Discourse on the Origin of Inequality by Rousseau | Notes & Summary
To the Republic of Geneva
"Convinced that only the virtuous Citizen…"
Only the virtuous Citizen is worthy to honor a country. Rousseau considers himself ready.
Geneva is an exemplary society that Rousseau must examine to answer the question posed by the Academy of Dijon because it has delt with inequality well, implemented the right "maxims"
Rousseau's praise of Geneva is not without qualification (and, therefore, coherent with rest of the work) since he says "most closely approximating" and "best forestalled."
Interesting that equality established by nature and inequality established by men CAN be "happily combined." It's not as simple as the former good, the latter bad.
"If I had to choose my place of birth…"
Rousseau's ideal state to be born to is primarily defined by its small size of population. This small size is…
Naturally suited for the range of human faculties (e.g. think Dunbar's number)
"Everyone being equal to his task" and, thus, no one pushes off the task they are responsible for to others (is this a gesture at exploitation of labor?)
Crucially, everyone knows everyone else: "neither the shady stratagems of vice nor the modesty of virtue could have escaped the Public's gaze and judgment." Crucially this enables …
"This gentle habit of seeing and knowing one another would have made the love of one's Fatherland a love of the Citizens rather than of the soil."
This is significant because the gaze of the other is so often seen solely as a form of corruption. But here, it is clear that it serves an important positive function not just consequentially (in moderating right behavior) but for its own sake: as love for the other.
"I should have wished to be born in a country where the Sovereign…"
The ideal state is where the Sovereign and the people only share the same interest "so that all the motions of the machine might always tend only to the common happiness."
This is impossible because different people necessarily have (some) divergent interests. Therefore, the next best outcome is a democratic government "wisely tempered."
"I should have wished to live and die free…"
Interesting definition of freedom. To be free is to be "docile" subject to ONLY honorable, beneficial laws.
"I should have wished, then, that no one inside the State could have declared himself …"
Everyone is subject to the laws, otherwise all become subjects of the few who are not subject to those laws
No foreign entity can impose laws
"I should not have wished to live in a newly established Republic … "
He does not want to live under a newly established Republic that just emerged from a dictatorship (like Rome did from Tarquin).
"For freedom is like the solid and hearty foods or the full-bodied wines fit to feed and fortify robust temperaments used to them, but which overwhelm, ruin and intoxicate weak and delicate ones that are not up to them."
People who are accustomed to servitude have the most exaggerated understanding of freedom and in their revolutions always deliver them up to seducers who ensnarl their freedoms more.
Growing accustomed to freedom can happen, it just takes a long time (Rome did it).
Rousseau wants to be in a republic that has long been free whose citizens were worthy of freedom.
"I should have wished to choose … "
He wants to be in a state that was weak enough that it was never tempted by conquest.
He wants to be in a state surrounded by other states none of which wanted to conquer it, but whom all had an interest in preventing its conquest.
"I should have sought out … "
Citizens should have a say in legislation.
But he disapproves of the Romans where the leaders were excluded in deliberations and deprived of rights enjoyed by Citizens.
"On the contrary, in order to forestall … "
Only magistrates can propose laws (not everyone) and for people not to want to change their laws.
Laws require the venerability of antiquity to seem sacred.
"I should above all have fled … "
Definitely do not want a state that thinks it can rule itself without rulers. That was the vice of Athens.
"Rather, I should have chosen one … "
Instead, he wants a state where Magistrates were chosen by the people in a respectful, yearly way.
"Such, Magnificent, most honored … "
Ideally it would be rewarded with a beautiful landscape and vistas.
"If, less happy … "
Lamenting how he is not in Geneva due to youthful "want of prudence." And, thus, dedicating this to his citizens.
"My dear Fellow-Citizens … "
Reminding his compatriots how lucky they are.
"May a Republic so wisely … "
Geneva is yours to screw up. Rousseau warning them of sinister intentions and desires of mistrust.
"And you, Magnificent …"
The magistrates are so much more magnificent for governing the wisest and most enlightened people.
"Allow me to cite an example … "
Thanking his enlightened father for teaching him and instilling in him a good education.
"Such are, Magnificent and most honored … "
His father would be exemplary in any other state, but was quite average/normal in Geneva.
"It should not be surprising that the Chiefs … "
Surprisingly, even the theologians/priests of Geneva (professions who usually disdain this worldly attachments) have also a strong love for country.
"Could I forget that precious half of the Republic … "
Ode to the women of Geneva.
Surprisingly, without holding any political power Rousseau proclaims that it is they (the women) who govern the men: "it will always be the lot of your sex to govern ours." And that women "commanded" in Sparta.
The secret of woman's command is "chaste power" which allows her to speak honor and reason to her husband, to cause him to disdain luxury by simple and modest attire. In short, women, far beyond motherhood take on a forming role to men.
"I flatter myself that the event will not prove me wrong … "
Geneva will not be a place of spectacle / fashion / luxury.
"Deign, Magnificent, most honored and sovereign lords … "
Asking himself to be pardoned if he misspeaks.
Rousseau sees no greater happiness for himself than seeing Geneva happy.
Question: this all seems quite odd (although nothing seems contradictory, since he does share that there are good and bad societies available in state of nature) is this political? Is this ironic? What are we to make of this unqualified praise of a civil society in front of a discourse that critiques civilization itself.
Preface
"The most useful and the least advanced …"
The most useful, least advanced, most difficult question of human knowledge is about human nature.
We can make no progress on the question of inequality without understanding Man.
Rousseau paints a picture of human nature as constituting an original, simple part created by the "Author" and the historical baggage ladened on top. The famous metaphor of the statue of Glaucus that was perfect and then ravished by time and the sea until it appeared more beast than God.
There seem to be a few species of alteration/fall. 1. acquisition of both knowledge and falsehoods 2. physical changes in bodies (evolution? QUESTION: is this a big emphasis at all?) 3. the continued impact of the passions.
What we are left with is unruly passions that believes it can reason.
"What is more cruel still … "
The more we "progress," the more knowledge we accumulate, the more we deprive ourselves of the most important knowledge of all: knowledge about human nature.
This is for two reasons. 1. There are two types of knowledge. The more we try to study man analytically/symbolically the more we extend outward the less we can know him intuitively. (For rousseau, feeling is the means of true knowledge/understanding). See Note II "we seek only to spread outward, and to exist outside ourselves; too busy multiplying the functions of our senses and extending the external scope of our being, we rarely use that internal sense which reduces us to our true dimensions, and separates from us everything that does not belong to it." 2.Even if the study of man symbolically is helpful it is always conjoined with the superfluity of civilization (more luxury, more passions, etc.) so the same conditions that enable us to gain more (genuine) knowledge of man distort him further from the natural state.
