Essays academic service


Rousseau and william goldings views on the debate over the nature of man

In this debate about the goodness of either human nature or culture, it is often fun to see the debate between Hobbes and Rousseau play out in the popular media. I could compare the two books, but students seem to go for movies.

The Lord of the Flies, based on William Golding's famous novel of the same name, has been made into a movie a few times but it's never been a blockbuster. In a 1990 version the tagline of the movie was "No parents. Recall, Hobbes believed that "natural" man was a beast. Only civilization, well, "civilizes" us.

  • Furthermore, the "good" and the "wise" in the The Lord of the Rings are peoples in touch with nature or custodians of nature;
  • Anonymous, I appreciate the amount of time you are devoting to my blog, but I'm still not sure you are understanding the point of these posts;
  • In a 1990 version the tagline of the movie was "No parents;
  • If I read you correctly, you seem to think I'm making some kind of argument in these last two posts.

And The Lord of the Flies dramatizes that idea. Boys from an English boarding school are marooned without adults on an island. Given that the English boarding school is often used as a great example of oppression and rigidity, the release of these boys into a island paradise should have resulted in Eden. Or so Rousseau would have predicted. But Golding's vision is more Hobbesian. For without the adults, the boarding school, and the manners of civilized England Tea, anyone?

Rather, well, the following happens: Tolkien and made into the blockbuster movies by Peter Jackson. In the The Lord of the Rings the heroes are pastoral people called Hobbits. Furthermore, the "good" and the "wise" in the The Lord of the Rings are peoples in touch with nature or custodians of nature: The evil people in The Lord of the Rings are the "technological" and those opposed to nature.

Deep in the bowels of Mordor there are breeding experiments creating new "species" like orcs. Further, The orcs and trolls never show any respect for nature. Finally, both Mordor and Saruman are frequently displayed as gouging the earth to create war technology. The perfect example of this in the book and movie The Two Towers, is when Saruman cuts down all the trees to fuel the fires of his war machine. Thus, the The Lord of the Rings is a Rousseauian vision: A natural, pastoral, village-based, and agricultural existence is good.

Technology is bad and destructive. It is an expansive force that would destroy our Eden. So, for today's movie reviews: The Lord of the Flies Hobbes: The Lord of the Rings Hobbes: On a final note, generally speaking, Hollywood tends to make Rousseauian movies in that Rousseau was a granddaddy of the Romantic Movement with its similar emphasis on nature and pastoral existence. Artists tend to be more Romantic, thus movies generally go in this direction. But, it is not just a pastoral bent.

Take the movie of the year, Crash. Crash is a Rousseauian movie in theme. Crash opens with and then reflects on how city life is making us all strangers. So much so, we need to "crash" to have any contact with each other. That sentiment is right out of Rousseau. Hobbes would have disagreed with Crash. Modern city life is hardly ideal, but it is a remarkable modern achievement to get such diversity living, in the main, harmoniously.

Race is still a terrible problem in American cities, but look at the ethnic violence around the world in places where centralized authority has collapsed, it's The Lord of the Flies. So, to bring this show to a close, thanks for joining our film critics today, Hobbes and Rousseau!

We'll see you at the movies! This entry was posted by Richard Beck. You contrast the actions of adolescents with those of adults who have been "civilized", representative of two different states of human aculturalization. Nietzsche, "Genealogy of Morals". We Germans certainly do not think of ourselves as a particularly cruel and hard-hearted people, even less as particularly careless rousseau and william goldings views on the debate over the nature of man who live only in the present.

But have a look at our old penal code in order to understand how much trouble it took on this earth to breed a "People of Thinkers" by that I mean the peoples of Europe, among whom today we still find a maximum of trust, seriousness, tastelessness, and practicality, and who with these characteristics have a right to breed all sorts of European mandarins.

  1. Richard Anonymous on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 said.
  2. Or so Rousseau would have predicted. This entry was posted by Richard Beck.
  3. Even Ralph, the most clear-headed survivor in Lord of the Flies , keeps forgetting the boys' long-term goal is to be rescued rather than to thrive as savages, and by the end all the other boys are united in trying to kill Ralph -- whereas Katniss in The Hunger Games and Shuya in Battle Royale succeed against the odds in maintaining healthy alliances and remaining focused on a strategy, and only a few minor characters in those worlds go insane.
  4. He taught Emile to be a "blacksmith" as well as several other technological trades... Do you see what I'm doing?
  5. But I appreciate you posting your own version of a resolution here as well.

These Germans have used terrible means to make themselves a memory in order to attain mastery over their vulgar and brutally crude basic instincts. Think of the old German punishments, for example, stoning even the legend lets the mill stone fall on the head of the guilty personbreaking on the wheel the unique invention and specialty of the German genius in the area of punishment!

With the help of such images and procedures people finally retained five or six "I will not's" in their memory, and so far as these precepts were concerned they gave their word in order to live with the advantages of society—and that was that! With the assistance of this sort of memory people finally came to "reason"! Ah, reason, seriousness, mastery over emotions, the whole gloomy business called reflection, all these privileges and ceremonies of human beings—how expensive they were!

