Analysis Of Rousseau's Discourse Of Inequality

In a Discourse of Inequality, Rousseau tries to understand where inequality falls in nature. To examine such, one must first comprehend the nature within men that is the true essence of man. Rousseau examines man at its purest form, to differentiate between the natural inequalities established by nature, and the moral inequalities established by mankind itself. Rousseau argues that mankind’s downfall began with the departure out of man’s natural state of nature, but it is freedom and time together that will open doors to mankind’s misfortune and lead man’s perfectibility to misery. Rousseau uses "hypothetical and conditional reasonings" (First Part 294) to give imagery of what man in a natural state is, one who is solitaire, free and independent, whom lives in the present with no perception of the past. Natural man’s main concern is self-preservation, and although natural inequalities such as age and strength exist, they are balanced by their natural compassion. Natural man’s basic needs were the only desires, and all three; food, sex, and rest were satisfied in abundance at such state, making natural inequalities harmless. One must question what differentiates man from animal at natural state, and that is that although savage, unlike animal, man is free from the slavery of instinct. It is man’s perfectibility that allows him to adapt, change and ultimately build reason. As nature unfolded, so did man. As they adapted to natures change, a change of their own occurred and with
I can agree that natural man in its natural essence would be fulfilled in such natural state, but the realization of a just society can be so near natural state, as it is impossible because it hasn’t existed in history. And even if it did, it is nature that turns itself and unfolds