This was one of the first works of Rousseau (1755), the fruit of a public concourse. He always was in need of money.

It's already clearly a work of genius, although certainly not completely thought through. Anyway it reveals the spirit of Rousseau's thinking. There's no such thing as original sin. Civilization, with its unilateral use of reason, has brought decline to man and introduced inequality.

But there is no way back. Man has to proceed. So, in contrast with what often is stated, he does not plead for a return to Eden. Remarkably, he uses various terms for man in his natural state, such as "homme original", "l'homme sauvage", "l'homme naturel". He often makes reference to tribes in Suriname and the Caribbean.

As is often the case in the writings of Rousseau, his ideas are not always clearly formulated and uniform. But what a treat to read this, especially in the original French. The work provides a fascinating glimpse into Rousseau's mind and his revolutionary views on human nature and society. It challenges the traditional notions of sin and progress and invites the reader to think deeply about the consequences of civilization.

Despite its flaws, it remains an important and influential work that has inspired generations of thinkers and activists. Reading it in the original French allows one to fully appreciate the beauty and elegance of Rousseau's language and the power of his ideas.

**O ESEJI**

Sophie d'Houdetot said of Rousseau that it was "such an interesting blazon." Paul Johnson also treated him rather roughly in his controversial book on intellectuals, and after reading one of his major works, I'm kind of at a loss as to what to think of his ideas. Recently, a book titled "Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States" by James C. Scott came out and became a hit because, just like Rousseau, it sees the source of all evil in the fact that humans settled down and started growing wheat (very simply put).

Who knows if Rousseau was or wasn't an inspiration? What's important is that he wrote something like this in 1755, at a time when our ideas about our ancestors were really pitiful. There were no archaeological excavations (maybe a few), no anthropological studies, just nothing. And Rousseau, "purely at the level of hypothesis," ponders the natural state of man, and in many of his assumptions, he wasn't far from the truth. This must be acknowledged, despite any opposition to him as a person.

Rousseau tries, as the title already suggests, to answer the question of where the inequality among people originates. He observes natural and unnatural inequality, and what interests him is the source of the unnatural one. He finds it in private property. He says that all the investigators before him made a mistake when dealing with a similar question in that they approached the savage (man in the natural state) prejudicially and attributed to him desires that were only awakened in him by civilization. For Rousseau, man in the natural state is solitary, troubled only by food, sex, and sleep. He has no tools, only his own body. When he can't eat from one tree, he goes to another and doesn't seek conflict. He also lives quite a long time because many diseases are also a result of society (the same conclusion as Scott). He surpassed other animals in skill and in the ability to make decisions. And he was able to improve himself, to learn from failure. His only enemies were pain and hunger. Everything he needed, he found right away, so he lacked nothing. He wasn't social, reproduction took place at random encounters, but the mother abandoned the child as soon as it was independent. For communication, he used only some sounds, and that was only because the child tried to communicate its needs to the mother. However, man wasn't good or bad, he just was. The only virtue that man was endowed with was pity for others because he knew what harmed him and that it could also harm others. He couldn't force himself not to see, so he was sentimental. There were no ideas of mine and yours, everything was common and at the same time belonged to no one.

But at a certain moment, everything went wrong. It started when man began to establish contacts because at some point, he wasn't able to be completely self-sufficient. First, he began to use tools that were supposed to help him overcome these obstacles to self-sufficiency. Different climatic conditions forced him to specialize in how he made a living (those who lived by the sea began mainly to fish). Later, he realizes that cooperation can help him be more self-sufficient. He begins to realize the similarities, but also the differences, among people. Thus, the languages of specific groups emerged. At the same time, the ability to build more stable shelters, emotions, marital and parental love, came into play. This step towards society he considers the first step leading to inequality. Here, too, the first bad sides such as envy, comparison, anger, or cruelty are born.
However, man still remains more or less independent. It's only when agriculture and metallurgy are discovered that he begins to realize the division of labor and the need for cooperation. From the cultivation of the land, the idea (false according to Rousseau) of property and justice is born. After all, what I made is mine. And the same goes for the land that I cultivated, it's mine. Here it begins to take on a downward trend, laws, societies, cities, armaments, slavery, domination, various political institutions, and the like are created. According to Rousseau, all this results in a new state of nature, where a despotic tyrant rules over all, where there is no right, only the will of the tyrant, and the only thing that decides is the strength of the individual. Only if the majority is stronger than the tyrant, it will overthrow him. Strength, however, is a natural predisposition, so everything is again in a natural order except that there is no freedom.

