Nothing can be more gentle than man in his primitive state.
J.J. Rousseau
What does it mean?
How does it relate to chapter 4 that you just read?
What concrete example of this quote can you find in the novel?
REMINDER:
2 people from the Flies tribe will be eliminated tomorrow!!
Notebook 4 is due tomorrow in class.
This quote, by J.J. Rousseau, means that the natural state of men is a nice and gentle state, but when influenced by others, they change for the worst most of the time. Some people believe that, "Every baby is born good", and when they grow up they start to develop habits they learned from their surroundings. Then once older, society starts to change them to fit into today's state. To me, this quote means that menn are naturally gentle, but because influenced by today's society and surroundings, they are in a different state containing bad. In chapter 4, when Jack doesn't give a piece of meat to Piggy, Simon gave his piece. To me it shows that Simon is trying to be good but because influenced by how the majority of the people behave, he feels shame of doing some good. "Simon, sitting between the twins and Piggy, wiped his mouth and shoved his piece of meat over the rocks to Piggy, who grabbed it. The twins giggled and Simon lowered his face in shame."P.78. Also, Simon's natural state of good is proven when Jack throws Piggy's specs, and Simon goes and gets them for Piggy. " He went crouching and feeling over the rocks but Simon, who got them first, found them for Piggy. Passions beat about Simon on the mountain-top with awful wings."P.75.
RépondreEffacerI like your answer because you highlighted the few good acts that have happened on the island, while there is a lot of bad going on. You also say that the influence of society gives bad habits and this gets me thinking that maybe their society now can be considered just as the group of boys. Since there are no longer any adults around these young boys to teach them good, they do what they think is alright and therefore bad gets to them more easily. I guess it depends on what kind of society surrounds someone...
EffacerI completely agree with you Tyler. I love the way Golding developed the character of Simon in the novel, how he is naturally good yet he is always influenced by others toward evil. From chapter 1, we knew he was delicate to a certain point (he fainted from heat exhaustion) and in chapter 2, he is the only boy who acknowledges Piggy's help. (p.42: “we used his specs, He helped that way”) In chapter 3, he is the only boy who agrees to help Ralph build shelters and helps littluns get fruit that are too far away for them to reach, and know, in chapter 4, he helps Piggy as much as he can without being completely hated by the other boys. Simon always seems to be a breath of fresh air on an island full of monsters. It almost seems as if he doesn't belong, as if he shouldn't be there. The one person who goes against a movement by helping others in small ways, making everyone's life easier. I think he represents humanity's "good side" whereas Jack would represent humanity's "bad side".
EffacerThat is a good way to look at it Tyler, but I looked at it differently. I think Rousseau uses the word 'gentle' not as a word qualifying how nice a person is... I think he uses it in the sense that means 'fragile'. In the first seconds that follow birth, I believe that man isn't good nor bad, but the fact that the child has to become either good or bad, since we created this concept to which every being is bound (the concept of good and bad), the child is very susceptible to influence from either, good, or bad. I don't think Rousseau was talking about the gentleness of a primitive man, I think he was talking about the gentle primitive state of man. It is said to be gentle because it is very fragile.
EffacerI really like your opinion on the quote Tyler. I especially like that example of Simon and Piggy. I have a feeling that this will result to a big problem with Simon in the future. I think that because he is often put down to being nice and innocent that he will eventually revolt and created a bit of a disaster; because of the influence of his surroundings.
EffacerI agree Tyler, the way people act is definitely linked to some kind of influence one way or another. The boys have alot of presure on them, being stranded on this island, worrying for themselves, worrying for the others around them, pin pointing what is more important to survival and who is more important, etc. All these's stresses and worry's add on to how they will portray their behaviors and actions around others. Some (like Simon) probably have past experiences, and or guilt/more bravery, then the other boys. Although, the other boys, including the two authority figures (Ralph and Jack) may not have lived or grown to the same influences, this may cause troubles in perspectives and importance's, leading to personal opinions on fixed people. (seen in this chapter when Ralph and Jack disagree on what they think is important and fight)
EffacerI really like your answer Tyler! I also think that this quote has relation as to how people act. Simon is naturally a good kid, and when he does favors for piggy, like giving him pieces of meat and picking up his glasses for him when jack throws them off Piggy's face, he still feels a certain level of shame and awkwardness for being the outcast, because of the crowd of bullies that he is surrounded by.
