By now, I still have a
confusion of Rousseau’s “nature”, and that he defines that human “nature” is the
best, and what make us who we are today, is all because of the bad social structure.
In the
article he mentioned: ”I dare almost affirm that a state of reflection is a
state against nature, and that the man who meditates is a degenerate animal.” Which,
in my understanding, means that once we start meditate, we are already not at
the “natural” state.
However, he
also mentioned that,” that nature alone operates in all the operations of the
beast, whereas man, as a free agent, has a share in his. One chooses by
instinct; the other by an act of liberty.” To act liberally, we need to think,
and make decisions, and thus, to have wisdom is the difference between us and
animal.
But I think
it is paradoxical. If we start thinking, then we are not at the state of “nature”,
however, if we don’t think, then there are no differences between us and
animals? So is the state of nature really exist?
Perhaps I have
some misunderstanding!?
Rousseau
considers that man are born good. This concept make me thinks of the ancient
Chinese philosopher, Zeng Zhi(曾子) and Xun Zhi(荀子). The former one consider that human
were born good; whereas the latter one consider human were born bad. This is
still an ongoing debate.
Even though Zeng
Zhi has the same opinion as Rousseau (they both think human were born good), there
are still differences between them, which I think is quite interesting. Zeng
Zhi thinks that there’s a moral status born in human, and the moral we
had is the main differences between human and animal. And to prove it, he gave
an example of a kid be pushed into a well, we will feel sad for him, and will
want to save him(which I think is the pitie that Rousseau mentioned). This is
the classic example he gives to show that human is born good.
As for the
Xun Zhi, he thinks that people were born to care only about his own benefits,
and if we let this “bad”, selfish nature goes on, then we will turn out to
perish. “Goodness” is something we work hard to learn and to achieve.
Therefore, to have moral rules to obey is what we need, and we need to control
ourselves to be a “good” person.
This is by
far what I understand, and might not be absolutely right, however, I think its
quite interesting to think about it.
But I think
that perhaps, there’s no “good” or “bad ” in our natural state, we just change
as the environment changes. Like water, it changes its shape considering which
kind of glasses we put them into.
For me, "good" and "bad" may be defined by people. Animals don't have "good" or "bad". People give the definition. As times passes, the specification may change too. Every person may have different behaviors when they are born. Those are natures and some are written in our genes to protect us. We don't need to know whether we are born good or bad. What we need is just to cultivate ourselves into a civilized and useful person.
ReplyDelete