"It is easy to see … "
Man started out equal, like all other animals. This is established "by common consent."
Just as animals from the same ancestor changed in different paces physically different human societies changed at different paces and so we are talking in the general -- not a precise history.
"Let my Readers therefore … "
The question of what is natural and what is artificial is a difficult one.
The only way to make "solid observations" would be to run experiments by the best philosophers and sovereigns that is "scarcely reasonable to expect."
Absent this, we are left with Rousseau having "initiated arguments" and "hazarded some conjectures." He doesn’t claim to have resolved it than elucidated it.
"Yet these investigations so difficult to carry out … "
Answering this question (what is artificial and natural to man) will help us answer a whole host of questions, including the idea of natural right / natural law (which cannot proceed without articulating what is "natural).
"It is not without surprise … "
There is so little agreement between philosophers/epochs on this most important question.
Roman jurists subject man and animal to same natural law. They consider law as something nature imposes on itself rather than prescribes. Ie. It is a thin conception of law that is just about the general relations of animate beings for common preservation. This would be closer to Newton's laws rather than the Laws of the US.
Moderns treat Law as something to be ascribed to moral beings (intelligent, free, considered in its relations with other beings) and, thus, only have as its subject man. The issue here is that people define it in such a complex way (opposite problem of the ancients) that it is inaccessible to all but a handful of metaphysicians.
"Knowing Nature so little … "
Other than disagreement, the issue is that many philosophers have included artificial capacities only developed after the state of nature into the original condition.
"But so long as we do not know natural man … "
We are concerned with natural law. That imposes two constraints. Natural: it must speak immediately with the voice of nature (as opposed to being artificial). Law: those who are obligated must be able to submit to it knowingly (against the obscure metaphysics point).
"Hence disregarding all the scientific books … "
There are two principles prior to reason (which he clearly considers artificial).
The first is concern for our own well-being and self-preservation (Amour De Soi).
The second is pity/sympathy.
It is from only these two principles that natural right is built off of.
"This way one is not obliged … "
"This way one is not obliged to make a Philosopher of man before making a man of him." This is a clever line that, again, suggests that reason is artificial and that it obscures rather than illuminates. The attack on modern natural right theorists and their dense metaphysical systems.
The natural law derived from the previous two principles is to not harm another sentient creature unless one's own self-preservation is at risk.
Animals are not bound by this natural law because they are deprived of enlightenment and freedom (Question: are these two other natural principles that should have been included above ^? Framed as critique, it seems like Rousseau is smuggling in "reason" here that we need it to recognize the natural law. Maybe its only now that we have reason do we need to recognize the natural law. ANSWER: we follow the natural law by default at this stage by naturally following our ADS and (weaker) pity) and therefore cannot recognize law. However, they ought to be protected by this law (e.g. partake in natural right) because our pity extends to sentient and not just rational beings.
"This same study of original man … "
This study of original man is only way to answer many important political-philosophical questions (one of which being the one raised by the academy of Dijon).
"Human society viewed with a calm … "
Human society may seem grounded on arbitrary power relations. With the understanding of what is natural and what is artificial, we can appreciate certain institutions that at first appear to bound our freedom but, in reality, forestall artificial perversions. The important outcome here is that there is a good way, at least a better way, to design civilization.
He calls his genealogy a "hypothetical history of governments."
Discourse on the Origin and the Foundations of Inequality Among Men
"It is of man that I am to speak …"
Rousseau begins by asserting that he is speaking "to men" -- grown ups who can take the hard truth.
"I shall not be dissatisfied with myself if I prove worthy of my subject and my judges" -- presumably, dissatisfaction is the natural outcome of proving one worthy of the subject because the answer to the subject is so grim. Rousseau is saying he will be satisfied in honoring the truth even if that truth is distasteful.
"I conceive of two sorts of inequality …"
One inequality is natural/physical … the differences in our faculties.
Another inequality is moral/political … honor/wealth/power. Its foundations are established/authorized by consent.
"It makes no sense to ask …"
It's obvious that natural inequalities come from nature.
It's also obvious that moral inequalities are not fully justified by natural inequalities e.g. power and wisdom are not in proportion.
"What, then, precisely is at issue in this Discourse? … "
The question is precisely to figure out when these two inequalities became disjoined. How did the strong work for the weak, the wise for the ignorant?
"The Philosophers who have examined … "
Philosophers have smuggled traits of civil man into nature: notions of justice, belonging, and authority (Rousseau's genealogy will reveal how they actually came about).
If you read the Bible closely, you will find that there is no state of nature. For the Christian, the default is to assume that the state of nature did not exist because that's not where the Bible beings. The only cogent way of squaring it with the Bible is if one thinks that we relapsed into the state of nature after civilization was already founded.
"Let us therefore begin by setting aside all the facts … "
Rousseau is not giving us a historical account but rather a hypothetical one to elucidate what the natural "substratum" of man is even if it never happened.
Christianity tends to justify inequality because God "led" man out of the state of nature (Eden) so we think that all the inequalities of civilization are justified by God.
The fact that we have a competing narrative from the Bible with a genealogy without a state of nature doesn’t prevent us from asking what would happen if we were placed in such a state.
"O Man, whatever Land you may be from … "
Against the philosophers: "Here is your history such as I believed I read it, not in the Books by your kind, who are liars, but in Nature, which never lies."
Man has changed a great deal from the natural state.
This development is not all bad, there is a time in development that civilization should have stopped after the state of nature. After that point, everything has gone downhill.
Part I
"However important it may be … "
Will not investigate biological evolution (as Aristotle suggests) because the evidence is too sparse and the whole enterprise too speculative. Will treat man as fully formed.
"By stripping this Being … "
Stripped to just our bare natural faculties, Man is neither most agile nor most strong.
But man is most "advantageously organized."
"The Earth, abandoned to its natural fertility … "
The reason that we are most advantageously organized is that man has no "instinct" and instead he is able to imitate (key capacity of man) the instincts of the other animals. An example Rousseau gives is in our omnivorous diet.
"Accustomed from childhood … "
In nature children are tested by the elements. Like Sparta, only the fittest survive and makes them strong and robust.
In civilized society "the State kills Children indiscriminately before their birth by making them a burden to their Fathers," which, I think, means that they are allowed to live but they live truncated, existences because they become burdens to their families and are subject to oppressive expectations and forces.
"Since his body is the only tool which savage man knows … "
Savage man is forced to develop himself physically because he does not have any tools. Modern man, with all his machines, is quite limited himself.
