Philosophy with SuperY, it makes you feel great! Each episode introduces you to a philosophical thinker.

This month, June 28th, is Rousseau's birthday.

Coincidentally, Linking Publishing is reprinting Rousseau's classic work for its 50th anniversary.

"Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men."

In today's video, we'll introduce Rousseau's philosophical ideas.

In 1712, Rousseau was born in Geneva, which is now Switzerland. He is actually a Swiss philosopher, not a French philosopher.

He grew up in the rural areas of the Alps and loved the classics of ancient Greece and Rome.

Unlike other philosophers, he did not grow up within the system.

He didn't receive any formal philosophical education; he was entirely self-taught.

You could say he was a philosophical prodigy.

At the age of 15, Rousseau apprenticed to an engraver.

One day, he came home too late, and the city gates were already closed.

If he went back the next day and was discovered, he would be punished by his master.

So Rousseau simply didn't go home and wandered penniless to other places.

A few days later, he met a woman named Warens who took him in.

She sent him to church for formal education and converted him to Catholicism.

Rousseau mentioned in "Confessions" that he was sexually harassed by members of the Catholic Church when he was 16.

Someone tried to seduce young Rousseau.

He went to complain, but he was told that he was just a child talking nonsense.

As a result, his experience in the church was not very good.

Later, Rousseau went to Paris to find Ms. Warens, and the two lived together and fell in love over time.

Because Rousseau had musical talent, he worked as a music tutor in Paris and earned money by arranging music.

Because there was no university philosophy department before the 19th century, many philosophers earned money by working as private tutors.

Rousseau's musical talent allowed him to enter Parisian high society.

He met Diderot, the central figure in philosophy at the time.

Diderot was writing the encyclopedia project.

So he asked Rousseau to write the entry for music.

As a result, Diderot was imprisoned for publishing the statement that "innate ideas do not exist."

Because the Catholic Church believes that people are born with original sin and have God innately.

These are all innate ideas.

If you dare to challenge it, you are challenging the authority of the church.

When Rousseau visited Diderot in prison, he read in the newspaper that they were accepting submissions for a writing competition.

The topic was "Has the restoration of the sciences and arts contributed to the purification or to the corruption of morals?".

Rousseau suddenly realized something when thinking about this topic.

So he wrote an article. Arguing that the more advanced science and art are, the more degenerate human civilization becomes.

As a result, he won first place and became famous throughout France.

Later, he participated in the writing competition again.

This time the topic was "On the Origin of Inequality".

Rousseau's submission this time made him famous. He went from being a musician to a philosopher.

This book has become the most influential work in Europe.

Many French Revolutionaries were inspired after reading this book. Realizing that inequality is not destiny and that society can be changed.

In today's episode, we will introduce this important work by Rousseau. 《Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men》

To find the origin of inequality, the first step we should take is to ask: Is inequality natural, or is it created by human society itself?

For example, we see capitalism causing inequality in today's society.

Many people will say that this is human nature.

Capitalists are just exhibiting the greed of human nature.

Inequality in society is merely derived from natural inequality.

This defense presupposes that inequality is natural human nature, rather than human nature shaped by society.

In that case, no matter how you change society, it's useless.

But if greed is actually shaped by society, and you portray it as innate, then you're committing a fallacy.

Therefore, Rousseau believes: We must distinguish between human nature unpolluted by civilization, and human nature socialized by civilized society.

Only then can we know when inequality began to appear.

For example, Aristotle believed that inequality was destined at birth.

Everyone is born with different IQs, appearances, and physical abilities.

Some people are just born lucky and win the genetic lottery.

That's why they easily achieve success in society.

Aristotle used this view to justify the Greeks' enslavement of foreigners. Saying that Greeks are naturally more suitable to be masters.

Rousseau now wants to refute this argument that 'inequality is caused by nature'.

Suppose someone is born with physical or mental disabilities. You would say that this is called innate inequality.

But Rousseau now says, no.

How a congenitally blind person is treated depends entirely on society.

In many ancient cultures, blind people were regarded as having predictive abilities and were worshiped as prophets.

But in industrial societies that value labor, blind people are regarded as useless.

So inequality is not caused by nature, but by humans themselves.