**MOJE HODNOTENIE**

I can't pretend that many of his hypothetical conclusions are at least interesting. Many of them hit the mark perfectly, and in many ways, our knowledge and ideas about the evolution of man copy Rousseau's hypotheses. However, there are a few, for me, interesting thoughts. The first is that throughout the treatise, there is this idea that man didn't have to come to where he is if he didn't make a mistake. Is that really so? Could man in the original state really be solitary and not need another? Here I question the first gap in Rousseau's thinking. The second problem I question in the idea of what is naturalness, which he identifies with origin, and then proceeds to the triad naturalness - origin - perfection. But is that really so? Let everyone answer as they want. For example, Aristotle also sees the natural state as perfect, but for him, it's a final state, not a primary one, even though the final state is the original state. The difference between primary and original is that "primary" means the starting line and "original" is the reason why I stood on the starting line (because I know that there is some goal that I want to achieve). Thanks to this, he can also answer the question "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" that it was the chicken because first, the idea of the chicken as what nature wanted to achieve had to exist for there to be an egg.
So, although Rousseau was certainly able to think and it's very inspiring, his conclusions and some of his hidden assumptions are only opinions, not facts. It can also be looked at differently (see Aristotle), and in this way, come to the conclusion that the state in which man finds himself right now (for example, me writing these rants) is the state closest to man's naturalness. At the same time, it must be acknowledged that his flowery expressions and sentences that are half a page long are a pain. So, although I recommend reading because it's good to know that such a thing exists and it surely still has a great influence today, one has to be cautious and be prepared that it's not a bedtime story.

I highly recommend reading this! I did not find myself in complete agreement with everything Rousseau wrote, but I found it to be a truly compelling, well-written, and 'enlightening' piece about mankind's accelerated perversion after leaving the state of nature and entering the state of society.

Some reviewers have criticized this discourse for being overly reliant on rhetoric. While I see the validity in that, one should consider that there was little, if any, scientific research on the origins of mankind at that time (Darwin was not around yet). So much of what Rousseau could say about the state of nature was only guesswork, yet it was actually quite accurate.

Another criticism is that Rousseau is too idealistic about the'state of nature', a concept some are even skeptical of. In my opinion, Rousseau does not paint an idealistic picture of the state of nature, nor does he advocate a return to it. Instead, he aims to highlight the depravities of the modern age and contrast them with the purity of our ancestors. How is that false? Also, the state of nature most certainly exists, at least as Rousseau described it - pre-language, pre-society, when humans lived as individual hunters and were only motivated by primordial, carnal needs like food and reproduction. We were animals once, and that is a scientific fact, isn't it?

My main complaint about the discourse is that the main idea of inequality is not defined at the very start, and it can be quite challenging to identify Rousseau's thesis. Taking the title at face value, I expected the work to focus on modern inequalities of his time, such as socioeconomic inequality (in France, there were the 3 estates) and slavery. However, the philosophical discourse takes the form of an anthropological exploration, lacking the scientific evidence we have today. At times, the ideas he presents also remind me of Homo Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari (the 'progress trap' comes to mind). In spite of, or perhaps because of that, I was even more engrossed and impressed by the work - much of his analysis and evaluation actually makes sense to a 21st-century reader! And where anthropological works tend to be insufficient, Rousseau's Discourse attempts to shed light on the fundamental changes in human nature, or in his words, "to strip man naked".