"Hobbes contends that man is naturally intrepid … "
Hobbes thinks that savage man is aggressive. Rousseau thinks they are rather timid, fleeing at 1. animals much stronger 2. things they do not know.
Most animals that are stronger than Man, Man is more skilled that they are and so has no problem in attacking.
The point that Rousseau really is arguing against here is this idea that life in the state of nature was nasty, short, and brutish. Instead, he thinks that most animals learn not to mess with man and man is fully capable of fleeing if needed.
"These are undoubtedly the reasons … "
Real "savages" encountered by Europeans show little concern when they encounter wild beasts.
"Other, more formidable, enemies … "
Savages are susceptible to childhood, old age, and disease. But civilized man is even more exposed to the latter.
"Regarding illnesses … "
It's not clear that countries where medicine is more advanced, widely practiced that people have become more healthy.
Furthermore, most of the illnesses we experience are caused by civilization. The rich are too idle and eat too exotic foods. The poor work too much and eat too poor food.
Savages are not ill other than wounds and old age.
Dieting, which is so necessary now, wasn't invented until hippocrates.
"With so few sources of illness … "
Illnesses are often healed by time. Hunters often come across animals with wounds and broken limbs that are healed through time.
"Let us therefore beware of confusing Savage man with the men we have before our eyes … "
Domesticated animals are often much weaker and of more "effeminate" disposition than their wild counterparts.
We must think the same of savage vs. domesticated man.
"To go naked, to be without habitation … "
Man can survive without what we would consider "necessities" the first who created clothes and shelter was the first to create something unnecessary (reminds me of the critique of the first person who claimed private property).
"Alone, idle, and always near danger … "
Savage man will be a light sleeper. All the senses related to refinement/sensuality will be crude (touch and taste) whereas all the senses related to survival will be acute (sight, hearing, and smell).
"Until now I have considered only Physical Man; Let us now try to view him from the Metaphysical and Moral side."
Transition from physicality to morality/moral psychology.
 "I see in any animal nothing … "
Animals, no matter how sophisticated, have to follow rules that nature prescribes to it. Rousseau gives example of pigeon starving to death next to bowl of meats … probably not a great example as I don’t think their stomachs can process it.
Humans can choose and go against the natural law through his capacity as free agent.
"The Beast cannot deviate from the Rule prescribed to it even when it would be to its advantage to do so, while man often deviates from it to his detriment."
"Every animal has ideas … "
Animals have ideas as much as humans do. The difference is that the animals are commanded by these ideas whereas humans have the freedom to choose to engage or not engage.
"But even if the difficulties … "
Man is perfectible in two ways: first, he does not finish his development in the way an animal does as it reaches maturity (is that true?). Second, mankind transforms drastically across generations whereas animals do the same things.
Important: it is a sad thing to have to recognize that this faculty of perfectibility is what will lead us out of this original, happy state.
Note IX is important (and frankly should have been in the essay). Rousseau reiterates numerous points about how society and civilization creates evil either directly or indirectly through what first appear to be goods. But the most important addition is the final paragraph. Rousseau asks whether we need to return: "What, then? Must societies be destroyed, thine and mine annihilated, and men return to live in forests with the Bears?" Here's his response:
Question: is this ironic (are there people like this)? He says for those who can do so "resume your ancient and first innocence since it is in your power to do so; go into the woods.:
But Rousseau cannot do so: "As for men like myself, whose passions have forever destroyed their original simplicity, who can no longer subsist on grass and acorns, nor do without Laws or Chiefs … "
He seems to elevate civilized man over natural man here. He describes natural man as "you to whom the celestial voice has not made itself heard" and that "the divine voice called all Mankind to the enlightenment and the happiness of the celestial Intelligences." Civilized man is given morality, supernatural lessons from their "first father" (adam?) and also they have the possibility of heaven: "by practicing the virtues … to deserve the eternal prize."
Of course good society is rare and few between but Rousseau does acknowledge its possibility: " they will honor above al the good and wise Princes who wil know how ot forestall, cure, and palliate the host of abuses and of evils that are forever ready to overwhelm us." But even in such a society (being more consistent with rest of the Essay) there "always arise more real calamities than apparent advantages."
Question: this seems to be a massive benefit of civilized man over natural man that Rousseau does not mention anywhere else (namely the promise of eternal life). Can we say that the average savage is better but the best is to be a perfected civilized man for even if his worldly life is still worse he has the promise of eternal life?
"Savage Man, left by Nature to bare instinct alone … '
Summarizing what we have concluded so far. Man starts off with the bare minimum senses, to will and not to will, to desire and to fear. These are the only operations in the "first state."
"Regardless of what the Moralists may say about it … "
There is a reciprocal relationship between knowledge and passions.
We are only impelled to know because of passions (not the passion to know but the passion of others things like food and shelter which requires knowledge to be satisfied).
Passions are separated into two kinds. Originally there are just needs (sex, shelter, food) and then there is the complement set. You can only have passion (desire/aversion) for something if you know about it. So as knowledge expands, so do the passions. E.g. Think to the menswear collector who can tell the subtle difference between different types of yarn. This will critically be an important argument against reason and the expansion of knowledge.
Savage man has no enlightenment/knowledge so he only has his needs in view.
He is not even fearful of his death. Animals cannot comprehend their own death.
"If I had to do so … "
Natural endowments are proportioned by nature according to what a people need. E.g. Northerners are more industrious than those who live in the abundance of the equador because they had to be.
"Nature wanted in this way to equalize things, by endowing Minds with the fertility it denies the Soil."
"But without resorting … "
Savage man's passions are so limited and easily satisfied that there is no knowledge nor even foresight. The world appears plain to him as nature just cycles again and again. He barely has a conception of the future.
"The more one meditates on this subject … "
Even what we consider to be the most primitive and simplest forms of knowledge are so far removed from this early state.
Must've taken centuries to master fire and, even then, have the skill lost many times.
Agriculture can only exist outside the state of nature. Not only does it require knowledge and tools, but also a division of land to protect one's yields.
"Even if we should wish to suppose a Savage … "
That's to say nothing of a more advanced art. Even if there were a philosopher, his philosophy would be useless, would be lost in one generation, and he'd barely meet anyone whom he could pass it onto.
"If one considers …"
So much of civilization is dependent on the use of speech. Yet the invention of languages must have cost thousands of centuries. That is how primitive and barren the savage's life is when compared to ours.
"Let me be allowed briefly to consider … "
Divergence into the origin of languages. Question: is this of any significance?
Rousseau is considering that in this hypothetical state of nature there is no nuclear family. Individuals are roaming around. Males mate with females and leave. Females raise the child.
