Human Nature, By Jean Jacques Rousseau And Thomas Hobbes

In Michel de Montaigne’s “Of Cannibals” and Thomas More’s Utopia, both authors depict different idealized societies. Within these depictions both Thomas More and Michel de Montaigne’s use themes such as geography, daily work routine, abundance of resources, authority, and motives for war as definitive features of their societies. Through these themes each society develops its own unique identity, differentiating one from the other yet both representing its own ideal society. Michel de Montaigne explains a simplistic and nature based perfect society free from the impurities of the developed world in his essay “Of Cannibals”, while Thomas More entertains a more developed and intricate society with established human authority in Utopia.

Eyquem de Montaignes' thesis is that his own countrymen are not less or more barbarous than cannibals, which are still very close to nature and to the origin of life.

In the On Cannibals Montaigne begins the essay by introducing, or describing, a man that he has met who has lived in Antarctic France. He describes him as being crude, and like many others, can't help but change history through his own interpretation. Montaigne continues by going into how each person has their own definition of barbarism. Those who are seen as being barbarians are those who don't have the same practices and beliefs as the other.

Michel de Montaigne wrote “Of Cannibals” having never been to the New World, and at a time when Native Americans were almost universally considered to have a backwards, lesser society compared to those of Europe.  As a member of the French elite, his perspective is unique because he takes a stance that is incongruous with general European sentiment. Additionally, Montaigne is upfront about the fact that he is not an expert on Native Americans, admittedly never having been to the New World, gaining much of his knowledge of Native Americans from a man who “had lived ten or twelve years in the new world.” (1) He refutes any assumptions that the man might have lied to him, saying he “…was a plain and ignorant fellow, and therefore more likely to tell the truth,” (3) but nevertheless, his writings must be read with this possibility in mind.

Embedded in the human spirit is the notion that people possess an innate sense of being an individual, free to think, act, and understand the world surrounding them. In George Orwell’s 1984, individuality is removed to support the Party’s abilities in controlling and exploiting the masses. Yet, despite their success in suppressing the citizens of Oceania there is something rooted in humanity that although can be repressed, still remains implanted within the deepest parts of a person’s mind. In the novel, while the Party attempts to annihilate all human instincts in order to acquire pure and absolute power, it is unknown to them that despite their best efforts there lies something much more dominant in the human mind which although can be inhibited may never be entirely eliminated. As Winston ponders revolutionary ideas, his physical body unknowing to his conscious mind, is complacent with his innermost thoughts to rebel in any way possible. Winston’s thoughts of unorthodoxy become enhanced through Julia because he discovers someone who desires and understands him, conjuring up something instinctual in him which has been waiting to be released. To care and protect someone else becomes instinctive when he/she experiences suffering or pain and this kind of understanding is acknowledged through the only people Winston believes express any sanity in a corrupt world: the proletarians. A person’s impulse to resist an oppressive nature is instinctual and this is validated through

The nature and way humans behave has been sunk deep into our ancestors’ history and experiences. The many sides of human nature are present in all of mankind. The nature of mankind is explored by numerous texts. Two of these texts are Lord of the Flies and The Hunger Games. Both texts explore the nature of humans and how everyone has traits of them all.

Two philosophers of different eras tackle the same topic, human nature, and a great argument breaks out. Is man inherently evil, like William Golding believes? Or is man good at heart but inevitably becomes corrupted by the society he lives in, as said by Jean Jacques Rousseau? Both philosophers have very strong opinions and well reasoning for what they believe. Golding’s views are displayed well throughout his novel, Lord of the Flies; a tale about strong minded, young boys stranded on an island who must find a way to survive on their own. After reading this novel, I found myself agreeing much with Rousseau’s views on human nature.

Thomas Paine, a revolutionary, intellectual, and supporter of American independence from England published a book titled, “Rights of Man” which deals with the government shielding the natural rights of its people. Initially, the book captures the diverse aspect of this nation, but it fails to reveal the struggles that arise to preserve and adapt to such a society. Paine expresses his optimism towards the supposed perfection of American society, as one “made up...of people from different nations,” with certain expectations. Additionally, the time gap between “Rights of Man” and modern America cannot be neglected. Paine wrote during an era in which “constructing a government on the principles of society and the rights of man” was the essential objective of the country. However, modern-day America experiences opposite ideals and Paine’s theory no longer remains true because of the educational gap between the rich and poor, terrorism, and racial profiling.