To do that, Rousseau examines the state of nature in Part 1. Personally, my conception of the state of nature was more or less in line with the Hobbesian view that life was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short", in other words, something we should be glad to have escaped from. But Rousseau offers a different interpretation of the state of nature, one that is arguably more nuanced.

For Rousseau, the state of nature is characterized by an interest in self-preservation and the lack of social attachments. Indeed, this mirrors Hobbes' view that life was solitary, as our ancestors had no family or romantic relationships; in fact, relationships were simply for procreation. All we did was hunt, forage, hide from predators, mate with other 'humans', and hide from stronger 'humans'. This theme of solitude would be one of Rousseau's main arguments against modernity; when people had little or no attachment to others, they had no dependence on anyone else, and that gave them freedom.

Read the following excerpt: "I should be glad to have explained to me, what kind of misery a free being, whose heart is at ease and whose body is in health, can possibly suffer. I would ask also, whether a social or a natural life is most likely to become insupportable to those who enjoy it. We see around us hardly a creature in civil society, who does not lament his existence: we even see many deprive themselves of as much of it as they can... In instinct alone, he had all he required for living in the state of nature; and with a developed understanding he has only just enough to support life in society."

So were our ancestors really more miserable than us? To be honest, this is a question I have been thinking about lately. Yes, we have witnessed great progress in our creations and inventions, and in our thought. But are we really better off than we were in the past? Perhaps if we consider the material aspects of life, such as security and physical health, then I think we are indeed in the brightest epoch ever. However, have we considered the proliferation of mental illnesses as a sign of something fundamentally wrong with the modern psyche? It is also interesting to note how novel diseases only began to plague the human race once we settled into agricultural civilizations, and famines and scarcity became problems to be dealt with. With progress, we have also created problems for ourselves, some of which we may never be able to solve. Alas, Rousseau does not recommend a return to the state of nature - that is impossible.

Before I discuss the transition from the state of nature to the state of society, I would like to note the two inequalities that Rousseau identifies in mankind. Firstly, there is natural inequality, which is simply the difference in strength, intellect, etc. Secondly, there is moral inequality, which is the inequality in privileges (wealth, political power) as established by conventions.

In the state of nature, according to Rousseau, there is hardly any inequality. If you are weaker than another human being, you would just hide in a tree or find another place to be (if I'm not mistaken); after all, all humans were interested in self-preservation, and there was frankly nothing to gain from killing another human being unless you were a cannibal. I think this is something that is not very controversial.

So when did inequality start to increase? When we entered the state of society. But when did we enter the state of society? When our faculties developed to the extent that we began to claim parts of the earth as private property. In Rousseau's view, the progress of inequality followed three stages: 1) the establishment of laws and the right of property, 2) the institution of the magistracy, and 3) the conversion of legitimate into arbitrary power. With the first stage, the distinction between rich and poor, powerful and weak, master and slave emerged.

I will try to outline the progression as simply as I can, and I hope I haven't misunderstood too much. When the first ambitious human claimed his property, inequality followed. In the interest of self-preservation, others followed suit, and this was when natural inequality accentuated the differences in their ability to claim and defend their property. This would then become a self-perpetuating cycle, where natural inequalities were worsened by institutional inequality with the establishment of codes of conduct (the law) to protect private property.

The institution of the magistracy signified the endowment of a select group of humans with the power to enforce laws in order to protect property. This is the origin of the state. While social contract theorists argue that the state was born as a result of a compromise between humans who had left the state of nature and their leaders, in which they exchanged some of their freedoms for security, Rousseau provides an interesting counter-argument. He asserts that the state was conceived by the rich as a means to exploit the poor and defend their property. After all, would those without property require security?

