Catalogue of works on the origin of human inequality

The origin of human inequality is the soul of the French Revolution. In this book, Rousseau pointed out that with every step of human development, the degree of inequality is deepening. This book expounds Rousseau's political philosophy, lays the foundation of social contract theory, and is also an introduction to his whole political theory. This is a book full of wisdom. Every line of it is permeated with the author's hard pursuit. Rousseau's thinking is like a dragon, which logically and clearly explains why the history of human progress is the history of human depravity from all angles. Reading it is like walking on a winding road. Even if he doesn't tell you the result, when the next corner appears, it will often come true in your imagination, so the thinking will gradually become clear and a vast world will appear in front of you, which is different from self-pity and daily chores. ...

Brief introduction of the author

Jean-jean-jacques rousseau (17 12 June 28th-1July 2nd, 778) is a French philosopher, educator, writer, one of the authors of the Encyclopedia School and one of the most outstanding representatives of the Enlightenment. His major works include Social Contract, Lois's New Love, Emile, Confessions and so on. His ideological influence involved philosophy, politics, literature and other fields, and played a positive role in promoting the French Revolution.

foreword

Of all human knowledge, I think the most useful and imperfect is the knowledge about "people". I dare say that the inscription on the Temple of Delphini is more profound and important than any great work by ethicists. In my opinion, the question to be discussed later is one of the most interesting questions that philosophy can ask, and unfortunately, it is also one of the most difficult problems that philosophers have to solve. Because, if we don't start from understanding human beings themselves, how can we understand the origin of inequality between people? Many changes must have taken place in the cycle of time and space. If we don't understand these changes, how can we hope to see the true colors of people created by nature? How can human beings distinguish the original nature of human beings from the changes brought about by the environment and human progress to change their original state? Like Glaucus. Like a stone statue, after years, waves and storms, it looks more like a beast than a god. The same is true of human thinking. After numerous changes, we have accepted numerous truths and fallacies, experienced major changes in body structure and long-term collision with passion. The human mind has changed beyond recognition, and it is almost impossible to recognize its true colors. Now we can't see anyone sticking to a behavior pattern from beginning to end, and we can't see anyone still retaining the noble and solemn simplicity endowed by the great creator. What we see is the terrible confrontation between people's excessive lust and ignorance

To make matters worse, every step forward, people are farther away from the original state; The more knowledge we have, the more tools we lose to find the main problems. In this sense, the more human beings learn, the less they can understand themselves.

Obviously, we must look for the root of human differences from the constant changes of human physique. As we all know, people are equal, just like all kinds of animals. Before physiological factors have caused some of the changes we have seen, people are equal.

In fact, no matter how those changes happened in the first place, it is impossible for all individuals of human beings to change in the same way at the same time. This naturally reminds us that some people get good or bad qualities when the situation gets better or worse, while others keep their original nature for a long time. This is undoubtedly the original source of human inequality. However, it is easy to summarize in one sentence, but it is not easy to explain the real reason exactly.

Nevertheless, I hope readers will not think that I am bragging and that I have solved a problem that is also very difficult for me. I just introduced some arguments and made a bold guess on this basis. It is better to make the problem clearer or restore the original appearance than to solve the problem. Maybe others can easily go further on this road, but no one can easily reach the finish line. Because we can't correctly identify which of the true colors of human beings are primitive and which are developed later; We cannot correctly grasp a state that no longer exists, may never exist, and may never exist in the future. However, only by grasping this state can we make a correct judgment on the present situation of mankind. To study this problem in depth, it is bound to need an inscrutable philosophy to accurately guide what preparations we should make for this kind of research. In my opinion, if someone can satisfactorily answer the following question, he is worthy of being a contemporary Aristotle and Pliny: What kind of experiments do you need to do in order to understand natural people? How to carry out these experiments in society?

I have been committed to solving this problem for a long time. After I have fully thought about it, I dare to say this before entering the text: even our greatest philosophers can't carry out these experiments, and even our most powerful rulers won't carry out these experiments. We should not expect them to cooperate in the experiment at all, not to mention that in order to succeed in the experiment, they must have perseverance, great wisdom and great compassion.

Although these experiments are difficult to carry out, so few people take part in them, they are the only way to clear the dense fog, which blurs our eyes and prevents us from realizing the real foundation of human society. Because of neglecting the study of human nature, it is difficult for us to determine the true meaning of natural rights or to define them vaguely. Because as Burmalak said, the concept of rights, especially the concept of natural rights, is obviously closely related to human nature. He went on to say that we should interpret the original principle of this science from the perspectives of human nature, human physique and human living conditions.

