Aristotle vs. Rousseau: The Nature of Man
Much like reverse-engineering, philosophers tend to dig at the root of a subject, systematically dissecting and inspecting it to see what makes it tick in order to have a better understanding of how it works. Unlike reverse-engineering, philosophers generally tend to study metaphysical or theoretical subjects. This lack of physical evidence builds the platform on which a variety of philosophical differences occur. The subject may be dissected and studied only by careful contemplation and not everyone may agree with the outcome.
Both Aristotle and Rousseau contemplated the nature of man. Both were attempting to discover the pinnacle of man; or where, how, and why man not only lives but thrives. Aristotle and Rousseau both considered man in relation to animal as well as man in relation to himself. However, Aristotle’s and Rousseau’s considerations of the nature of man had seemingly opposite conclusions.
In Nicomachean Ethics, Book One, Chapter Two, Aristotle claims, “Knowledge of the good would seem to be the concern of the most authoritative science, the highest master science. And this is obviously the science of politics, because it lays down which of the sciences there should be in cities, and which each class of person should learn and up to what level. And we see that even the most honourable of faculties such as military science, domestic economy, and rhetoric, come under it.”
Aristotle is advocating society and politics as the “highest master science” in pursuit of the knowledge of the good. He is claiming that the pinnacle of man’s achievement is to manage more than just himself and his household, but also the cities and greater populations. He goes on to state, “For even if the good is the same for an individual as for a city, that of the city is obviously a greater and more complete thing to obtain and preserve. For while the good of an individual is a desirable thing, what is good for a people or for cities is nobler and more godlike thing. “
Rousseau, on the other hand, seems to think of man at his pinnacle in his most primitive state. His Discourse on Inequality seems to come from a state of discontent with the way things are. He writes, “Discontented with your present conditions for reasons which presage for your unfortunate posterity even greater discontent, you will wish perhaps you could go backwards in time – and this feeling must utter the eulogy of your first ancestors, the indictment of your contemporaries, and the terror of those who have the misfortune to live after you.” Rousseau seems to imply that the advent of man was man at his pinnacle and everything thereafter is the descent of man.
Both Rousseau and Aristotle view man, currently, as a social animal. Rousseau argues that society and societal obligations are accomplices of man’s descent. Aristotle argues that society and the mastery of societal obligations is what improves mankind. The two authors seem to be investigating the same subject, but from different motives. Aristotle appears to be contemplating how to improve the individual man by having him contribute to society and mankind as a whole. Rousseau gives the impression of hopelessness in society and mankind but advocates man as an individual. Aristotle sees the good in a utopian society and Rousseau sees society as the corruption of mankind.
This is interesting when consideration is given to the idea that Aristotle is pursuing “the good” and Rousseau is attempting to identify and explain inequalities. Aristotle starts from a positive position and Rousseau starts from a negative position. They both begin their dissection of mankind from a similar point in time; yet end up in very opposing positions.
Rousseau sees current society as a plight, saying, “Man has other enemies, which are much more intimidating and against which he has not the same means of defending himself; his natural infirmities – infancy old age, and illnesses of every kind – melancholy proofs of our own weakness, the first two being common to all animals, the last belonging chiefly to man as he lives in society.” He argues that the illnesses of today would not exist but for their ability to fester and adapt in our cities and close proximity populations.
Perhaps it is Rousseau’s consideration of mankind within nature which separates his views from Aristotle’s. Rousseau’s views seem to have a wider focus and a larger field of depth. By comparison, Aristotle seems to narrowly view mankind and how mankind might improve, but he never approaches the subject of society’s role in relation to the rest of nature.
Perhaps, if the two were to meet and argue their points, Rousseau might note this more universal perspective as his main argument. Aristotle might argue that man, in pursuit of the good, would consider his interactions with nature so that a harmony might be achieved.
Following along as these two philosophers depart on investigations in nearly opposite directions from a nearly identical position is a fascinating endeavor. There are so many interesting nuances; some subtle, some not so subtle. It is hard to decide if one philosopher has a better point than the other because both make valid arguments for their respective cases. It seems to me that it very nearly comes down to a glass half full/glass half empty argument; neither is entirely incorrect, and neither is entirely correct.
