Whence comes inequality for sapiens?

[coberst]

Whence comes inequality for sapiens?

The very first class distinction was between mortal and immortal; between human and superhuman. For primitive wo/man it was the dead who held most power.

Since the eighteenth century the great minds have formed this question, ‘what is the source of inequality?’ and have sought the answer. Rousseau asked why humanity had gradually fallen from a primitive state of innocence into the conflicts of classes and states. Marx capitalized (a pun perhaps?) on Rousseau’s idea to remind us that humanity did not all start out as exploited peons. Today this class and state differential is more abundantly clear.

It has been deduced that power and coercion are not the only culprits here, it is that wo/man harbors an “enemy within”; perhaps the “slave is somehow in love with his own chains”.

Rousseau offered this answer “The first person who, having fenced off a plot of ground, took it into his head to say ‘this is mine’ and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society.”

The salient question became ‘not when’ but ‘why’ it happened?

Primitive man recognized differences in talent, strength, and merit and easily deferred to these characteristics. Why—because such characteristics served well the needs of the tribe or community. Certain individuals showed ability for defying death and others wished to share in that immunity.

We see here that he “carries within himself the bondage that he needs in order to continue to live…we are born in need of authority and we even create out of freedom, a prison…This insight is the fruit of the outcome of modern psychoanalysis…it penetrates to the heart of the human condition and to the principle dynamic of the emergence of historical inequality…primitive religion starts the first class distinction…That is, the individual gives over the aegis of his own life and death to the spirit worlds; he is already a second-class citizen.”

“The first class distinction, then, was between mortal and immortal, between feeble human powers and special superhuman beings.”

Quotes from “Escape from Evil” by Ernest Becker

[Borodog]

It's called the bell curve. Inequality ain't rocket science, you know.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
Rousseau asked why humanity had gradually fallen from a primitive state of innocence ...

[/ QUOTE ]

It certainly doesn't help when one makes massive assumptions like this. Who's to say our ancestors were ever "innoccent", in this sense, in the first place?

I'd say just look at other animal species. Social pecking orders are everywhere, why should we be any different?

Look, chimps have social inequity and I'm sure a proper zooligist could point out many, many, much simpler example species.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Rousseau asked why humanity had gradually fallen from a primitive state of innocence ..."

[/ QUOTE ]

It certainly doesn't help when one makes massive assumptions like this. Who's to say our ancestors were ever "innoccent", in this sense, in the first place?

[/ QUOTE ]Becker goes on, in his text, to refute Rousseau's claim.

[coberst]

Silent A

The science of anthropology would probably be angry with you for assuming that their science is just assumptions. I suggest that you give that science some reading time and you might change your opinion.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
Chimps have social inequity and I'm sure a proper zoologist could point out many, many, much simpler example species.

[/ QUOTE ]Rousseau's "age of innocence" did not refer to an "age of equality" as posited by political theorists but, rather, to a state of blissful enjoyment of all things in life. In Man's return to the "innocence of nature", the chimps' pecking order would not be extinct. The fruits of life would be enjoyed by humans without the "poison" of "private ownership".

And so on.

Certainly not rocket science. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Mickey Brausch

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
Silent A

The science of anthropology would probably be angry with you for assuming that their science is just assumptions. I suggest that you give that science some reading time and you might change your opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't imply that anthropology was just assumptions. He said that this particular silly assumption (which has next to nothing to with anthropology) was unjustified.

Where exactly are you going to school, btw?

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The science of anthropology would probably be angry with you for assuming that their science is just assumptions. I suggest that you give that science some reading time and you might change your opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't imply that anthropology was just assumptions. He said that this particular silly assumption (which has next to nothing to with anthropology) was unjustified.

[/ QUOTE ]Wouldn't you say that it takes more than a two-word dismissive aside ("silly assumption") to refute Rousseau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Contract_%28Rousseau%29), or even just properly comment on his work?

