In today’s age of advanced science and technology, we understand that knowledge is a double-edged sword. There are many wonderful benefits to the intellectual strides we have made in these fields, for instance, in the field of medicine. However, it is difficult to determine when scientific pursuit becomes excessive or harmful, or even whether too much knowledge exists. Aristotle argues that all men, by nature, desire to know; knowledge and wisdom inherently perfect human nature. He believes that wisdom, truth, and knowledge are the greatest values in human life. The eighteenth-century French philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, on the other hand, argues that nature did not intend for man to gain knowledge or wisdom, because they corrupt human nature. He believes that man is more free and equal without knowledge. In this essay, I will first explain Aristotle’s position on how wisdom perfects human nature using the Metaphysics. I will then use Rousseau’s Discourse on the Origin and the Foundations of Inequality Among Men to explain his position on how wisdom corrupts human nature. Last, I will demonstrate my own view on these two opposing ideas. I think that knowledge perfects human nature because it is what makes us human and allows us to develop into the people we are meant to become.
In his Metaphysics, Aristotle explains how all men by nature desire to know because man naturally has the capacity for gaining experience. He distinguishes between knowledge of particulars (scientific, practical knowledge) and wisdom, which he describes as “knowledge about certain causes and principles.”1 He then goes on to explain that these causes and principles are what separate human beings from animals. He states: “Animals live by appearances and memories, and have but little of connected experience, but the human race lives also by art and reasoning.”2 He explains that the greatest knowledge is of things that are “the hardest for men to know, for they are furthest from the senses.”3 Therefore, wisdom is knowledge of the greatest things that are beyond our senses. Because humans possess the capacity for this knowledge, Aristotle argues that we possess a natural desire for it.
Rousseau argues that man was better off without knowledge beyond basic necessities, as it over complicated existence, led to conflict, and created inequality. In his Discourse on the Origin and the Foundations of Inequality Among Men, Rousseau explains how humanity fell from its optimal state of being. The story begins with a primitive man living a simple life with which he is satisfied. He soon realizes, however, that he can build objects to get more of the things he wants or needs, which introduces the concept of property. Rousseau states that the founder of society was “the first person who, having enclosed a plot of ground, thought of saying this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him.”4 This initial pursuit of property soon develops into primitive societies and families, which leads to the division of work. Men and women are separated by their differing qualities, and the former are further separated into farmers (strong workers) and metal workers (strong intellectuals). Rousseau explains the effects of this separation: “From the cultivation of the land its division necessarily followed, and from property, once it was recognized, the first rules of justice.”5 The establishment of justice and law develops into greater division within the new society; man learns the power of deception, power, and greed. Eventually, a leader arises from the midst of battles and establishes his tyranny. Ironically, man reverts back to the original state of nature in which all men were equal, only now they were all equal, but under a tyrant. Rousseau states: “It is here that everything is brought back to the sole law of the stronger, and consequently to a new state of nature, different from the one with which we began, in that the first was the state of nature in its purity and this last is the fruit of an excess of corruption.”6 Therefore, Rousseau believes that man was better off without knowledge beyond the most basic necessities because it over-complicated existence, led to battles, and created inequality. The inequality of humanity could have been avoided if man never had knowledge or wisdom.
I agree with Aristotle that man by nature desires to know because knowledge, or rather wisdom, is what separates man from animal, so without it there would be no humanity. Some argue that man does not naturally desire knowledge, as it led to corruption, inequality, and tyranny. It is true that men existed as equals in the state of nature without knowledge. Rousseau states that man was “content” with this life and nothing more. However, if man was truly content in this state, then why would he have taken property as his own in the first place? Rousseau argues that it was nature’s mistake that man gained knowledge; but if nature showed man this knowledge, that implies that man had the choice to take it or not, and it seems that man in fact accepted it. Moreover, it is important to note that Aristotle explains what separates man from animal, namely wisdom, while Rousseau does not. If wisdom or rational thinking is the factor which separates man from animal, then man without this knowledge is no longer man. Rousseau argues that man did not desire knowledge in the first place, yet also acknowledges that humans are above animals in some way. He explains that humans are able to conquer animals because of the ability to “surmount nature’s obstacles, to fight other animals when necessary, even to contend with men for his subsistence or to make up for what had to be yielded to the stronger.”7 If humans are above animals not by physical strength, but also do not (or rather should not) possess knowledge of innovation, then what other factor can there be which raises man above beast? Rousseau’s belief that man was equal before he sought knowledge may be true, but I think he is wrong in stating that men by nature do not desire to know.
The potential for harm does not mean man was not meant to possess knowledge. We must learn to pursue knowledge for its intended purpose. Knowledge becomes dangerous or wrong when it is sought by power-seeking and selfish people. Therefore, we need to understand the morality of things before trying to pursue them, which means discerning between good and evil motives. In this essay, I argued that humans desire to know by nature using Aristotle’s Metaphysics. I explained Rousseau’s view on knowledge from his Discourse on the Origin and the Foundations of Inequality Among Men, in which he argued that knowledge corrupts humanity, and man does not desire it by nature. I negated these claims on the basis that humans are only humans because of the natural capacity to rationalize things that are beyond the senses, unlike animals. Since the desire to know is what makes us human, then it is a part of our human nature. In order to properly utilize this gift of rationalization and wisdom, we must find where to draw the line between healing and harmful intellectual pursuits. In order to look to the future of science, we must first look into ourselves.
End Notes
1 Aristotle, Metaphysics, trans. W. D. Ross (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924), 3.
2 Aristotle, Metaphysics, 2.
3 Aristotle, Metaphysics, 3.
4 Jean-Jacques Rousseau, “Discourse on the Origin and the Foundations of Inequality Among Men,” in The Major Political Writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau: The Two
Discourses and the Social Contract, trans. John T. Scott (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 2014), 91.
5 Rousseau, “Discourse on the Origin and the Foundations of Inequality Among Men,” 99.
6 Rousseau, “Discourse on the Origin and the Foundations of Inequality Among Men,” 115.
7 Rousseau, “Discourse on the Origin and the Foundations of Inequality Among Men,” 92.