Nature itself has no issue of justice or injustice.

So to know the origin of inequality, Rousseau says: We must envision a world unpolluted by civilization.

Rousseau calls it the 'state of nature'.

The state of nature means that there are no human factors interfering with our observation of human nature.

Extracting people from society, people can be self-sufficient like wild animals.

Like Disney's Tarzan.

This state can reflect the original appearance of human nature.

On the contrary, people in civilized society have been polluted.

Rousseau wants us to compare animals in nature with animals domesticated by humans.

Wild dogs are stronger and can hunt for prey themselves.

But domesticated dogs have lost their ability to find food on their own.

Now Rousseau says: Humans themselves are the animals that have been domesticated by civilization.

Civilization has made humans weak and sickly.

People in the state of nature are actually stronger Because primitive people relied on their physical strength to hunt

But after civilization invented various tools People's ability to survive on their own has weakened instead

If you throw a civilized person into the jungle, they might not survive a week

Although civilization has the most advanced medical technology But in the most advanced countries Citizens suffer from various diseases of civilization

Depression, cancer, insomnia In Rousseau's view, this is a symptom of civilization

Diseases that civilized people create themselves, which primitives simply don't have

However, although Rousseau criticized civilization He is not anti-civilization

Rousseau didn't tell everyone to go back to living in primitive tribes But to use it to shatter the illusions of modern people

Believing that human nature is inherently evil That inequality originates from the natural disposition of certain people

Rousseau believed quite the opposite People are good and kind in the state of nature There is no problem of inequality

This was a very bold idea at the time Because 18th-century Europe was still ruled by the church

People believed that humans are born with original sin And need to rely on education and joining the church to be saved

Rousseau surprisingly argued that people are born good and kind And degenerate after entering civilized society

This theory caused a great shock at the time Several of Rousseau's books were also banned

So what does the most original human nature look like?

Rousseau believed that the most original human nature consists of two forces

First, people have a love of self-preservation This is the most primitive animalistic nature of humans

Human behavior is all about self-preservation, allowing oneself to live

This is also why people love their parents

Because parental care helps survival

This instinct for self-preservation does not lead to bad consequences

A primitive person goes out hunting to fill their stomach It will not create an unequal society

You might retort by saying If several hunters are competing for limited resources Wouldn't there be a problem of uneven resource distribution?

Then inequality will appear

Rousseau believed that Thinking this way is projecting the perspective of modern people onto primitive people

In true primitive life, there is no need to compete for resources at all

Because nature is full of fruits and prey everywhere Primitive people don't need to compete at all

Just go to the mountains and forests to pick fruits when you are hungry

Thinking that resources are limited and that you need to plan for the long term Is a mindset that only civilized humans have

Because civilized people live in cities, resources are controlled by the wealthy, so they think resources are very scarce, and don't understand the abundance of nature.

Rousseau even believed that the concept of "future" only exists in civilized society.

Primitive people don't need to worry about the future at all, but live in the moment, just trying to survive.

In short, self-love for one's own benefit does not lead to inequality.

In addition to self-love, there is another human trait that benefits the continuation of the entire species, and that is compassion.

People feel pain themselves when they see a sentient being suffering.

For example, theater audiences feel pity when they see a wild beast snatching a child.

This kind of compassion can also be observed in the animal kingdom.

Animals feel compassion when they see their own kind suffering.

Rousseau believed that this compassion is the source of almost all virtues and good deeds.

So compassion cannot be the origin of inequality either.

In addition to self-love and compassion, there are two other human traits that animals do not have: one is perfectibility.

A person's inner potential can be perfected through the environment.

For example, language ability.

People are born with the potential to learn languages, but they still need to learn through nurture to develop it.

Animals, on the other hand, do not have the potential to learn languages. So no matter how you teach them, they won't learn.

Humans have infinite plasticity and can be shaped by the environment, changed to the point where you can't even see the original nature.

This is why many theories of human nature are wrong in Rousseau's view.

They are not talking about the most primitive human nature at all, but human nature that has been transformed by the environment.

Finally, the difference between humans and animals lies in this: humans have free will to choose.

Animals can only follow the natural laws of cause and effect, but humans can resist.