In this world, language is created between mother and child. In fact, it is the child who dictates the language because it is the child who has the need. In such a world, languages will multiple to the number of mother-child pairs.
"Let us suppose this first difficulty overcome … "
Even if we ignore this first difficulty about the multiplicity of languages. The more curious thing is how is language that points at non-sensible things (such as ideas) developed.
Question: is the faculty at issue here abstraction or rhetoric?
"Man's first language … "
The first language, the "cry of nature" was reserved for extreme and urgent opportunities.
It's only when men gathered together (and had much more to share and express) that not only did language become more expressive but tonality and gestures entered into the picture.
"It would seem that the first words … "
Words were all mushed together in the beginning.
It was a development that introduced subject and predicate, verb and noun. Adjectives in particular are difficult because adjectives are, by nature, abstractions.
"Each object was at first given a particular name … "
Without developed faculties of thought (to find essences, differences, similarities) one Oak would be called A and another would be called B, words would proliferate.
"Besides, general ideas can enter the Mind only with the help of words … "
General ideas can only be facilitated by words.
To imagine something is to render it particular (one cannot imagine the form of a triangle but can imagine a triangle)
Rousseau concludes that the first words are always about particulars and not general ideas. The argument is that you can only give names to an idea you already have. Since the idea you already have cannot be a general one (because you need words and propositions to conceive of it), the first words must be substantives, names for particulars.
"But when, by means which I cannot conceive … "
When the process of generalization began, the process went too far. They began over generalizing because comprehending the minute differences took more work and capacity than they had/were willing. Instead, they judged by first impression.
The most general notions like "matter" also alluded them for they still allude us today.
"I pause after these first steps … "
Rousseau is transitioning away from origin of language.
What he wants to show is that we've barely gotten basic nouns and how far we still have to go before we get to anywhere near the capacity we have now with numbers, abstractions, verbs, propositions, and logic.
He suggests that it is unlikely that language could have arisen by purely human means. He remains agnostic to the "most difficult" question about which was needed first language or society.
"Whatever may be the case regarding these origins … "
The key point Rousseau wants to draw out is that, in the state of nature, Men do not have many mutual needs and don't even have language well developed. Natural man is not social. "Indeed, it is impossible to imagine why, in that primitive state, a man would need another man any more than a monkey or a Wolf would need his kind, or, assuming this need, to imagine what motives could induce the other to attend to it, or even, if he did, how they might agree on terms."
The common belief that such a man is miserable is completely wrong. He is good in health and free. Civil man commits suicide, savage man never does.
It is a blessing that nature did not give him too much, so that his capacities won't be superfluous.
"It would at first seem that men in that state … "
Without society, it appears, that men cannot be good nor wicked, with vices nor virtues.
We should measure civilized man against natural man to see whether the goods they lack are made up for or not by the harms they avoid.
"Above all, let us not conclude with Hobbes … "
Let's not draw the Hobbesian conclusion that the absence of good in natural man is a presence of wrong. Just because he has no IDEA of goodness, that he cannot articulate what virtue is, that he does not believe in obligation, does not mean he is wicked. Just the opposite, Rousseau claims the state of nature is the state in which self-preservation is least harmful to others (because it is the least social).
The issue with Hobbes is that he only thinks the state of nature is so antagonistic because he projects tendencies only developed in society (Glory, Reason).
It is because and not despite that savages do not know what is good (and, thus, what is evil) that they are NOT wicked. It is not enlightenment nor law that curbs people from evil-doing but 1. not having inflamed passions 2. an ignorance of vice that keeps them from evil-doing. "So much more does the ignorance of vice profit these than the knowledge of virtue profits those."
There is another human capacity that curbs one's own desires for self-preservation and amour-propre (remember, this is a constructed drive).
He calls Mandeville "the great detractor of human virtues" but says even he was forced to acknowledge pity.
Note XV, the defining characteristic of the state of nature is that Amour-propre does not exist. "in the genuine state of nature, Amour propre does not exist;"
"Such is the pure movement of Nature … "
Even those with depraved morals have a strong impulse of natural pity. The tyrant Alexander of Pherae "dared not attend the performance of a single tragedy for fear that he might be seen to moan with Andromache and Priam" even though he was ok with the cries of his citizens being murdered.
"Mandeville clearly sensed that … "
Pity lies at the core of the other social virtues. Generosity is pity for the weak, clemency for the guilty, humanity for the species in general. Benevolence and friendship are pity pushed to its logical conclusion (not just the removal of suffering but the engendering of happiness).
Pity is obscure but lively in savage man … developed but weak in civil man.
Pity is all the more stronger when one identifies with the suffering being.
It is reason that engenders amour propre and reflection that reinforces it.
Important: reason is not that which motivates to help others but that which creates excuses not to: "reason that turns man back upon himself; reason that separates him from everything that troubles and afflicts him: It is Philosophy that isolates him; by means of Philosophy he secretly says, at the sight of a suffering man, perish if you wish, I am safe. One of his kind can with impunity be murdered beneath his window; he only has to put his hands over his ears and to argue with himself a little in order to prevent Nature, which rebels within him, from letting him identify with the man being assassinated. Savage man has not this admirable talent, and for want of wisdom and of reason he is always seen to yield impetuously to the first sentiment of Humanity. In Riots, in Street-brawls, the Populace gathers, the prudent man withdraws; it is the rabble,"
"It is therefore quite certain that pity … "
It is pity, not reason that moderates self-love in the state of nature.
The "sublime maxim" of reasoned justice is do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
The natural maxim that is less perfect but more useful is: do your good with the least possible harm to others. This is what pity motivates.
It is natural sentiment rather than in subtle arguments that has prevented evil-doing.
Clearly, Rousseau believes reason can motivate moral behavior. But that it is really difficult and of the rarest minds who become virtuous through reason.
"With such sluggish passions and such a salutary curb … "
Rousseau's state of nature paints man as simple. Not only are there few passions (desire for vengeance, esteem, etc.) there's also few contact that would inflame those passions.
Disputes, as rare as they were, would even-rarer lead to bloodshed.
"Among the passions that stir man's heart … "
The only immodest passion in the state of nature seems to be lust. It is a passion that "terrible passion that braves all dangers, overcomes all obstacles, and in its frenzy seems liable ca destroy Mankind which it is destined to preserve."
"It has to be granted from the first … "
The common knowledge is that violent passions require laws to contain them.
Rousseau suggests that laws are inadequate because, clearly, there are crimes and disorders all around us. Furthermore, we should inquire whether these disorders did not arise with Laws themselves.
