Kyle Sheehan

FYS 100 Section 50 – Social Utopias

Dr. Watts

October 30, 2015

Question: How does Rousseau distinguish the natural and the civilized world?

Both the natural and civilized world are inhabited by people, the savage and the civilized respectively. In A Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau points out the various differences and advantages of the two immensely opposite types of people. The savage acts solely on his needs and instinct. The civilized on the other hand, acts with organization and logic. Rousseau distinguishes between the two by glorifying the savage as a more holistic and fulfilling  to life. He argues that savage children “coming into the world with the excellent physique of their fathers, and strengthening it by the same exercises which produced it, thus acquire all the vigor of which the human race is capable” (Rousseau p83). Despite all the technological advancements that come with being civilized such as medicine, Rousseau still leans in favor of the savage.

Rousseau begins to distinguish between the natural world and civilized world by pointing out the consequences of civilization. These consequences include the lack of necessity that the savage have. The savage man needs to learn to break solid branches to survive, and so he does (Rousseau p83 line24). The civilized man has no need to do such things and therefor never develops the ability to do so. Due to this lack of need, the savage man becomes stronger, more nimble and faster than the civilized man. Rousseau writes “pit the two together naked and unarmed, and you will see the advantages of having all one’s forces constantly at one’s command” (Rousseau p83). This shows his obvious belief that the natural world produces a fundamentally superior individual than one produced by the civilized world.

When considering the advantages and disadvantages of civilization, it is impossible not to take into account the advancement of technology. Arguably the most important advancement has been in medicine and the extension or preservation of life. It would seem that something this important would give the civilized a much greater advantage over the savage, however Rousseau is able to dispute this claim. He argues that there is not sufficient evidence to prove that advanced medicine leads to a longer average life (Rousseau p84). He points out that with such “few sources of illness, man in the state of nature has little need for remedies, and even less for physicians” (Rousseau p85). Along with the medicine that comes with civilization also comes “excesses of all kinds, immoderate transports of every passion, fatigue, exhaustion of mind” (Rousseau p84). Without these vices and unhealthy habits, the savage man has a much lower utility for medicine.

The fundamental difference that Rousseau points out between the two is that the savage acts by instinct whereas the civilized act by free will (Rousseau p87). Rousseau’s view point is that although civilization and advancement is generally seen as progress, it is actually the opposite.