For example, hunger is a natural stimulus, and animals will look for food when they are hungry.

But humans can exercise freedom to resist hunger. For example, by going on a hunger strike.

These four human traits in the state of nature, self-love, compassion, perfectibility, and free will, we cannot find the origin of inequality in any of them.

So Rousseau believed that inequality must not originate from nature.

The state of nature was instead the golden age when humans lived the happiest and healthiest.

It was after entering civilized society that all kinds of suffering began to appear.

If the state of nature is so good and civilization is so bitter, then humans would definitely not leave the state of nature voluntarily.

It must have been some accident that led humans to civilization.

So although Rousseau is classified as left-wing, he is very different from most leftists.

Leftists generally believe that enlightenment will bring historical progress to mankind, but Rousseau doubts whether history is really progressing.

So rather than saying that Rousseau is an Enlightenment philosopher, it is better to say that he is an "anti-Enlightenment" philosopher.

He believes that modern civilization has led to the degradation of human nature.

So the first conclusion Rousseau draws is Inequality doesn't originate in nature; it inevitably stems from something created by humans themselves.

Having argued that the origin of inequality is not natural or inherent in human nature... Rousseau will now directly answer: What is the origin of inequality, then?

Rousseau believes that when human society develops to a certain stage, transitioning from independent, self-sufficient primitive humans to communal human societies, people gather together to sing and dance in their leisure time.

People will start to think: Who dances better? Who sings better?

Who is more attractive and suitable as a partner?

They begin to evaluate others and compare who is more attractive.

Because everyone wants to be the most charming person in the eyes of their beloved.

But once this comparative mentality starts to spread, human psychology begins to deteriorate and become corrupted.

People become increasingly concerned with others' opinions and crave a sense of superiority.

They want others to love them more than they love themselves.

The "self-love" of the natural state transforms into "vanity" or even "narcissism."

This psychology is what Rousseau calls: l’amour-propre (vanity, pride). This vanity is not the original state of human nature, but rather a distorted state shaped by society.

Because primitive humans in the natural state wouldn't compare who owns more.

Just as a squirrel accumulates nuts only for its own needs, not to make other squirrels jealous.

The primitive human's sense of superiority is only exerted on animals.

For example, discovering that they can run faster than their prey, they feel that humans are superior beings.

But after human society develops to a certain stage, humanity's sense of superiority actually turns towards its own kind.

Now people not only have to conquer beasts, but also conquer others.

Every time you meet someone, you mentally weigh them up. Mentally calculating who is more capable.

Even if you are already very wealthy, as long as you meet someone even wealthier than you, you will still feel poor.

And you will crave to earn even more money.

The point is not how much I actually own, nor whether I really need more, but whether I appear superior to others in their eyes.

Rousseau believes that this is the origin of inequality in human society.

It is because human vanity, amour-propre, has been awakened.

Primitive humans have since become comparative beings. They live for the gaze of others.

Pursuing being the best, richer, or more attractive than others.

All kinds of evils in human history can be traced back to this psychology.

For example, how does wealth inequality arise?

Rousseau believes that after agriculture and the division of labor appeared in human civilization, people have become increasingly dependent on each other's labor. Losing the ability to be self-sufficient.

Primitive humans could live independently, but civilized people cannot.

People with strong vanity take advantage of this weakness. Enclosing land that was originally common property.

Telling a group of ignorant people... This land is my private property.

And these people are foolish enough to believe it.

Rousseau said: This is the origin of civilization.

It's that someone, to satisfy their desire to feel superior, introduced the concept of private property into the community.

Making people forget that the land doesn't belong to anyone.

In French, vanity (Amour-propre) and property (propriété) share the same etymological root.

But seizing land isn't enough.

Because those deprived of land could unite and fight back.

So the rich have to unite to create a nation.

Let the state establish an army to protect the property of the rich. Enact laws, define what is justice.

So when the poor want to rebel, the state will send troops to suppress them.

And tell the poor: you were the ones who disturbed social order first. You are the unjust party.

This makes inequality appear legitimate.

So, in Rousseau's view, wealth inequality doesn't stem from economic problems.

Private property, the state, the legal system – these are all derived to maintain inequality.

The real root is actually a psychological problem.