Now, I think both arguments can coexist. While Locke's social contract is more compelling in explaining the formation and maintenance of feudal societies, Rousseau's view arguably makes more sense for the time before the first political community existed and before everyone owned property. Hmm.

On to the final stage of inequality, the conversion of legitimate authority to arbitrary power. I'm not entirely sure what Rousseau meant by this, but if I remember correctly, this final stage concerned the consolidation of political power in family dynasties or the elites. Thus, rather than being instituted by the people to protect their interests, the government became arbitrary and tyrannical. I guess he was thinking of absolute monarchies when he wrote this.

Therefore, with these three stages of inequality, mankind has moved from the largely equal state of nature to the dramatically unequal state of society. According to Rousseau, the state of society is one where humans begin to depend on others, form various relationships (social, economic, political), and compare themselves to others. This is where one of his more abstract and less relevant ideas comes into play - the idea that vanity increases our vulnerability to pain.

When one accumulates property, luxury becomes a necessity, for both the rich and those who aspire to become rich. This materialistic longing makes it such that it is more cruel to be deprived of our possessions than we are pleased to possess them, thus increasing our vulnerability to pain. While I don't know how this is relevant to inequality, I really liked the following quote: "... the rich are so sensitive in every part of their goods." Indeed, the well-to-do are the ones who need the state, the military, the police more than anyone else because, inherently, it simply does not make sense for them to own things that ultimately do not truly belong to them. Absolute monarchs lose political power when their political power is seized by force; it is perfectly legitimate for that which was not theirs to begin with to be taken away from them. And I guess this fear must exist for the rich. Even though they do have legitimate claims to ownership, there is little moral support for the existence of their wealth when there are parts of the world starving.

Which brings me to Rousseau's point that moral inequality clashes with natural right whenever it is not proportionate to physical inequality. "It is contrary to the law of nature that children should command old men, fools wise men, and that the privileged few should gorge themselves with superfluities while the starving multitudes are in want of the bare necessities of life." (Cool how this prefigures Marxist ideas)

Being a radical, Rousseau also writes that the rich are only happy with their wealth because the dispossessed, the destitute, the poor exist. Without that contrast in society, what can anyone make of their wealth and status? Personally, I do not think rich people are all sadistic, but there must be some truth in Rousseau's scathing critique of the accumulation of wealth. If we had no one else to compare ourselves with, would we still feel so great about owning so much property? And if there was no measure of poverty or wealth, would we still feel the urge to earn more, buy more? That I am inclined to refute those statements and argue for the fundamental human desire to possess more, more, more, seems to suggest that greed is something fundamentally human. And greed probably was not a thing in the state of nature, perhaps because we were only interested in self-preservation.

To conclude, Rousseau's Discourse on the Origins of Inequality takes us back, philosophically, to the state of nature (when man was equal) to our current state of nature (one that is full of inequalities) and provides theories for the emergence and worsening of inequalities, as well as a welcome critique of economic elites, then and now.

I am very happy that the history teacher assigned me to read this book. Because don't think that I would just pick up a work by Rousseau on my own...

Before starting with "A Discourse on Inequality" (or however it has been translated into Spanish), I expected a super complicated language and extremely complex concepts. Also, I was preoccupied with the task I would have to do afterwards, so I didn't expect to enjoy this reading too much.

However, I am passionate about history, especially that which occurred during the period of Absolutism and around (it's not that those were nice times to live in, but they are extremely interesting); I know that Rousseau doesn't exactly talk about the political and social situation that was being lived in Europe at those specific moments, but rather he makes more of a look at societies (and the formation of them) in general, but still I feel that it helped me expand my historical horizons.

If you are interested in reading something by Rousseau (or any other contemporary philosopher, we can say) I would highly recommend that you back it up with some historical and/or philosophical knowledge. It's not that you won't be able to understand anything of the Discourse if you haven't studied the Modern Age in class, but I think you will get a lot out of any of these types of readings with at least a previous base of knowledge.