This extract from Montaigne’s ‘Des Cannibales’ is found near the beginning of the essay. It is pivotal in setting the precedent for the rest of the essay since it establishes how Montaigne came to his viewpoints on the Tupinambá since they are different to those held by many of his contemporaries. When Montaigne wrote, people were only beginning to learn about other areas of the world. People on the whole had not travelled and so held ethnocentric views regarding culture. They failed to understand the people of the New World, thus labeled them as ‘sauvage’ and ‘barbare’ something which Montaigne challenges in this essay, and specifically sets out in this extract.

Throughout his essays, Montaigne expresses strong opinions against ethnocentrism, such as in On Cannibals, where he writes that, “there is nothing savage of barbarous about those peoples, but that every man calls barbarous anything he is not accustomed to,” (82) and, “We should be similarly wary of accepting common

Rousseau’s state of nature differs greatly from Locke’s. The human in Rousseau’s state of nature exists purely as an instinctual and solitary creature, not as a Lockean rational individual. Accordingly, Rousseau’s human has very few needs, and besides sex, is able to satisfy them all independently. This human does not contemplate appropriating property, and certainly does not deliberate rationally as to the best method for securing it. For Rousseau, this simplicity characterizes the human as perfectly free, and because it does not socialize with others, it does not have any notion of inequality; thus, all humans are perfectly equal in the state of nature. Nonetheless, Rousseau accounts for humanity’s contemporary condition in civil society speculating that a series of coincidences and discoveries, such as the development of the family and the advent of agriculture, gradually propelled the human away from a solitary, instinctual life towards a social and rationally contemplative

Human nature is something that never seems to change. While humans all seem to be different from one another through physical and emotional attributes, their psychological behaviors are all mostly very similar. In the late 18th century and early 19th century, many authors successfully could explain the characteristics of human nature and the effects that it has on everyone and everything surrounding human beings. Ralph Waldo Emerson, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Edgar Allen Poe all convey the behavior of human nature in separate ways. These three authors show the curiosity, drive for perfection, and fear of human nature throughout their texts in detail. With these characteristics being prominent in human nature itself, it

This research paper will delve into the topic of cannibalism in native tribes of Brazil during the Portuguese colonization of the South American country. My research only the topic yielded very interesting results. Some scholars suggest that cannibalism (in the instances involving the Tupinamba tribe and their ritualistic practices) didn't even occur. This isn't to say, however, that cannibalism was completely nonexistent in Brazil, but arguing that it did not occur in the “savage” ways often described. I could easily sum up the accounts of various witnesses of cannibalism, but I will focus on the material that will mostly discuss the effect that cannibalism had on colonization in Brazil.

I feel that the document is bias in the fact that he feels humanism and sophistication is in conflict with nature and brings about the evils of the world (68). However, it is hard to say it because it happened at the time period when there were prevailing circumstances. It also states that the rule of natural order is replaced by institutional causing unhappiness and striving, when Tao neglected and not followed (68). Lao Tzu questions the definitions of bad and good, or who is decides what the two (68). In my opinion, the point of view of the document is that the writer seems to finds it difficult to follow Tao as oppose to humanism in the society. It demonstrates a worldly possessions that it usually requires show and while this happens,

Montaigne presents this argument about culture’s creation of a bias lens in Of Cannibals. The reader is forced to acknowledge that a view of barbarism stems from what is unfamiliar. Cannibalism is not a norm of the reader’s culture, and as such the reader is forced to question why cannibalism appears so barbaric when compared with the atrocities of their own culture. The familiarity of the evil that is known is what makes that evil appear less barbaric. In reality, and as Montaigne helps his reader to see, the forms of torture that are familiar to the reader are no less indecent than the cannibalistic society, but the culture that practices cannibalism seems uncivilized because to the reader because cannibalism is something taboo in their culture. Societal structures and norm create a