Compassionate Savages?

In my opinion, Rousseau’s Discourse stood out from most of the other theorists about whom we have read, in that he has maybe the most positive outlook on the natural state of man. Savages, he calls them, are perfect by no means, but they are less inclined to fight each other, because equality is preserved.  He does admit that they fight when faced with hunger or in self-defense, but generally, there is no great inclination to defeat another. The purpose of this explanation, partially at least, is to refute Hobbes’ evaluation of the state of nature. Hobbes believes that man, in his natural state, has the desire to dominate others, to defeat them for the purpose of his own self-preservation.  Perhaps one of Rousseau’s strongest arguments against Hobbes is his account of compassionate savages. I was immediately reminded of one of my favorite movies, Tree of Life.

                            This sequence depicts a gentler state of nature, one that precedes man. 

 The state of nature is not one of complete cruelty. The Tree of Life begins with a sequence of the creation of the world. Although it seems out of place and strange in such a film, it shows the origins of compassion in some of the most prehistoric species. Initially, I had to watch the movie a few times to understand the purpose of the dinosaur sequence, but eventually I realized that it is there to demonstrate that altruism exists, contrary to many beliefs. Similarly, Rousseau’s theory itself contradicts most of the other accepted yet harsh outlooks on the state of nature. 

At first the dinosaur violently steps on the head of the other, but when he sees that it is dying, there is a sense of compassion. When the dinosaur gently strokes what could have been its prey, we as the audience see that altruism, suggesting that compassion was present before man even existed.  No animal wants to see another of its kind die. Compassion prevailed over predatory instinct. Perhaps the state of nature was gentler, more compassionate than Hobbes claimed it to be. 

Later in the film, there is a constant battle between nature versus grace. Nature implies a state of selfishness pure self-interest, the state of nature which Hobbes would have supported. Grace is a selfless state, which is much more difficult to reach. There is always a struggle between the two. 

                                       Perhaps that gentler state isn't always so easy to reach. 

In contrast to the first, more compassionate state of nature, this scene suggests that "nature" is actually selfish. Grace is harder to attain, and is therefore farther from the state of nature and maybe even closer to the societal state, when people develop attachments to each other and begin to care for the people around them. Does compassion belong in the state of grace or in the state of nature? The film offers views of both Hobbes' state of nature and Rousseau's state of nature, making this question hard to answer.