![origin graphing and analysis origin graphing and analysis](https://cyberbump.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/1639021335_maxresdefault.jpg)
Hobbes argues that natural man is violent and aggressive. By cultivating his body, he became self-sufficient, and had no need of technology.
![origin graphing and analysis origin graphing and analysis](http://cloud.originlab.com/www/products/images/Johnny_graph.png)
Strong children survived, and became stronger, while the weak perished. Men were physically strong, and adapted to their environment. In nature, there was food and shelter everywhere.īy having to survive, find food, and rest, men had no chance to become unhappy.
![origin graphing and analysis origin graphing and analysis](https://www.originlab.com/images/WikiWeb/Origin_page/Product_Page_Graphing05.png)
In Rousseau’s view, man is the advantageous animal, physically capable of satisfying his hunger, his thirst, and finding rest. For the sake of his experiment, Rousseau will assume that man, such as we are interested in him, ahs always physically existed as he has. Rousseau begins by stating that he will not describe man’s development out of the animal kingdom, or describe man’s literal origins, as, say, Aristotle has. Rousseau intends to imagine man as he must naturally be, before he has been “corrupted” by education-the age at which he would have wanted to stop. What will follow, he asserts, is a kind of thought experiment. Rousseau asserts that the “facts” of man as he was in nature, that is, before society, are beside the point, since they are unknowable. By describing natural man as greedy or violent, philosophers often simply project an image of man as he is now in society back into an earlier era. Rousseau observes that the philosophers of his time have speculated what the first, “natural” men were like, as to whether they were just, and have spoken about the “natural” rights of man-to property, say-without figuring out how notions of justice and property could have come about in nature. How is it that the strong serve the weak? The question that Rousseau identifies instead is how nature became subject to law and convention, and natural inequalities were replaced by moral ones. Rousseau observes that it is a matter of self-evidence that there is no connection between the two, since it is rare that the most powerful and wealthy are also the same as the most deserving, and clarifies that that is not his question. Natural inequality comes, as the term suggests, from nature. The second consists of what Rousseau calls “moral” inequality-the kind that comes from “mores,” or social conventions. The first consists of physical inequality, the power of the strong over the weak, the fast over the slow, the young over the old, and so on. Rousseau prefaces his inquiry by distinguishing between two kinds of inequality.