  1. Anonymous on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 said.
  2. While the government in The Hunger Games is staging a contest to punish the people for a past rebellion, the annual slaughter in Battle Royale is allegedly for military research purposes. For one is born a tyrant infant , becomes a king, gets married and forms a monarchy, has children and rules a benevolent democracy, becomes and empty nestor and reverts to a monarchy, gets old and when spouse dies becomes a king, and finally when sick and dying on his deathbed, reverts to tyrant Plato, "Republic".
  3. The evil people in The Lord of the Rings are the "technological" and those opposed to nature.

How much blood and horror is the basis for all "good things. Richard Beck on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 said: Dear anonymous, Your last two comments are confusing to me. If I read you correctly, you seem to think I'm making some kind of argument in these last two posts.

I'm only comparing and contrasting the views of Hobbes and Rousseau. If you have a disagreement it is with them. You should address you critiques to their specific works rather than any illustrations I've offered of their views. Anonymous on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 said: One of the problems Hobbes and Rousseau appear to have suffered from was the idea that there was one "static" human nature, and not an evolving or "evolutionary" one post Darwin.

Both men were "right", only they made different assumptions about the "stage" of man's evolution brught about through nurture. These "stages" are also evident in the life-cycle and psychological development of single every man. For one is born a tyrant infantbecomes a king, gets married and forms a monarchy, has children and rules a benevolent democracy, becomes and empty nestor and reverts to a monarchy, gets old and when spouse dies becomes a king, and finally when sick and dying on his deathbed, reverts to tyrant Plato, "Republic".

Civilizations follow similar patterns, because they are comprised of men Plato, "Republic" I have criticized your examples, because you choose to compare apples and oranges in terms of developmental stages of individuals and civilizations. And you are not using the examples of Hobbes and Rousseau, and so are NOT making the same arguments if any that they may have had.

I'm not familiar with Hobbes arguments, but I am familiar with those between Rousseau and Voltaire. Rousseau believed that the most "nurturing" environment for creating a self-moving and therefore "equal" "individual" was a natural one, and so in his "Emile" rcommended raising children "outside" cities and self-dependent ala Robinson Crusoe. That way, they would become "self-reliant" rather than "other reliant". Volatire, on the other hand, had no objection to the idea of a hierarchical society in which some men "used" others, and was very much enamored with social life in the city an artificial environmentespecially, gay Paris.

They had different "ends" in mind, and ideas of what constituted a "good life". One only has to look at the red-state blue-state voting patterns in the United States to recognize the effect "nurture" has on human nature. City folk become more "socialistic". Country folk more "individualistic". For civilization "requires" a specific form of nurturing to occur.

And so there really are no "good" and "bad" human natures or civilizations. They must judged by their suitability and the contributions by measures of human health and fitness in specific environmental conditions. Hence moral judgements of "good" and "bad" also evolve.

Rousseau and william goldings views on the debate over the nature of man

Man has been reared by his errors: When one has deducted the effect of these four errors, one has also deducted humanity, humaneness, and "human dignity. Rousseauian parents and spanking. Why didn't Rousseau appear to approve of spanking? Hobbes most likely did not envision this carefully controlled and manipulated childhood environment a guess on my part. The actual man Rousseau and not the philosopher writing about his "imaginary" ward "Emile" in "real life" gave up ALL his many children for adoption.

Does that sound like a man who cared about "spanking"? I suspect he wanted his children raised in an environment devoid of luxury and priveledge, where he, through love, would not be tempted to "spoil" them.

Rousseau made a " choix Cornelien vs Hobbesian choice? Anonymous, I appreciate the amount of time you are devoting to my blog, but I'm still not sure you are understanding the point of these posts.

All I've done is to set up a dialectic between Hobbes and Rousseau to bring certain perspectives to light. At no point have I ever suggested that either man was correct or that we should agree with them.

Rather, I'm using each as a lens to differentially highlight aspects of life e. Do you see what I'm doing? I didn't discuss parenting to support either Rousseau or Hobbes, but rather use the dialectic between them to take a fresh look at parenting or movie themes. So, although you can go off on Rousseau, you're still not really seeing my posts clearly. I'll keep talking with you, but only if you truly take the time and effort to understand what the posts were about.

Sorry, I thought I was explaining my "theory of human nature and its' manifestations" in a manner that might account for the reasons "why" the views of Rousseau and Hobbes may have "differed" if they really did on these subjects.

Government Violence, Human Nature, and The Hunger Games

Isn't that the purpose of a dialectic? To explore and reconcile the differences between two opinions and thereby attempt to arrive at a better understanding of them and the reasoning behind them? In this case, I believe that the premises upon which their opinions may have been expressed were "different", primarily on the basis that they were made pre-Darwin and therefore before the omnipresent popular idea that human nature if it included nurture was not a "constant", but has "evolved" to suit changing environmental conditions.

I enjoyed your examples and the challenges they represented.