"Let us begin by distinguishing the moral from the physical … "
There is the physical sentiment of love, which is the raw sexual desire for mating in general. And then there are moral sentiments which intensify the love, focus it on a single object; it is ultimately factitious.
The savage is motivated only by the physical and not moral. Rousseau concludes that the savage is equally happy to mate with any woman.
"Limited to the physical … "
Rousseau paints this peaceful picture. Without this moral force of love there is much less quarrel. "Everyone peacefully awaits the impulsion of Nature."
"It is therefore indisputable that love itself … "
The Caribs (people from Caribbean?) who are closest to state of nature show that they are least given to jealousy in their love life and nowhere near as quarrelsome.
"Regarding the inferences that might be drawn … "
We should not look at animals who fight until they are bloody and conclude that is what the natural state of mating is. We are different in that 1. females generally exceed number of males 2. our females do not have a minor window of heat followed by a long period of rejection. These are the two causes of bloody battles amongst males.
It is civilization that wreaks havoc. This theme of law and morality causing its opposite arises again "where the duty of eternal fidelity only makes for adulteries, and where even the Laws of continence and of honor inevitably increase debauchery, and multiply abortions."
Question: what are the pathways where morality leads to debauchery? One is that they are conjoined with other aspects of civilization which cause it (not causal, relational). Another one is that they directly cause it by giving people notions of right and wrong. Tree of knowledge of good and evil.
"Let us conclude that … "
Summary of what we've covered so far. Natural man lived in an isolated (even from children) environment with relatively few passions.
He could not communicate his inventions even if he did invent something and centuries went by without anything changes.
"If I have dwelt at such length … "
Rousseau has only inquired to the very origin because he needed to show how little people were unequal (even natural inequality).
"Indeed it is easy to see that … "
What appear to be natural differences are often social differences. Sturdy or delicate temperament is less innate than informed by upbringing. The strength of mind would be another example, formed through cultivation.
"But even if Nature displayed … "
Even if nature did give people disproportionate talents, Men would have no use of them for they are isolated. No need for beauty or love, no need for wit or charm. Because they are so isolated.
 In this state, its not clear what oppression/subjection even means … How do you subject someone in the state of nature? It would take more work than doing the work yourself. What Rousseau wants to show is how certain aspects of what we consider to be natural relations to actually be artificial ones. Reminds me of Graeber's critique of the free market and that its not at all what people do when they are left alone.
"Without needlessly drawing out these details … "
Rousseau wants to show that the precondition of servitude is dependence. If you don’t need other men to survive, you always have the option of running away.
"Having proved that Inequality is scarcely perceptible … "
He has shown so far that inequality is scarcely perceptible in the state of nature.
He has also shown that there is little reason to develop the faculties of man (even say language).
It is only by the rarest of causes occurring together that humans "progressed" but this progression "perfected human reason while deteriorating the species, made a being wicked by making it sociable."
"I admit that since the events … "
The path that Rousseau is about to trace could have happened in multiple ways.
He can choose the right path only on conjectures. But these conjectures are the only means to discover the truth however, the conclusions from these conjectures will not be conjectural! That is because any of the paths that Rousseau is about to trace will lead to the same conclusions.
"This will exempt me from expanding … "
Rousseau's method prevents him from explaining:
How unlikely things can happen over long periods of time.
How small causes have great effects over long periods of time
How one can reject hypotheses without appealing to facts
How in the absence of history it is philosophy to connect the dots between facts. This is exactly what Rousseau was doing. Taking the latest empirical research and trying to draw connections. Question: what happens when that empirical research gets overturned?
Part II
"The first man who …"
"The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, to whom it occurred to say this is mine, and found people sufficiently simple to believe him, was the true founder of civil society. How many crimes, wars, murders, how many miseries and horrors Mankind would have been spared by him who, pulling up the stakes or filling in the ditch, had cried out to his kind: Beware of listening to this impostor; You are lost if you forget that the fruits are everyone's and the Earth no one's."
However, Rousseau suggests that at this moment, it was already too late to stop private property because it required the support of a whole host of developments that preceded it. His task now is to trace those preceding developments.
"Man's first sentiment was that of his existence … "
Restating part one. The primary concern was his own existence. His appetites were animal. "Even the child no longer meant anything to the Mother as soon as it could do without her."
"Such was the condition of nascent man … "
Natural man had to train his body and develop tooling to compete with other animals.
"In proportion as Mankind spread … "
The amount of difficulties facing man multiplied as the number of men multiplied. Not because of competition but because of new challenges faced in new terrain/climate/seasons. They had to invent proper tooling fitting for the environment and learned to master fire.
"This repeated interaction of the various beings … "
He began developing relational understanding of himself and animals as well as the relations of animals with each other: great, small, strong, weak, etc.
This is the development of amour-propre? Relational thinking? Interesting that the initial development of relationality is through animals.
"The new enlightenment that resulted … "
With this new understanding, man learned to build traps and trick animals. He became master to those that were useful and a scourge to those that are harmful.
This is where pride was first aroused. It is through relations with animals. It is because he thought of himself as first among species that born the desire to be first among man.
"This is how his first look at himself aroused the first movement of pride in him; this is how, while as yet scarcely able to discriminate ranks, and considering himself in the first rank as a species, he was from afar preparing to claim first rank as an individual."
"Although others of his kind were not for him … "
He started observing other humans (who were more distant for him than the animals). And he witnessed their way of thinking and feeling corresponded to his own.
Just as he predicted the behavior of animals to protect his own self-interests, he did the same with these humans.
"Taught by experience … "
He learned that self-interest is the sole motivator of human actions.
In the occasions where interests with others aligned, he joined them in free association which evaporated as soon as the needs were gone.
In the even more rare instances where interests diverged, he used force or cunning.
"This is how men might imperceptibly have acquired … "
This is the early developments of mutual engagements and obligations.
It was immediate interest that tied them together. The bounds were extremely fickle as soon as immediate interest changed.
"It is easy to understand that such dealings … "
The language required at this stage is no more developed than the shouts of animals that communicated key and important information.
"This initial progress finally enabled man … "
This initial progress (working together & basic language) set the stage for more rapid progress in industry.
This enabled people to make tools that would create permanent settlements in the form of huts.
Huts enabled establishment and differentiation of families, this was the first sort of property.
People didn’t really fight over these huts because it risked a fight and because there was plenty of space available.
"The first developments of the heart … "
The nuclear family formed and it caused "the sweetest sentiments known to man" conjugal love and paternal love.
This stage of family was a small society and a good once because "mutual attachment and freedom were its only bonds."
A division of labor occurred where men hunted and women became sedentary. Both of the sexes lost their ferociousness and vigor.
