- Rousseau, Second Discourse, page 113
In this passage Rousseau examines the natural differences between the survival of humans and animals and suggests that the ability for humans to survive may be negatively influenced by the development of our free thought. In the way that most animals are hardwired to respond a certain way to different situations, such a chameleon using camouflage in the presence of a predator, humans too have programmed responses that are meant to protect them from predators and danger.
Rousseau's argument is that throughout the course of evolution, the necessity for these natural instincts and reflexes has greatly diminished as society advances. In most civilizations humans no longer have to hunt food, find shelter to weather harsh environments, or fear predators and because of this their instincts have been replaced by the "act of freedom". As Rousseau says, humans have become free agents from nature and make decisions based not on natural instinct or survival mode responses but rather free will and thought.
Of course in our modern society free will and thought are considered human rights with which we would not be citizens without. That being said, I believe it is true what Rousseau is saying about this freedom diminishing the survival ability of humans. Although many people will never be put in a situation where survival knowledge would be needed, most would not have the first clue about how to react in one.
Do you think that this matters at all? Do you think humans have lost something important by developing free will? Or does it not matter in today's society? What are the ramifications and affects of people losing their natural survival instincts?
With the comforts of modern technology, humans in general seem to have “put off” gaining any experience with surviving in the wild. We have cars, buses, trains, etc. to take us anywhere place we wish; the only travel we would be doing on foot would most likely be for our leisure. When people do go out into the wild, we have state of the art gear for maximum comfort and easy navigation. Along with some other preparations, all we have to do is choose what brand of hiking boots we like, whip out our GPS, pack a few tents and we’re all set. Humans simply choose not to learn, but we do see remnants of true survivors in aboriginal communities untouched by modernity.
ReplyDeleteIndigenous tribes like the New Guineans of Papua are highly innovate. Nature is not a commodity for them, but a true part of their community. They could walk into a forest with nothing and construct ladders, carving knives, and weapons to get what they need to survive. However, it only matters in their society whether they can create these things or not. In modern places one’s ability to construct these things would only be useful if his/her aim was to profit from those skills.
I think that we would not actually call a being without free will a "human" at all. The New Guineans to which Taylor refers do not just go out into the wild knowing through "instincts" what exactly to do to survive, but rather they would use their free will and rationality to achieve survival. With this in mind, I do not think that it's disturbing that we HAVE free will in the first place, but rather that we are not thoughtful about how we proceed with that free will. One thing that I think we have lost through our particular use of free will is our willingness to understand people and things. I just mean that societies as a whole have developed systems that value a profit over everything else, and that as individuals we have no desire to understand just how all of our own needs are met every day. In that sense, I agree with Landon that it is sad that we are helpless "in the wild," or at least have no interest in or need to learn those skills (which might make people value the way they live and the world they live in and depend on).
ReplyDeletePopular conceptions of individual freedoms and rights were modern during the time of Rousseau. These new understandings of the human social order were made possible with advancements in technology and industrialization. Freedoms and rights become ideas that could be universally applied and conceived because there was a greater wealth of opportunities and comforts available to humanity. Yet, the modern man now exists in a post-modern reality in which the perception of these freedoms is no longer limitless. Humanity is now limited by its insatiable materialism by the finiteness of natural resources. As modernity has progressed and disseminated, the aggregate sum of humanity has lost its understanding of human interaction and relation to the natural world. With this loss comes an increasing reliance upon human infrastructure and the perpetuation of deeply-engrained anthropocentrism.
ReplyDelete