We are not surprised to find that scholars have great differences on this important issue! Few two authoritative writers hold the same view. Needless to say, the ancient philosophers here seem to spare no effort to attack each other on the most fundamental principles. Roman jurists put people and animals under the laws of nature without distinction. In their view, the word natural law is not so much a law made by nature for other things as a law imposed by nature on itself. In other words, jurists only understand the word law in a special sense. It seems that in this case, they only understand the laws of nature as the universal relationship between all creatures in nature and life. Modern scholars believe that law only exists in moral creatures, that is, intelligent, free-willed and interrelated human beings, so they think that the laws of nature are only applicable to human beings. But every scholar defines laws in his own way under the extreme metaphysical principles, so that few of us can understand these metaphysical principles, let alone discover them ourselves. These scholars have different definitions of laws, but they can't agree on the same issue: they all think they are either cunning sophists or profound philosophers, otherwise they can't understand the laws of nature, let alone obey them. All these show that human beings have a certain ability to create society, and this ability, even in the social state, is only acquired by a few people through ups and downs.

Because we know little about nature and have great differences on the meaning of law, it is difficult for us to give a good definition of natural law. In addition to the inconsistency, the definitions we can see in books have a major flaw: they all ignore that human beings in the natural state do not have all kinds of knowledge, and at the same time, they do not notice that they have no thoughts until they leave the natural state. Modern writers first ask what laws are made for the common interests of mankind, and then put these laws together to get the laws of nature. Their only evidence is the possible benefits when people practice these laws together. This is undoubtedly a simple definition, but explaining the nature of things is almost entirely subjective.

As long as we know nothing about people in the natural state, any attempt to understand the primitive laws of human beings or the best living conditions of human beings will be futile. Our only understanding of the law of nature is that to become a law, it must be able to make the objects it binds obey it consciously, and as a natural law, it must directly come from the call of nature.

Therefore, put aside all these scientific books-they only teach us about human beings who have created themselves-and think about the simplest activities of the human mind. I believe I have found two laws that existed in natural people earlier than reason. The first law stems from the deep concern of human beings for their own happiness and survival, and the second law is the natural unhappiness caused by human beings when they see other sentient beings, especially their own kind, suffering and dying. In my opinion, the unification and coordination of these two laws is the source of all natural rights laws. With a little understanding, this connection between these two principles can be established without introducing sociality. In the subsequent continuous development, rationality gradually developed and eventually suppressed the natural nature, and these laws were reconstructed on other bases.

In this process, we should not treat people as philosophers before they become human beings. A person's responsibility to others is not due to his education. As long as he doesn't resist the natural impulse of sympathy, he will never hurt anyone else, even any sentient creature, unless he has to hurt others to protect himself under just circumstances and for security reasons. From this, we can also put an end to the long-standing debate about whether to bring animals into the natural law, because obviously, because they have no wisdom and free will, they can't understand this law; However, because they also have feelings endowed by nature, they are the same as our nature to some extent, so they should also enjoy natural rights; Therefore, human beings should also bear certain obligations to animals. In fact, if I don't want to hurt my own kind, it seems that it is not because they are rational, but because they are conscious. This quality is shared by both humans and animals. At least animals should have the right to avoid unreasonable human abuse.

The study of primitive people, their real needs and the basic principles of their duties is the only suitable way for us to solve various problems, which exist in the study of the origin of spiritual inequality, the real foundation of political organizations and the mutual rights of their members, and other similar important but vague issues.

If we look at human society with a calm and objective eye, it seems that the first thing that comes into our eyes is a picture of the law of the jungle. Our hearts will be shocked by the cruelty of the strong, and we will also feel sad for the ignorance of the weak. In human society, nothing is more unstable than the external relationship between the strong and the weak, the rich and the poor, which is often caused by accident of history, not by wisdom. Therefore, all human systems, at first glance, look like castles built on the beach. However, if we want to study it in depth, we can only learn to pay attention to its solid foundation after removing the dust and sand around the castle. Now we understand that if we don't study human's natural ability and acquired development ability seriously, we can't find the difference between them, and we can't distinguish which part is the creator's work and which part is human's artistic creation in the structure of real things. From this point of view, the political and moral research caused by this important issue is beneficial in any way; Moreover, this assumption of the history of various regimes also provides a very useful reference for mankind itself.

Imagine what we would become if we were allowed to develop freely. Considering this, we should be grateful to him. It is his big hands that constantly revise our body structure and build a solid foundation for it. He protects us from all kinds of chaos that the body structure may bring us. The happiness he gives us comes from the kind of life that seems to make us feel pain.

, catalogue

introduce

Jean-jean-jacques rousseau: Life and Works

Brief introduction of the paper

On the Origin and Foundation of Human Inequality

To the United Republic of Geneva

order

This theory

first part

the second part

Author's explanation

Rousseau chronology