– (A) The difference between Rousseau’s and Hobbes’ ‘natural’ men is that Rosseau is harkening back to the primitive man, whereas Hobbes envisions 17th century man, and how he would react if the entrapments of civilisation completely vanished. Therefore I think its a bit unfair to compare one with the other.
– (B) I’m not sure if nakedness and lack of medicine are really assets to the savage man, though I can understand how the savage is no doubt stronger than the modern civilian (if less cultured).
– (C) I was left thinking that the savage man will also not have any concepts of freedom/morals. The more complex ideas we have of freedom and morality are human-generated constructs, in tandem with the human constructs of the sovereign/ruling government.
– (D) Considering how peaceful the Rousseau’s state of nature is to Hobbes’, it’s interesting how Rousseau’s formation of the state through revolution is a lot more violent than the social contract’s desire to promote peace in the Leviathan. It’s almost like Hobbes decided to flip that book on its head.
– (E) Just as fear was the ‘good guy’ in Leviathan, leisure is the ‘bad guy’ in A Discourse On Inequality. Which makes sense, as I rarely get fearful (or feel like I’m a productive member of society) while I’m watching old episodes of Flying Circus.
– (F) This book should have ended with a ‘to be continued….’ as I was left thinking it’ll be interesting to find out what solutions to this state of inequality Rousseau has in mind, though apparently that’s sorted out in his Social Contract.