prey on sight; yet it waits in hiding for an ambush. To me, this is proof that animals are able to form thought even without speech, and thus so could primitive men. And from thought came the language of gestures and unrecognizable grunts, which eventually evolved to speech.