When people see that they have more than others, they feel a sense of superiority.

Inequality isn't because of human greed.

Ancient kings and today's capitalists, what they really crave isn't money.

But the thrill of dominating others with wealth. Being able to make others envious, feel they are superior.

This sense of domination is more satisfying than the money itself.

In Rousseau's view, those who possess a lot of wealth actually crave the attention of others.

That is to say, they don't really know what they want. But live under the gaze of others.

We all think rich people are happy. But rich people are actually very miserable.

Because they may not know what they want until they die. Life is just about constantly accumulating wealth to make others envious.

In addition to wealth inequality, Rousseau believes the psychological mechanism behind love is also related to amour-propre.

Because when you fall in love with someone, it's equivalent to acknowledging that this person is the most attractive to you. The number one in the eyes of your lover.

Humanity invented marriage to satisfy people's amour-propre.

Marrying someone is like publicly declaring to society, you are the best person I think. You have won over other competitors.

This is also why Rousseau believes people shouldn't cheat. Because it's personally destroying the recognition you once gave to your partner.

It's like trampling on the other person's self-esteem.

This is also the difference between civilized people and primitive people.

Primitive people don't need a marriage system. Nor do they have the concept of fidelity in love.

They just follow their primal urges, constantly seeking sexual partners. They also don't feel jealous or envious as a result.

We can also think about it in our daily lives. Many behaviors are actually driven by amour-propre.

For example, are many people working out for their own health, or to gain the envious looks of others?

Many parents say that education is for the good of their children. But is it for the child's own development, or to make others think they are good at raising children?

Rousseau's theory can be used to re-understand our relationship with ourselves and others.

Think about when we do something, is it to make others envy me, to gain the approval of others, or am I really doing it for myself?

After pointing out that the origin of inequality is amour-propre, Rousseau will now further argue why inequality is bad.

Rousseau believes that inequality must be criticized because it has immoral consequences.

The first is that economic inequality leads to a loss of freedom.

The poorer people are, the more easily they are dominated by the rich.

Because the poor must rely on capitalists to give them work to eat.

They are also forced to obey the will of the capitalists.

So why can't the poor refuse to work?

Because in a highly specialized modern society, your food, clothing, housing, and transportation all rely on the labor of other workers.

To obtain these products to meet your needs, you must work to earn money.

Sacrifice your freedom to work for the capitalists.

In other words, the way civilized society enslaves the general public is actually through artificial needs to create dependence.

Because you can't be self-sufficient, you need to rely on market goods.

So you have to sacrifice your freedom to earn money.

The more you rely on goods produced by others, the more money you have to earn. The greater the freedom you sacrifice.

This leads to a slave-like character in civilized people.

Even if the company doesn't force employees, employees will constantly flatter their superiors and bosses. Because this is the way to please life.

In comparison, primitive people don't need to please anyone.

Because in prehistoric times without specialized division of labor, primitive people relied on themselves for food, clothing, shelter, and transportation.

They didn't depend on anyone, so they could maintain their independence and autonomy.

For example, after Alexander the Great conquered the Ichthyophagi, a fishing and hunting tribe in the Persian Gulf, he discovered that they lived self-sufficient lives.

They didn't care about civilized things at all.

Alexander the Great had to force them to give up eating fish, cutting off their means of livelihood, in order to rule them.

For example, we often say that it is very convenient to eat out in Taiwan. This gives people a feeling of freedom, you can eat whatever you want.

But Rousseau would say that this is an expression of unfreedom.

Because you will become overly dependent on eating out, and lose your ability to cook for yourself.

If all the restaurants close one day, you will have to wait to starve to death.

In Rousseau's view, to break away from the state of unfreedom, you must judge whether my needs are real or false needs created by society.

After real needs are met, you will feel more satisfied and free.

After false needs are met, you will feel more unfree and dependent on society.

For example, the number of likes and traffic on social media, are all false needs in Rousseau's view.

The logic behind this is that you want attention and praise from others.

It means that you live under the rule of other people's opinions. You have to cater to popular tastes to create content.

The more you care about the number of views, the more you depend on others. In the end, what you lose is your own freedom.

The scary thing is, you may not even realize it.

