Kant And Rousseau On Human Nature

The development of philosophical ideas requires an understanding of contemporary thought and can be applied to science and humanities, along with morals and politics. Human nature is the basic substance shared by human beings, and is thus important in making sense of society and all its complexities along with the individual man and his liberties. Two prominent philosophers, Rousseau and Kant, express conjectures on human nature in their essays. Rousseau focuses on man in the untainted state of nature. He believes that the lack of knowledge and morality in savage man is better than the evils resulting from social inequalities, insisting a shift towards what once was in the state of nature will reduce debauchery by ensuring innocence and virtue.
Though both Rousseau and Kant realize the progression of society is unavoidable, they differ on whether the collective change that ensues is positive or negative. Kant has a different character; he looks to the future and concludes society will progressively improve to be sovereign and peaceful, denoting perfectibility, a concept introduced by Rousseau. Perfectibility is the boundless human capability for change to do or become whoever or whatever one pleases. The potential for corruption overwhelms this notion for Rousseau, suggesting his emphasis on subjective thought. The comparability of subject matter between the two creates a dialogue about the possibilities of perfectibility and deterioration of society. Through evaluation and contrast, my findings indicate that Kant and his deliberate incorporation of realism and objectivity is better founded than Rousseau and his hypothetical, preceding ideas about human nature. Rousseau fundamentally believes that human nature is good, and the moral depravity resulting from society is what corrupts the nature of man.
He argues that the innate sympathetic tendencies of human nature result in the promotion of the collective good. He emphasizes that political distinctions come from the exact conflicts that stem from inequality: for example, social stratification. Rousseau and his way of thinking can be classified as Romanticist, which is obvious in his belief that “it is by the activity of our passions, that our reason improves”, suggesting he considers emotion and enthusiasm to be more significant than rationality. (Rousseau, 97) He continues to equate passions to need for savage man and sees no possible need for reasoning in the state of human nature where the only aspirations or fears relate to physical, instinctual forces of nature: sex, sustenance and sleep. He still believes this simple ignorance is better than society and that reason is not of the utmost importance although it is the foundation of most
philosophy.
In Rousseau’s mind, total naïveté is better than wickedness and inequality pervading society. He contends that the sciences and arts “stifle the sense of freedom that people once had” in the state of nature by “making them love their own servitude” and become civilized. (Rousseau, 48) Rather than advancing society, he believes they destroy our born innocence and functioned to cause our consensual slavery within the division of labor. Culture, according to Rousseau is an external calamity that changes the truths of human nature. The internal force opposing this is man’s capacity for feeling and opinion. Rousseau concludes with the speculation that “if the advancement of the sciences and the arts has contributed nothing to our true happiness…it has corrupted morality” because it is external. (Rousseau, 65) These external elements are trivial to Rousseau because they are damaging to the internal nature of humanity. Though he negates their use, he also analyzes the impact of cultural development throughout time.
Rousseau’s principles mark the shift from complete equality and independence to inequality of rank, power and property.
In part one of the discourses on inequality, Rousseau depicts humans in a perfect state of nature, without civilization and society. In his natural condition, Rousseau believes humans in nature to be timid, reclusive, and untroubled with not enough intellect to have concern about the past or the future. Rousseau constantly exalts this lack of knowledge and understanding as the best way to be, though it is difficult to understand this perspective. Why would people live in ignorance if they have the ability to be informed? Rousseau is arguing that knowledge, property, and thoughts of potential threat are what lead to war. In terms of human nature, the detriments of all societal evils outweigh all the benefits of society and it is better to be nothing than to be destructive, according to Rousseau. With the development of family, property, pride, and then agriculture, Rousseau establishes his belief that the wealthy create a civil society to protect their property, which thereby solidifies the presence of social constructs and insignificant information disturbing the natural values of self-preservation, pity and social nature. It is this external dichotomy between what you have and what you do not have that creates social order. The division of labor creates a class system where the classes then become interdependent. The wealthy still run the state and enforce
social order. The state itself limits freedom, because according to Rousseau, freedom comes from independence and self-sufficiency. He theorized that people get more self-interested as they evolve, and although he believed that the general will negates personal self-interest, inevitable moral corruption would be the demise of a society and the force that changed social structures. (Rousseau Discourse on inequality)
Kant believes that by nature, society will perfect itself over time and become more rational and free.