"In this new state … "
Man also gained leisure which he used to acquire conveniences unknown to their ancestors.
These became the "first yoke," the "first source of evils" that was prepared for their descendants.
This is because these conveniences became habitual and thus ceased to be enjoyable but degenerated into true needs. Ie. To lose them was painful more than to possess them was sweet.
"Here one gets a somewhat better view of how the use of speech … "
This is a tangent paragraph (?) on Rousseau's theory of how language was first developed on islands instead of the continent.
"Everything begins to change in appearance … "
"nations" (more accurately, tribes) start forming bounded not by law but by custom.
Young people living in adjoined huts start forming families.
Comparison starts forming: "they grow accustomed to attend to different objects and to make comparisons; imperceptibly they acquire ideas of merit and of beauty which produce sentiments of preference."
They become thoroughly social: "The more they see one another, the less they can do without seeing one another more."
Jealousies start forming and discord happens.
Rousseau concludes "the gentlest of all passions receives sacrifices of human blood."
"As ideas and sentiments succeed one another … "
This is the key part.
Leisure gave rose to amusement and communal time where the necessities of survival were not the most demanding tasks at hand.
The gaze, that's what got us. That's where everything started to go wrong: "Everyone began to look at everyone else and to wish to be looked at himself, and public esteem acquired a price. The one who sang or danced best; the handsomest, the strongest, the most skillful, or the most eloquent came to be the most highly regarded, and this was the first step at once toward inequality and vice: [so] from these first preferences arose vanity and contempt on the one hand, shame and envy on the other; and the fermentation caused by these new leavens eventually produced compounds fatal to happiness and innocence."
"As soon as men had begun to appreciate one another …"
Sociality "appreciating one another" itself is the problem, because that meant appreciating/giving weight to what they thought.
From this point on a "wrong" became an "afront" where the contempt was more unbearable than the harm.
This created vengeance and bloodthirst.
It is at this point that most of the "savages" Europeans met were developed to. This is why people concluded that natural man was brutish.
Rousseau argues that this is completely wrong and reiterates his claim that there is no one more gentle than the man in the primitive state of nature. "For, according to the axiom of the wise Locke, 'Where there is no property, there can be no injury.'"
"But it should be noted that … "
In this state morality was just forming.
Punishments had to be more severe in proportion to opportunities to offend becoming more frequent. Law was taken into one's own hands. Everyone was sole judge and avenger.
Rousseau considers this the happy medium between the "indolence" of the primitive state and the "petulant activity" of ours.
It is best because it is least subject to revolutions, the best for man.
Rousseau suggests that the fact we find all the "savages" in this state means that Mankind was made to remain in it, it is the "youth of the World." This is his hypothetical history, to fill in the blanks so to speak.
Progress since this state is "toward the perfection of the individual, and in effect toward the decrepitude of the species."
Question: didn't Rousseau just suggest this state is why so many philosophers falsely conclude natural man is violent and cruel? Answer: They are more cruel than primitive state, maybe more cruel than us too, but its not their lack of cruelty that, for Rousseau, makes them the best but the lack of amour-propre being fully inflamed. That cruelty is a tradeoff and it is a worthy one.
"So long as men were content with their rustic huts … "
In so far as men were doing tasks that a single individual could perform all was well and the interactions were cordial.
Everything went downhill when one man needed the help of another; when one person found it useful to have the supplies of two. QUESTION: there seem to be two things here that are unrelated. One is collaboration in work. Another is desire to acquire more. Not sure how these are supposed to be related? ANSWER: I suppose what unites them is dependence. Either in desiring more in needing help of others.
This paved the way immediately to private property, slavery and misery.
Private property is something that stems out of self-interest and which inflames it.
"Metallurgy and agriculture were the two arts … "
Iron and wheat civilized man. They are absent in the "Savages of America" encountered by Europeans.
"It is very difficult to conjecture … "
Impossible that people decided to do the laborious process of iron production without a result in mind.
Even more impossible that some accidental fire created the first mine.
A volcano throwing up molten metal must be best guess.
Another example that Rousseau is trying to pursue a history with the limited means at his disposal.
"As for agriculture, its principle was known … "
The principle of agriculture (sowing seeds) was much easier to know but natural man had little incentivize to do so for a long time. Hunting and gathering was much more natural.
"The Invention of the other arts was therefore necessary … "
The other arts such as metallurgy was necessary to the development of agriculture 1. some people had to be full time ironsmiths which means we needed to increase output of food (demand) 2. iron tools made it possible to do agriculture efficiently (supply).
"From the cultivation of land … "
Agriculture created private property as well as foresight (a key capacity the Savage is supposed to lack is ability to think in the future. He can barely anticipate what he wants in the evening, recall Rousseau's description of the man selling his bed in the morning only to despair at night. It is crucially only with agriculture is this faculty developed).
Private property and foresight (anticipation of harm) created laws.
Echoing Locke (and anticipating Marx), Rousseau sees labor as the only thing by which man can turn something into property (descriptively). So the right of property was born which is different from natural law.
"Things in this state could have remained equal … "
In this state, equality could have been maintained. Only if the needs and capacities of each were perfectly equal.
Since they never are, natural inequalities became magnified.
Question: would Rousseau consider this justified? That the stronger plowman got more iron and owned more food?
"Things having reached this point, it is easy to imagine the rest … "
A brief skim of the other developments hinted at already: invention of the other arts, progress of languages, inequalities of fortune etc.
He wants to focus on who Man has become in this new state.
"Here, then, are all our faculties developed ... "
In civilization a whole set of unnecessary needs were inflamed. Even the people at the top are enslaved while becoming the master. "Rich, he needs their services; poor, he needs their help, and moderate means do not enable him to do without them."
The only way man can satisfy needs is by making others "consider" him, to attract consideration. And the only by doing this is in appearance and not in being. So civilized man is always pretending.
Ambition arises, and this ambition is relative: as much about dragging down others as it is about improving oneself.
"Before its representative signs were invented … "
In the beginning of civilization (before the status symbols), wealth consisted in just land and livestock. Once mankind owned everything the only way to gain was to plunder away from someone else.
Powerful language: "like those ravenous wolves which once they have tasted human flesh scorn all other food, and from then on want to devour only men."
"Thus, as the most powerful … "
Breakdown of equality created the most frightful disorder. The strong challenging the occupant, the poor tugging against the rich, wars ensued -- this is what debases and devastates humanity.
"It is not possible that men … "
This is the invention of the state.
The rich realized that this war is … unequal … everyone was risking their life but only the rich were also risking their property.