Because once false needs become a habit, you will feel that they are real needs.

For example, many rich people consume, not to satisfy real needs, but to satisfy their own vanity of comparison.

Engaging in ostentatious consumption, buying luxury goods, and traveling everywhere, to highlight that they are superior to others.

These people seem to be consuming for themselves, but in fact, they are thinking of others when they consume. Thinking about how to make people envy and be jealous.

Later, after World War II, the German philosopher Marcuse developed a theory of false needs very similar to Rousseau's. To criticize contemporary high-consumption society.

He believed that many needs were actually created by capitalism. Making people more dependent on the market for easy rule.

In fact, as early as the 18th century, when capitalism was just budding, Rousseau had already criticized this phenomenon once before.

Rousseau more clearly pointed out the psychological mechanisms behind it.

Besides the loss of freedom, Rousseau believed inequality had another negative consequence. That is, it harms the well-being of the majority of society.

Rousseau said, Even if the people at the very bottom of society can meet their basic needs, a large gap between the rich and the poor is still harmful to people.

Why? Because human amour-propre desires equal respect from others, to be treated as human.

But the poor in society are looked down upon by others.

So Rousseau criticized inequality, not simply because of material poverty, but because of psychological factors.

Let's imagine that people at the bottom of society receive the minimum wage.

Although they can afford three meals a day, they are still treated like corporate slaves or losers.

At the same time, they see many billionaires in society living enviable lives every day.

This immediately creates a sense of frustration in the hearts of the lower class.

Those who support capitalism will say, this gives the poor more motivation to make money and turn the tables.

This argument just doesn't understand Rousseau's criticism.

Because even if you make a lot of money today, rise to the middle class, own a house and a car, as long as the psychological mechanism of amour-propre still exists, you will continue to compare yourself with those higher up.

Seeing others having more will make you feel desire. You will still feel unsatisfied.

So in an unequal society, all classes of people actually become more unhappy.

Because everyone wants to climb up, but there is no end.

Whenever you climb up a class, and gain a little satisfaction, once you see people above you owning more, your sense of satisfaction disappears instantly.

So what if people can't climb up?

Rousseau believes there is another way to gain a sense of superiority. That is to deliberately suppress those below you. Preventing others from climbing up.

Your position will not be replaced by others.

Rousseau believes many of the sufferings in human society stem from this mentality.

If subordinates perform better than their superiors, they will climb up step by step. One day, they might surpass their superiors.

Therefore, superiors must suppress their subordinates. To maintain their own sense of superiority.

So, Rousseau said, "The desire for reputation turns all men into competitors."

This is the key to Rousseau's critique of inequality.

To judge the quality of a country, you can see how severely social inequality undermines the well-being of its people.

So far, amour-propre seems to have only negative consequences.

But Rousseau actually believes that the mentality of comparison can also lead to good outcomes.

Because the desire to compete for glory and be the best has also led to many inventions and creations of human civilization.

For example, the heroes in ancient Greek mythology all sought to make their names immortal.

Or the Olympic Games, where athletes from all countries yearn to be superior.

This mindset allows them to break through human potential and reach new heights.

If you read celebrity biographies, you'll find that many great people created great works with the underlying motivation to amaze others, showing that they are the most talented.

In these examples, we see that amour-propre can bring positive benefits, motivating people to do things that are beneficial to civilized society.

So Rousseau's theory is very dialectical.

He doesn't say that the desire for superiority is all bad. But rather that the same human desire creates many of the evils of civilization, but also creates many of its masterpieces.

Rousseau first reveals that the origin of inequality is not natural human nature, but the corrupted human nature of amour-propre.

Then he criticizes the various evils brought about by inequality.

Finally, Rousseau wants to ask further, why inequality causes so many social problems, why every time inequality appears in a society, it spreads like a plague.

Inequality can be seen in all human societies.

If inequality brings so many evils, shouldn't people in society try their best to avoid it?

Rousseau's answer is also astonishing.

He believes that because those oppressed by inequality actually participate in it actively.

The system can only continue with the acquiescence of the oppressed.

First, vested interests will instill false ideas in the public, telling the public that inequality is natural, and that everyone is born with different talents.

Capitalists are richer because they have more entrepreneurial talent.