An analysis of human nature by karl marx and rousseau

Nevertheless, although much of what he wrote has been sedimented into contemporary culture, many of his ideas, especially his political ideas, are far too scandalous ever to be fully incorporated into academic common sense. Part of the reason for this is that his legacy has consistently been attacked and misrepresented by individuals and groups who are, so to speak, on the other side of the barricades. It is not that modern theory does not recognize change; it is rather that it tends to conceive it in effectively reformist terms: He was neither an economist nor a sociologist nor a political theorist, but his revolutionary theory involves the sublation of these and more categories into a greater whole.

An analysis of human nature by karl marx and rousseau

For example we can discuss man-nature relationship in geographical, biological, historical and philosophical points of view. In this research paper the concentration is on the man-nature relationship in the philosophical point of view, though we can also draw evidences and examples from other points of view like historical, biological, and geographical.

This is because this research paper aims to discuss man-nature relationship from philosophical point of view in our current situation. For this reason we can say that theories were devised from the incorporeal ideas, data were gathered from the human senses, and concrete evidence was pursued to support philosophy.

This chapter will concentrate on the relationship of man and nature according to different scholars. In this case we mean that Ancient Greek philosophy is the foundation of many topics we discuss in our daily life.

The anthropological problem concerning the relationship between man and nature was also discussed by the Ancient Greek philosophers. He suggests that, the good is the intelligent inner principle that determines the nature of every object capable of goodness, and goodness works in all things.

However in book of Republic in the elucidation of the ontological differences between forms as the products of a divine maker, their earthly copies, and the limitation of these copies by an artist. So here it is where shows how nature corresponds with human person and in the explanation of the four causes are where it discloses the works of nature as that of the human person.

That is to say nature clearly exists because humans are able to interact with it. However, a human person is able to interact with nature, due to the fact that a human person has ability or rather potentiality of exploring the nature.

A human person as human person has a thinking capacity which helps him to work on nature, or, in other words, to operate on nature, that is to say to act by doing different things with reference to nature.

An analysis of human nature by karl marx and rousseau

This means that nature occurs naturally and operates in the physical world. Causes are distinguished in many ways, not only the four causes material, formal and moving or efficient and final but the operation of causes, plurality of causes, contrary results, and models of causation.

Changes and occurrences have other causes than nature: Inquiry in to motions and changes in the last four books runs through motion and rest, the analysis of concepts related to succession, contiguity, and continuity, the investigation of mover and moved and the demonstration of a first mover.

This is an important distinction between the natural sciences during ancient times and science in modernity. They mostly used the Ancient Greek ideas to elaborate the relationship between man, nature and God under the umbrella of Christianity.

In other words we can say that most of the medieval philosophers like the Greek philosophers make the connection between the physical world and the divine. All the laws of nature, all the laws of morality or of society ought to be considered as so many particular cases of one single law, divine law.

Thus the name eternal law is given to this first law, source of all others. This might be an insoluble problem where this law not in some way written in his very substance so that he has only to observe himself so attentively in order to discover it there.

In us, as everything, the inclination which draws us towards certain ends in the unmistakable mark of what eternal law that makes us what we are, we have only to yield to the legitimate inclinations of our nature in order to obey it.

This almost seems to be a truism but it records the least contestable and most universal experience. It is a fact that every living being movers under the impulse of its desires or its aversions.

What we call good is really only the object of the desire, and what we call evil the object of an aversion. If we suppose an object which all desire, it would be by definition absolute good taken in itself.

An analysis of human nature by karl marx and rousseau

To say that we must do good and avoid evil is not arbitrarily to decree a moral law; it is merely to read a natural law which is written in a very substance of beings and to bring to light the hidden spring of all their operations.

We have to do it, because it is our nature to do it. But also he means that first the law of nature must be understood. So for this understanding we can say that for Bacon man has the responsibility to dominate nature and command it. But for him is very important before commanding nature, first the laws of nature must be understood and this is because of a simple reason that in a normal situation we cannot command things without knowing their laws or principles.

He uses the concept of state of nature as a means of trying to determine how man was before he entered society.Rousseau includes an analysis of human need as one element in his comparison of modern society and the state of nature. According to Rousseau, “needs” result from the passions, which make people desire an object or activity.

Dec 08,  · I think that Rousseau’s state of nature resembles what Marx wants communism to be.

Journal of the History of Philosophy

For example, Rousseau states that the first person to claim something as property created society and ended the state of nature. The establishment of modern society is tied closely to the common line of thought expressed by modern thinkers like Marx, Weber, and Rousseau.

These men all had complicated ideas in regards to the formation of modern society, but they all addressed certain aspects of that development. Marx and the State of Nature Stanley Williams Moore Journal of the History of Philosophy, Volume 5, Number 2, April , pp.

On Rousseau see Marx, "Zur Judenfrage," Marx/Engels Gesamtausgabe, div. 1, I, Imagine his astonishment to find Marx, in the analysis of commodity fetishism at. He was always of the opinion that human nature was a drastically shifting thing, but it stood strong on a few different foundations.

Human beings might change their feelings on a lot of things, but according to Karl Marx, they would never stop with the striving to work hard for their possessions.

Marx and the State of Nature Stanley Williams Moore Journal of the History of Philosophy, Volume 5, Number 2, April , pp. On Rousseau see Marx, "Zur Judenfrage," Marx/Engels Gesamtausgabe, div.

1, I, Imagine his astonishment to find Marx, in the analysis of commodity fetishism at.

Political Science Resource Blog: Comparing Marx and Rousseau