The rich realized that since they acquired it by force, force alone was what was defending their wealth.
Even if it is won by hard-earned industry, Rousseau still thinks it violates natural right: "Do you not know that a great many of your brothers perish or suffer from need of what you have in excess, and that you required the express and unanimous consent of Humankind to appropriate for yourself anything from the common subsistence above and beyond your own?"
More importantly, he realized he would be overwhelmed by the poor. So, instead, what the rich did was that they invented maxims and other institutions that were favorable for them to keep a disproportionate share. "As favorable to himself as natural Right was contrary to him."
"To this end, after exhibiting to his neighbors … "
The rich creates institutions that purport to benefit everyone and to protect the weak from oppression while restraining the ambitious.
It also imposes mutual duties upon both powerful and weak.
"Much less than the equivalent … "
Most people were easily convinced because they wanted an arbiter so that they can pursue industry for greed and ambition.
"All ran toward their chains in the belief that they were securing their freedom."
The only people who could see their abuses were the ones who set up the system wanting to abuse it.
Even the wise saw it as a tradeoff, that they were giving something up but getting something meaningful in return.
"Such was, or must have been, the origin of society and of laws … "
Through institutions, laws, maxims …
Natural freedom was destroyed
Inequality was justified
Transformed skillful usurpation into an irrevocable right (best examples of this would be conquest)
One single united society like this made the establishment of others indispensable (because the only way to stand up to such a society is being one yourself).
Soon, the earth was covered with societies, and freedom was lost.
"The Bodies Politic thus remaining in the state of Nature … "
Out of this came the first National Wars and martial virtues that praised killing.
"I know that some have attributed other origins … "
Rousseau here is trying to dismiss other competing theories of how a state was formed.
Conquest by the powerful: there is no "right of conquest." if that is all there is then societies will be in turmoil. The conquered must, in some sense, choose the conqueror. Mere surrender is not enough to create laws and society.
Union of the weak (conquest of the weak): this is the wrong frame to think about it (strong/weak) instead we should think about rich/poor because before the establishing of government all you have is property. In this model, the poor have nothing but their freedom and are giving it up voluntarily. This makes no sense so it has to come from the rich. The rich could have been so easily hurt and so they invented the state to protect themselves.
"Nascent Government had not constant and regular form … "
Early government was a trial and error approach.
Time revealed the flaws of early government and people didn't really know what they were doing.
It would have been better, once time revealed a flaw, to purge the structure and start afresh, but the process, instead, was iterative. (Revolutionary tendencies?)
Initially there were a few general conventions but that didn't prove enough to stop the tide of violations.
Then came the (wrong) decision to trust public authority in the hands of private individuals (magistrates and the like). The key thing here is that judges did not come before laws nor politicians societies.
"It would be no more reasonable to believe … "
People chose a chief to protect their freedoms and things constitutive to their being.
Rousseau sees the fundamental maxim of all Political Right that the duty of the Chief is to defend his subjects' freedom.
"Politicians propound the same sophisms about the love of freedom … "
Politicians and philosophers judge too quickly that man does not really want to be free based on the people in servitude before their eyes.
They fail to realize that freedom, like innocence and virtue are goods one only has a taste for when one embodies them. E.g. in a state of lack, one loses the taste.
"As an untamed Steed bristles its mane … "
This paragraph is an elaboration of the previous. That civilized man has lacked even the taste of freedom. Beautiful language:
"As an untamed Steed bristles its mane, stamps the ground with its hoof, and struggles impetuously at the very sight of the bit, while a trained horse patiently suffers whip and spur, so barbarous man will not bend his head to the yoke which civilized man bears without a murmur, and he prefers the most tempestuous freedom to a tranquil subjection. Man's natural dispositions for or against servitude therefore have to be judged not by the degradation of enslaved Peoples but by the prodigious feats of all free Peoples to guard against oppression. I know that the former do nothing but incessantly boast of the peace and quiet they enjoy in their chains, and that they call the most miserable servitude peace: but when I see the others sacrifice pleasures, rest, wealth, power, and life itself for the sake of preserving this one good which those who have lost it hold in such contempt; when I see Animals born free and abhorring captivity smash their heads against the bars of their prison; when I see multitudes of completely naked Savages scorn European voluptuousness and brave hunger, fire, the sword, and death in order to preserve nothing but their independence, I feel that it is not for Slaves to reason about freedom."
"As for Paternal authority … "
Absolute government is not justified by the idea of paternal authority projected onto the state. Because paternal authority is gentle, done for the sake of the child, and giving material aid to the child. Despotism is just the opposite.
"If one continued thus to examine the facts in terms of Right … "
One cannot enter into a contract/vote in an absolute tyrant anymore than one can sell oneself into slavery.
Such a contract is one sided and only obliges one of the parties.
Rousseau gestures at arguments that you can't sell your life because you are not the master of it (presumable god is) and that to sell your freedom, your most precious asset, you would go down to the level of a beast. But he simply asks how can you also sell the freedom of your progeny which you clearly have no ownership over.
A good state is one where the prince too obeys the law.
"Pufendorf says that just as one transfers one's goods … "
The analogy that because one can alienate one's goods to another, so too can one alienate one's freedom is a bad one.
Goods can be alienated, its not clear what it means to alienate your freedom.
Right of property is by convention only, right of nature is not.
It's fine to deprive your children of inheritance because it was your goods to give to them. Their freedom is not your good to take away.
"It therefore seems to me certain … "
He wants to suggest that governments did not begin by arbitrary power and even if they did it cannot be the grounding for why they exist.
"Without at present entering into the inquiries … "
Rousseau wants to consider the formation of society as a contract between the people and magistrates.
This contract is between the People (who unites their wills into one) and compensates as well as obliges the magistrates to act in service of this will.
"Before experience had shown or knowledge of the human heart … "
Prima facie, before the abuses were obvious, it appeared good that the people who were tasked with preserving the institution relied on its preservation for their own power and authority.
"If one but paused to reflect about it attentively … "
Because there is no overarching authority between magistrates and people, each side of it can and has the right to renounce the control and dissolve the state.
This power is so dangerous that it is good for divinity/religion to add a sacred and inviolable character to the magistrate. If religion performed this one task it would more than make up for all its other abuses.
"The different forms of governments … "
Different constitutions formed from the different capacities and how far they were from state of nature.
The closest to state of nature formed democracy; if there is a group that stands above the rest, aristocracy; if a single person, monarchy.
Some of these were just subject to laws others were enslaved. The former wanted to preserve their freedom, the latter wanted to rob the former of it.
"In these various Governments … "
Governments were initially elected. When it wasn't wealth that was the deciding factor it was merit and age.