Mickey Brausch

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The science of anthropology would probably be angry with you for assuming that their science is just assumptions. I suggest that you give that science some reading time and you might change your opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't imply that anthropology was just assumptions. He said that this particular silly assumption (which has next to nothing to with anthropology) was unjustified.

[/ QUOTE ]Wouldn't you say that it takes more than a two-word dismissive aside ("silly assumption") to refute Rousseau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Contract_%28Rousseau%29), or even just properly comment on his work?

Mickey Brausch

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, 'silly assumption' certainly wouldn't be sufficient for a doctoral thesis, if that's what you mean. But I do think it pretty accurately covers the situation. I probably could have pared it down to one word, actually.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, 'silly assumption' certainly wouldn't be sufficient for a doctoral thesis, if that's what you mean. But I do think it pretty accurately covers the situation. I probably could have pared it down to one word, actually.

[/ QUOTE ]That would be nifty.

Could you explain then, without writing a whole thesis, why you would characterize Rousseau's work as "silly"?

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, 'silly assumption' certainly wouldn't be sufficient for a doctoral thesis, if that's what you mean. But I do think it pretty accurately covers the situation. I probably could have pared it down to one word, actually.

[/ QUOTE ]That would be nifty.

Could you explain then, without writing a whole thesis, why you would characterize Rousseau's work as "silly"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh come on now. This was about the very narrow issue of the following:

"Rousseau asked why humanity had gradually fallen from a primitive state of innocence"

What I find silly is the idea that 'primitive state of innocence' ever described 'humanity'. One can make a semantic argument to that effect, I'm sure. And perhaps there are language barriers involved. But unless we are talking about the garden of eden, this description is...well, it's just wrong. If you disagree, I'm quite sure that we are using different definitions.

I am in no way commenting on Rousseau beyond this. I am utterly ignorant of his work, beliefs, ideas, etc. In fact, until today, I probably wouldn't even have spelled his name correctly.

I guess I have coberst to thank for that, at any rate.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
This was about the very narrow issue of the following: "Rousseau asked why humanity had gradually fallen from a primitive state of innocence".
<font color="white"> . </font>
What I find silly is the idea that 'primitive state of innocence' ever described 'humanity'. Unless we are talking about the garden of eden, this description is...well, it's just wrong. If you disagree, I'm quite sure that we are using different definitions.

[/ QUOTE ] You are quite correct that this would be a very narrow definition of what Rousseau argued about. The French philosopher, biographer, musician, political theorist, fiction writer and womanizer (holla) held forth quite liberal --and liberating-- positions, for his time, and naturally got into trouble with the powers that be, and particularly the Catholic Church, for it.

Sample from wikipedia:

[ QUOTE ]
Religion
Rousseau was most controversial in his own time for his views on religion. His view that man is good by nature conflicts with the doctrine of original sin and his theology of nature expounded by the Savoyard Vicar in Émile led to the condemnation of the book in both Calvinist Geneva and Catholic Paris. In the Social Contract he claims that true followers of Jesus would not make good citizens.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Politics
Rousseau claimed that the state of nature eventually degenerates into a brutish condition without law or morality, at which point the human race must adopt institutions of law or perish. In the degenerate phase of the state of nature, man is prone to be in frequent competition with his fellow men while at the same time becoming increasingly dependent on them. This double pressure threatens both his survival and his freedom. According to Rousseau, by joining together through the social contract and abandoning their claims of natural right, individuals can both preserve themselves and remain free. This is because submission to the authority of the general will of the people as a whole guarantees individuals against being subordinated to the wills of others and also ensures that they obey themselves because they are, collectively, the authors of the law.
<font color="white"> . </font>
While Rousseau argues that sovereignty should be in the hands of the people, he also makes a sharp distinction between sovereign and government. The government is charged with implementing and enforcing the general will and is composed of a smaller group of citizens, known as magistrates. Rousseau was bitterly opposed to the idea that the people should exercise sovereignty via a representative assembly. Rather, they should make the laws directly.


[/ QUOTE ]

Mickey Brausch