This discourse deals with how inequality among men originated, which is so patent and naturalized today. Rousseau tries to discover the root of the differences between people, how everything started from the beginning of time. It's true that I would have liked to read something more political or of a more intense social criticism style (of a particular society), but I got what I got, so I won't complain.

After reading this book (or discourse, or whatever you want to call it), I can only admire Rousseau. His thoughts are not only well presented and justified, but they are... many times superior to what we are used to. Perhaps if you read this book among many other books published in the 21st century you won't be so surprised, but we have to understand that this man lived in the 1500's, that his ideas were revolutionary, that no one ever (or rather only a few) had looked at humanity in the way he did. Thus, his thought seemed deliciously modern for his time.

Most of the thoughts exposed were nothing revelatory for me, but they did go to places that it never occurred to me to explore with my own mind, and I have to admit that. He also poses certain philosophical questions that are very, very interesting, and leave room for the interpretation and reflection of the reader, which I appreciate a lot.

There is also a lot of social criticism, of humanity, of the laws by which we govern ourselves. I know that I wanted criticism of a more specific society, but the points that Rousseau made about the human being were excellent.

As is quite obvious, he convinced me with his reasons for the origin of inequality (although that was never a personal concern or anything like that), and above all I loved the two or three lines he dedicated to religion.

If I give it one star less it's because I felt that he went off on tangents in some points, and that he put too much emphasis on man in his natural state, instead of moving on to civilization a little faster, as I would have liked. There are things that I think don't fit within this discourse, but that are so well presented that most of the time they didn't even bother me.

I leave Rousseau highly recommended, and honestly it flattered me a lot that I thought like him, that I could agree with everything he was exposing. He has taken my mind to places that I never bothered to explore, and I feel very happy with the knowledge that I have acquired thanks to this reading.

Before reading it, I wouldn't have valued knowing the origin of inequality, but, hell, now I feel a little more full knowing it.

I'm not saying that I'm going to read more by the author in the future just out of my own will, but I'm sure that in class they will assign me another philosopher (in high school or during my career), so I will wait happily and patiently for that to happen (and hope that it's something more by Rousseau, I have a lot of desire to read The Social Contract).

Now all that's left for me is to do the work for the class, which is the only negative aspect of this reading. But, you know what? It's not going to bother me that much, because these are ideas that I share and the author has left me quite enthusiastic about sharing them.

3.25 stars - English hardcover

I have dyslexia, which makes reading a bit of a challenge for me. However, I still have a love for books.

I remember when I worked as an au-pair in Bradford on Avon, I came across an old diary. It had this interesting entry in it.

The diary seemed to hold a world of its own, and as I flipped through the pages, I felt a sense of curiosity.

Although my dyslexia made it a bit difficult to fully understand every word, I was still able to get a general sense of the story.

The entry was like a little flower, blooming with mystery and charm.

I got trauma flashbacks to Leviathan every time he mentioned Hobbes. It was as if a dark cloud would suddenly descend upon me. The very name of Hobbes and his work Leviathan held such power over my emotions. I could vividly recall the disturbing images and ideas that had haunted me ever since I first encountered that text. It was a visceral reaction, one that I couldn't control. Every time he brought it up, it was like reopening an old wound. The memories would flood back, overwhelming my senses and leaving me feeling vulnerable and shaken. I tried to push them away, but they persisted, taunting me with their presence. It was a constant struggle, one that I hoped would eventually come to an end.

I'm occasionally struck by how bad the great classics of political philosophy are. Consider that, when teaching philosophy, we spend an awful lot of energy convincing students that their arguments have to be tight, they have to avoid fallacies, they have to back up their reasoning, and they have to avoid special pleading. Then we give them Locke's treatises, or The Prince, or this great turd of philosophical unreason.