The more you elect old men, the more frequent elections became and the more unsettled the state became.
After civil war, strong men attempted to establish dynastic rule. This is how we went from elected to dynastic succession.
"If we follow the progress of inequality … "
Rousseau is now getting the timeline straight since he seems to have jumped around. Each of these is another stage of inequality.
First came law and property. (rich over poor was authorized)
Then came magistrates. (powerful over weak was authorized)
Conversion of legitimate to arbitrary power. (master over slave was authorized)
Revolutions happen to bring about legitimate institutions or anarchy.
Perhaps this is how to make sense of the question is there legitimate political power. There is from perspective of Political Right but not Natural Right. The former, even in the best case, is a violation of (or, weaker, not confirmed by) the latter.
This is Rousseau's degeneration of states.
"To understand the necessity … "
To see that this direction of progress is necessary we need to remember that the same vices which make social institutions necessary make their abuse inevitable. That is to say the same reasons you would need law (to prevent people from stealing) will corrupt law (someone "stealing" the supreme court for example).
Laws do not change the character of people (except for in Sparta, where Laws were aimed at children's education).
This is why degeneration is inevitable, that the same vices will corrode the institutions that were meant to protect them (Amazon minimum wage example).
"Political distinctions necessarily bring about … "
Political distinctions create civil distinctions. Chiefs soon became more than just citizens.
Chiefs can only so easily usurp power and convince people to give up their freedom because they were ambitious and saw that they could takeaway the freedom of others. "It is very difficult to reduce to obedience someone who does not seek to command, and the cleverest Politician would never succeed in subjugating men whose only wish was to be Free."
"If this were the place to go into details … "
As soon as individuals are gathered in one society. They are forced to compare themselves and make distinctions between each other because they need to "use" each other.
There are many distinctions one can make: wealth, rank, power, and personal merit. You can tell by the interplay of these four forces whether a society is well-run or not. And you can tell by which distinction a society gives priority to how far they've fallen from the original constitution.
Personal merit, power, rank, and wealth represents an increase in the transmutability of goods. You can't directly trade your ability to sing for much, but you can trade it for wealth. The fact that the world is becoming more exchangeable. Things are becoming instrumentalized and financialized marks a corruption. Because, perhaps, it means you cannot escape prestige.
The idea might be this: you can't express everything in life as a function of how good a singer you are, but you can express almost everything in life as a function of $USD. I can look at a song and think, $5M in royalties and that can be my basis of comparison to something else.
LECTURE: Go through our fundamental capacities of comparison, distinction, language. And how it is related to AP.
One of the most important passages "I would show how much this universal desire for reputation, honors, and preferment which consumes us all exercises and compares talents and strengths, how much it excites and multiplies the passions and, in making all men competitors, rivals, or rather enemies, how many reverses, how many successes, how many catastrophes of every kind it daily causes by leading so many Contenders to enter the same lists: I would show that it is to this ardor to be talked about, to this frenzy to achieve distinction which almost always keeps us outside ourselves, that we owe what is best and what is worst among men, our virtues and our vices, our Sciences and our errors, our Conquerors and our Philosophers, that is to say a multitude of bad things for a small number of good things."
What's important is not just for you to win but for others to lose, it becomes wholely relative "Finally, I would prove that if one sees a handful of powerful and rich men at the pinnacle of greatness and fortune while the masses grovel in obscurity and misery, it is because the former value the things they enjoy only to the extent that the others are deprived of them, and they would cease to be happy if, without any change in their own state, the People ceased to be miserable."
"But these details alone … "
Revolutions will necessarily be brought about in the Governments of the world because of these inequalities.
Governments will become more and more oppressive and freedoms will gradually die out.
As part of this oppression "One would see as a result taxes become necessary."
"From the extreme inequality of conditions and fortunes … "
The extreme inequality, diversity of passions, and multitude of frivolous arts would give rise to prejudices contrary to reason, happiness, and virtue.
Leaders will do anything to weaken and sow discord into their followers all while making it seem like concord (to make them easier to rule).
"From amidst this disorder and these revolutions … "
Despotism will rise and get away any structures like law.
There will be no more chiefs or laws and only Tyrants, nor will there be honesty or virtue.
"Here is the last stage of inequality … "
We have returned full circle, much like the beginning
The people are all equal. They are equal in their nothingness.
They are motivated by nothing other than the passions (in this case the master's passions).
There is no longer notions of good and evil.
The law of the stronger takes foot and we return to a state of nature
The despot will be removed by a stronger despot and it will be a perpetual state of revolutions (almost like the change of the seasons).
"In thus discovering and retracing … "
This is a key paragraph with unbelievable language.
There is a wide gulf between civil man and natural man.
It is in this gulf, in the changing of civilizations that people will find the solution to key philosophical questions "It is in this slow succession of things that he will find the solution to an infinite number of problems of ethics and of Politics which Philosophers are unable to solve … the Mankind of one age is not the Mankind of another age."
The answer to why these perennial questions of philosophy are so difficult and perplexing is because man changes, his nature and desires.
Natural man, much closer to the animal is the sober one. Civilized man is the mad man: "the Citizen, forever active, sweats, scurries, constantly agonizes in search of ever more strenuous occupations: he works to the death, even rushes toward it in order to be in a position to live, or renounces life in order to acquire immortality. He courts the great whom he hates, and the rich whom he despises; he spares nothing to attain the honor of serving them; he vaingloriously boasts of his baseness and of their protection and, proud of his slavery, he speaks contemptuously of those who have not the honor of sharing it."
The issue is that sociable man has inflamed amour-propre. What beautiful language: "the Savage lives within himself; sociable man, always outside himself, is capable of living only in the opinion of others and, so to speak, derives the sentiment of his own existence solely from their judgment. It is not part of my subject to show how such a disposition engenders so much indifference to good and evil together with such fine discourses on morality; how everything being reduced to appearances, everything becomes factitious and play-acting: honor, friendship, virtue, and often even vices in which one at length discovers the secret of glorying; how, in a word, forever asking of others what we are, without ever daring to ask it of ourselves, in the midst of so much Philosophy, humanity, politeness, and Sublime maxims, we have nothing more than a deceiving and frivolous exterior, honor without virtue, reason without wisdom, and pleasure without happiness."
"I have tried to give an account … "
Rousseau here is giving a positive answer to the essay question.
The origin of inequality "owes its force and growth to the development of our faculties and the progress of the human Mind".
The foundation of inequality "finally becomes stable and legitimate by the establishment of property and Laws."
Moral inequality is not justified whenever it is not directly proportional to physical inequality.