Ramdas 1

Evaluation of Chief Ten Bears Speech by Hobbes and Rousseau Ashwin Ramdas UGS 303 65015

TA: Ariel Helfer Professor Thomas Pangle 11/10/11

Ramdas 2

In an address to General Sherman and the approaching American army, Chief Ten Bears of the Comanches delivered a speech which set forth his position concerning the good life and justice. If Hobbes and Rousseau were to morally evaluate the Comanche leaders speech, Hobbes would consider it an unwise, irrational response to the opportunity of becoming more civilized, while Rousseau would consider the speech a justified response toward an imposing society that challenges their simplistic, natural way of life. The support for these claims stems from Hobbes disdain of the natural state of man and Rousseaus admiration of this same state. The fundamental difference between Hobbes and Rousseaus assessment of Ten Bears speech would originate from the two philosophers view of the natural state of man. Hobbes, who believes man is not born fit for society (On the Citizen Ch. 1 Pt. 2), claims that mens natural state, before they came together into society, was war (Ch. 1 Pt. 12). The idea of perpetual war (Ch.1 Pt. 13) is derived from the notion that since all men are equal to each other by nature (Ch. 1 Pt. 3), each man has a right to all things (Ch. 1 Pt. 10). This desire becomes a problem when one man wishes for the same object as another man. Because both men have a natural, equal right to claim the object as his own, fighting must decide (Ch 1 Pt. 6) to whom the object belongs to. Since both men are naturally equal, there will never be a winner in the fight, therefore the war is perpetual. According to the Hobbesian view of the natural state of man as being maliciously selforiented (On the Citizen Ch. 1 Pt. 7), it would be imprudent to say that the Comanches are in this pure state of nature. The Comanche tribe had characteristics of a civil society including having a leader and units of family. Hobbes would still assert, however, that the Comanche tribe is at the mercy of nature, in that they do not enjoy many of the secure comforts of a more developed

Ramdas 3

society. Because the Comanches lack permanent shelter and hunt for unguaranteed sources of food, Hobbes would link them closer to nature than a developed society, noting that they lacked all the comforts and amenities of life which peace and society afford (Ch. 1 Pt. 13). In Hobbes vision of the good life, a group of men is living together so that each man be adequately protected from the violence of other men, so that he may live in security (Ch. 6 Pt. 3). As discussed earlier, this violence springs from the desire of men to own all things in nature. If, however, each mans right to his own propertyover which none of their fellow citizens has any right (Ch. 6 Pt. 15))is protected by the laws and the power of the whole commonwealth (Ch. 6, Pt. 15), man would not have to fear the violence of another man who would try to take this property. To Hobbes, the idea of living a sedentary life on your own property, with guaranteed commodities, and with freedom from fear is the good life. Hobbes would perceive the Americans annexation of the Comanche land as an offer of this good life to the Comanches, in which they would receive their own piece of land with more guaranteed comforts from a more civilized society. Because the Comanches are rejecting this opportunity to become more civilized and distance themselves from the flaws of nature, Hobbes would consider their choice unwise. Not only would Hobbes scorn the Comanches for refusing an opportunity to become more civilized, but he would also chide them for choosing to fight rather than keeping peace. Hobbes first law of nature, from which the rest of his laws are derived, is to seek peace when it can be had (Ch. 2 Pt. 2). It is essential to protect and preserve ourselves from bodily harm rather than enter a physical contest (Ch 1 Pt. 15). Hobbes would encourage the Comanches to make use of [their] present advantage to build the security for [themselves] by taking a

Ramdas 4

guarantee, than to attempt to recover it later with all the risks of conflict when the enemy has grown in numbers and strength (Ch. 1 Pt. 14). While Rousseau agrees with Hobbes in that man in his natural state is a primitive, uncivil animal, he disagrees with the negative ramifications that Hobbes proposes (Second Discourse pg. 129). Rousseau addresses Hobbes, who claims that man is naturally intrepid and seeks only to attack and fight (Second Discourse pg. 107), and counters him, stating that mans only desires are nourishment, a female, and repose (pg. 116). Not only are mans worries limited, but he is full of pity, moderating in each individual the activity of love of oneself, contribut[ing] to the mutual preservation of the entire species (pg. 133). Rousseau further praises man in his savage state for his robust physical stature and his ability to adapt to his surroundings. Man will have heightened senses (pg. 113), more vigor, more strength and courage (pg. 111), and will also learn to use his body and his environment in ways that necessity obliges him to acquire (pg. 106), including using animal skin for warmth and his arms for defense while running (pg. 112). It is evident that Rousseau would brand the life of savage man as the good life for the reason that they had easily appeased desires, scarce worries, and no dependencies on other men or passions. Therefore, Rousseau would support the response given by Ten Bears to the imposing American army in rejecting the more developed society to maintain a primitive lifestyle. Rousseau would assert that the Comanches could avoid almost all of the [ills of civilized life] by preserving the simple, uniform, and solitary way of life prescribed to us by nature (pg. 110) by disallowing the Americans encroachment. Once again, it would not be accurate to say that the Comanche tribe is in the pure state of nature according to Rousseaus standards, yet Rousseau would consider the Comanche lifestyle as an even more exceptional example of the good life than natural, primitive man. Though the Comanches lack permanent

Ramdas 5

property and must travel at natures command for food and shelter, the fact that they have family units and a leader places them at an equal distance from the stupidity of brutes and the fatal enlightenment of civil man (pg. 150). At this golden mean between the indolence of the primitive state and the petulant activity of our vanity (pg.150), the Comanches would appear to Rousseau as being in a period that must have been the happiest and most durable epoch (pg. 151). Because the Comanches, in their present, traditional lifestyle, reflect Rousseaus image of the good life, Rousseau would evaluate Ten Bears speech as a warranted response to General Sherman. At the same time, Rousseau would condemn the failings of developed societies, which General Sherman and the Americans represent. These failings include idleness, indulgence, avarice, inequality, fatigue, and excess (Second Discourse pg. 110). Rousseau praises natural man for his ability to perfect the senses for which civilized societies require aid. Using existing groups of people to support his stance, Rousseau notes how the Hottentots of the Cape of Good Hope sight vessels on the high sea with their naked eyes as far away as the Dutch with spyglasses and how American savages could smell Spaniards on the trail as the best dogs could have done(pg. 113). It is evident that Rousseau values the traits of natural man over the handicaps of more developed nations. With the Americans representing the more civilized society and the Comanches the group more in touch with their primitive instincts, Rousseau would advise against resigning to the encroaching American army, thus supporting Ten Bears speech. Hobbes and Rousseaus disparate perceptions of the natural state of man accounts for the opposing evaluations they would have of Ten Bears address to General Sherman and the Americans. With his disdainful view of primitive man, Hobbes would urge the Comanches to

Ramdas 6

not resist the chance to become more civilized. Rousseau, on the other hand, would approve of Ten Bears resistance of the Americans because of his appreciation for the simple man, separate from the pure crudeness of nature, but also free of the defects of enlightened civilization.