That said, once you decide this isn't a work of philosophy, it gets much better; it's not. It's pretty clearly a work of rhetoric, seeking to persuade rather than to reason. The first part, in particular, is utterly ridiculous taken as an argument of any kind: we have no reason to think that human beings outside of society are happy vegetables, but that's how Rousseau presents them. His 'argument' is entirely inconsistent; one minute he says these 'savages' have no need of tools or weapons, since they can just eat acorns, the next minute he's happily supplying them with spears to fight off wild beasts. Taken as a rhetorical attack on previous state-of-nature theories, however, and on the idea that civilization is always all good, it's okay. It's too silly to be anything other than okay, but that's fine. Read it ironically, and it makes sense: Rousseau's picture is no sillier than Hobbes', or Locke's, and his name is a lot less silly than Pufendorf's.

Part II is a bit more serious. Here Rousseau takes a lot from Hobbes (one of the few philosophically solid classics of political philosophy), his analysis tightens up, and we're suddenly faced with a whole bunch of fascinating questions: how did it happen that humans became social? how did it happen that some people get the power and wealth, while others get nothing? can that be justified?

His answers aren't particularly good, but as a way of showing us how difficult and important these questions are--and, pace Hobbes/Locke/et al., how difficult they are to solve--Rousseau's book works very nicely. It's much harder to justify inequality than previous philosophers had argued (slash some philosophers still argue), it's much harder to provide a rational basis for human society than most of us like to think, and it's very hard indeed to imagine how human institutions came into being.

Sadly, Rousseau seems to have led more people towards naturalism than away from it, even though you can easily read this book as an attempt to do the latter. The point about the 'state of nature' is that it probably never happened, not that we should return to it; if we can get out of the habit of thinking that there's some nature we can get back to, we can also get out of the habit of thinking we can justify our institutions and actions based on the 'fact' that they're 'natural.'

Living in an era where the concept of expertise seems to have lost its significance, along with other intangible entities like god, a crucial question arises. Is it justifiable to address personal and collective world problems merely for the temporary satisfaction of oneself? Or should one delve deep into the very roots of these issues and strive to discover something truly worthy? Jean-Jacques Rousseau, also known as Mr. Enlightenment, endeavors to explore this here.

Based on his conjectural history of Mankind, which was significantly influenced by the times he lived in, Rousseau posits that culture is the culprit. He argues that the foundation of our morality, specialization, and the building blocks of civilization were inherently constructed upon inequality.

He further elaborates, "It is foreign to my subject to show how this disposition engenders so much indifference for good and evil, notwithstanding so many and such fine discourses of morality; how everything, being reduced to appearances, becomes mere art and mummery; honour, friendship, virtue, and often vice itself, which we at last learn the secret to boast of; how, in short, ever inquiring of others what we are, and never daring to question ourselves on so delicate a point, in the midst of so much philosophy, humanity, and politeness, and so many sublime maxims, we have nothing to show for ourselves but a deceitful and frivolous exterior, honour without virtue, reason without wisdom, and pleasure without happiness."

Camus, in one of his Essays, advocates for a culture that values life in mountains, forests, and within mankind. Given our current proliferation in quantity, it is evident that we cannot simply return to the forests and pretend to be innocent children playing with sand and stones. Indeed, we have long forgotten how to find happiness in such simple pleasures, a point on which both Camus and Rousseau concur.

Although most of us no longer seriously consider or accept the idea of god, we still assign a sense of superiority or inferiority to various things. Perhaps this will not change. However, if people can recognize the limitations of being human, perhaps, just perhaps, we could lead lives in ways that are far better than our current existence, in ways that are truly unimaginable.

That being said, most of the arguments presented are dated, yet they are filled with ingenuity and wit, offering a great deal of food for thought. In the end, one may have initially come here with the intention of romanticizing the Noble Savage, but they stay for the clarity and lucidity of the ideas presented.

