Search for Free 150,000+ Essays

Find more results for this search now!
CLICK the BUTTON to the RIGHT!

Need a Brand New Custom Essay Now?  click here

Human Nature in the Accounts of Aristotle and Rousseau

Uploaded by knoxville on May 14, 2005

Aristotle and Rousseau formulate their accounts of human nature in Book I and the Origins of Inequality respectively. Each account analyzes the development of human nature through quite different teleological methods. These philosophers approach various topics quite differently due to their opposing viewpoints on what state humans are most happy with. Despite their different approaches both Aristotle and Rousseau arrive at equally convincing conclusions. The two distinguish humans from animals as well as describe humans as social beings to a certain extent.

Human nature is very different for Aristotle and Rousseau. Both have opposing views in their examinations of what state is most natural for mankind. In book I Aristotle describes that, “The city-state is also prior in nature to the household and to each of us individually, since a whole is necessarily prior to its parts” (1253a15). Aristotle views this city-state as the most evolved and best state for humans. The analogy of the acorn and the oak tree is commonly used in this situation. Neither an acorn nor a sapling is the final product in the growth of an oak tree. Understanding human nature, for Aristotle, is study of the pinnacle of human achievement. To Aristotle the polis is this pinnacle because we strive for something beyond family structure. In other words, Aristotle believes that what is naturally is not chronologically first.

Rousseau’s teleological analysis of human nature is seemingly in direct conflict with Aristotle’s claim that, “Anyone who cannot form a community with others…he is either a beast or a god” (1253a25). Rousseau’s account would appear beastly to Aristotle, but Rousseau describes the original state of man as, “nothing is so gentle as man in his primitive state…” (64). We create extensive political systems and feel as if we escape the harms of nature through the system. Rousseau would argue that creating a political body opens us up for a whole new set of harms. He would in fact claim that these harms are on a much greater scale because no war or oppression would occur without such a system. Aristotle is much more hesitant. He puts no faith in pure human nature without some greater power to rule. Rousseau is quick to further depict this state as, “maintaining a middle position between the indolence of...

Sign In Now to Read Entire Essay

Not a Member?   Create Your FREE Account »

Comments / Reviews

read full essay >>

Already a Member?   Login Now >

This essay and THOUSANDS of
other essays are FREE at eCheat.

Uploaded by:   knoxville

Date:   05/14/2005

Category:   Political Science

Length:   6 pages (1,426 words)

Views:   13997

Report this Essay Save Essay
Professionally written essays on this topic:

Human Nature in the Accounts of Aristotle and Rousseau

View more professionally written essays on this topic »