POLI3306: Roussian State of Nature

Today we discussed J.J. Rousseau's state of nature, although it could only be described indirectly. Rousseau argues that the origin of human nature was not established in the shadow cast by the satisfaction of desires, as is the case in the Hobbsian and Lockian narratives. Instead, Rousseau ventures further into the recessess of human history, to a time immemorial where neither desire nor association affected the social climate. It was, according to Rousseau, self sustaining and possessed no knowledge of want among other qualifications employed in ontological accounts. Rousseau's criticism is well taken on this account, as such preconditions of a "desire" suggest some social structure or association already in place. In turn, one is not really describing the origin of nature but rather the tension brought to light by early social conventions. But what then can we truely call the state of nature and how does it reflect in the present political condition that we find mankind in?

The answer.. it is no state at all or at least one that is void of the composition that is the result of historical change. This equates nothing to the state of nature as a static existence that is neither possessed by reason or the symbols of its development - it is prelinguistic/prerational in every possible sense. Reason, in the Roussian sense, is merely a tool that is applied to nature. One might ask "does reason change man's fundemental nature?" to which I would say that Rousseau would argue that it does not.

In his descritption of the potential for change in any human subject, a recurring stream in Roussian thought, Rousseau remains consistent in that he does not attempt to ascribe value to nature. It is, for Rousseau, indetermined in its most fundemental aspect. The question of origin for Rousseau is a problematic idea because it is irresolveable and inpervious to refutation. How can we begin to challenge an origin that has no begining? It has been swallowed by the notion of time before historical record, the recreation of which would only render that true origin inaccessible.

So what then is the point of even discussing such a state of nature as Rousseau describes it?

Introductions and other grand gestures

Dear Reader,

Let me start here first by being frank, though it is clearly not my name. Who you are is not so much of a concern for me as for the reasons you decided to read the unenlightened text presented here.

Let me explain then what my purpose is to better prepare you for what will follow. It has been my observation that immediate "reguritation" of information learned in my various classes aids in my understanding of the specific theme and problems within a text. It is with this intention in mind, and not for the objective of entertainment, that I present to you my undigested thoughts. As a precautionary measure, you may not want to approach too closely. The aroma of fresh vomit has a tendancy to trigger a gag effect in others.

Should you have commentary to provide, feel free to respond and challenge any of the posts made. However, be forewarned that your criticism will only be as valid as my own - which are admittedly fragmented and at times untenable.

So with that disclaimer in place continue at the threat of your own bordom.

Sincerely,

Jordaan