"A Discourse Upon the Origin and the Foundation Of The Inequality Among Mankind (1755)" by Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Philosophy about the origin of man

Before all this luxury befell him and he became more pitiful

,

a philosophical book

and one of Rousseau's works that led to the French Revolution and focused on its teachings

. Rousseau's philosophy delved deep into the nature of man and society. He believed that in the state of nature, man was free and innocent, but the development of civilization had corrupted him. His ideas inspired many to question the existing social order and strive for a more just and equal society. The French Revolution, in part, was a manifestation of the influence of Rousseau's philosophy. His works continue to be studied and debated today, as they offer valuable insights into the human condition and the possibilities for social change.

The Origins of Differences Among Humans

According to Rousseau:

(1) In the beginning, the savage human was found isolated, closed, peaceful, and good, but he did not lack happiness because happiness presupposes awareness of it.

(2) However the government is established, the existence of a single person not subject to the law necessarily makes all others subject to him.

(3) We are not compelled to make a human a philosopher before making him a human.

(4) Let the civilized human have the time to gather all his tools around him. There is no doubt that he will easily overcome the savage human.

(5) The immoderate immersion in all desires, and the torment of the mind by sorrows and hopes that have no end and that we suffer in all circumstances and that constantly devour our souls, are what we should avoid by maintaining a simple, uniform, and solitary way of life.

(6) What is the meaning of nobility, forgiveness, and humanity if there is no mercy practiced on the weak sinners? I speak of mercy, which is the appropriate state for us, the weak beings exposed to many pains. It is a very useful and essential virtue for humans, so much so that it precedes in him all use of reason.

(7) Any animal does not pass by the corpse of an animal like it without being bothered by it.

(8) Mercy is a natural feeling that leads us to relieve the sufferings of those we pity.

(9) When need is satisfied, every desire is extinguished.

(10) Every individual finds an interest in what happens to others. There is no ship at sea that some sailors do not benefit from its sinking. There is no house that the citizen does not wish would burn with all the papers proving debts inside it. There is no people that does not enjoy the disasters that befall its neighbor. Thus, the loss of one often leads to the prosperity of others.

(11) The citizens do not accept oppression except because they are subject to a more blind ambition, and because they look more at what is under their feet than what they raise their eyes to. Dominion becomes more beloved to them than independence, and they are content to bear the yoke so that they can impose it on others in turn.

(12) When people were content with their naked bodies, held on to the bark of trees for clothing, gathered the feathers and shells, painted their bodies with different colors, sharpened some branches with stones as weapons, or made some simple musical instruments... they lived freely, healthily, well, and happily, and they maintained equality among them with independence.

-------
From the book: The Origins of Differences Among Humans, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, translated by Nur al-Din al-Alawi.

The title of this remarkable essay might give the impression that it pertains to politics. However, that is not the case.

Rousseau addressed political issues and proposed solutions in The Social Contract. But, no, the social contract is not the answer to the problems of the human condition that he expounded upon in The Discourse on Inequality.

Evidently, Rousseau's radicalism extends far beyond the realm of politics. He views inequality as originating from both material and spiritual dependence.

We become materially reliant on others from the moment we engage in collaborative production. And we develop spiritual dependence from the moment we perceive ourselves through the eyes of others and cultivate vanity, envy, honor, or shame.

Essentially, inequality (arising from our interdependence) is an inherent part of our human condition, and there is no possibility of reverting to the savage state of nature.

I don't believe Rousseau is even hinting that a return to independent savagery is desirable. This essay is simply his theory of alienation and his disdain for the vanity of our civilization.

Setting politics aside, it is truly a work of genius.

The original book embodies the differences that people contemplate about human nature which is derived from its naked state and which contains the essence of authenticity in human constitution. This is achieved through the study of man and his real needs. The book includes a fictional description of the situation of man who is bound by fetters everywhere, as well as justifying the existing corruption among people due to the differences between individuals in society in their interactions.

A unique philosophical text that was able to impose itself on human thought for three centuries.