EffacerI agree and completely concur with your arguments, Tyler, that Simon is ashamed to do good as the society, the others on the island, are all doing the contrary. They are all abusing each other and starting useless fights. I am also of the idea that gentle in the quote can refer to fragile. If we all endorse, that society affects us in some cases to become bad. How long could it take to break Simon, or can he break the society. His regular actions of goodness make him a model that everyone should want to follow. As with every bit of goodness he gives, he can influence others to do the same. His challenge is to change the society before it changes him.
EffacerI hadn't thought that some of the boys were doing good, but you're totally right, Tyler!
EffacerBut I also believe that society influence people to be good, because Jack hunted for all the boys and shared the meat with everyone. This concept of sharing, and helping comes from society and living with others. Because he was annoyed at Piggy, he was mean to him, but this evilness doesn't come from society, but from his instinct of protecting his position of power.
I agree with you Tyler. I like your point about a child being born without evil, I feel that is true because the child is not born bad he becomes bad because of the people who surround him. Like you said Jack's influence on the other boys make them be mean towards Piggy which is not nice. Although Ralph does not help Piggy he tries not to hurt him. On the hand Simon is much more nicer and helps Piggy when in need.
EffacerI agree Tyler. Simon should not have to feel guilty for doing good, but the influence his pairs have on him is clearly changing the way he thinks. However, some of the boys are being good in their own ways. For example, Ralph is leading the group the way he thinks is their nest shot at being rescued. This also means being rude to certain of the boys, like when he tells Jack off for letting the fire die on p. 73-74. Also, Jack is hunting because he believes that the boys need protein in order to sustain themselves. It all depends on how you look at it. So people can also be influenced for the good.
EffacerI agree with you that Simon is one of the few naturally good characters in this novel. He is surrounded by the rest of the boys, some of which are evil, and he is proving to be a better person because he is not being influenced by them. Simon doing the acts of kindness you mentioned towards Piggy prove that he is a better person overall than the other boys, and I really liked the way the author developed that in this chapter.
EffacerThat is one good interpretation, however I find it hard to believe that primitive man in his natural state could possibly be nice and gentle in an environment where you have to kill or be killed by animals or another primitive man. J. J Rousseau is totally idealizing the lot of primitive man.
EffacerRousseau wrote this quote to show his theory that a man is good by nature. In my opinion, in Lord of the flies, Willian Golding is trying to prove the opposite. We start to see the real true nature of the boys through their isolation on the island. A man is naturally sinful and without some kind of social order this primitive state of “evil” can take over. In chapter 4 we can see that, without any guidance, the boys are slowly succumbing to their natural destructive state. Ralph, Simon and Piggy represent the idea that power should be used for good but Jack and Roger are the perfect example of the ones who uses power in a hateful way. “Roger gathered a handful of stones and began to throw them (…) Here, invisible yet strong, was the taboo of the old life. Round the squatting child was the protection of parents and school and policemen and the law.” We can see Roger’s primitive state as he decides to be cruel to one of the littluns for no apparent reason. Also with the absence of society and order, Jack lets his human nature come through when he takes on cruel actions that he maybe wouldn’t normally do. “Kill the pig. Cut the throat. Spill her blood” (p. 72) Jack was able to brutally kill a pig which again shows that his primitive form is leaning more towards a violent savage. He talks about the pig’s murder like it was amusing: “There was lashings of blood” said Jack, laughing and shuddering.” (p.73) Also, in the quote “Jack was powerless and raged without knowing why” we can see another example that Jack is acting with impulse do to the lack of order and society. Without rules or guidance to understand the difference between right and wrong the boys are slowly caving into their primitive state; a state that is far from gentle but more destructive.
RépondreEffacerI really like how you said that William Golding is trying to prove the opposite of this quote! It makes a lot of sense because they are only kids, and the fact that they are isolated on the island can easily erase the influence that the society has had on them. Maybe Golding's motive was to actually prove that we are born bad and that society molds us into good people. He does also have examples of good though, especially with Simon, just as Tyler mentioned in his answer. I think Simon might end up being influenced into bad by the other kids or he could rise up to the top and put order into everything.
EffacerI couldnt agree more with your statement Marie-Pier, this state will definitly develop something destructive or worst in the boys attempt to survival on the island. With the boys arguing about their different perspectives and whats important to them or not, is all depending on where they are placed or the social ranking of the group. Ralph and Jack, seen as the leaders, have every right to say whatever they like, and everyone else, lower ranked, have no say that'll matter. Its already bad enough that Ralph and Jack are fighting, but now all this fighting, power and differences is going to their heads, including the fact that they are stranded on an island. This is not foreshadowing any good.
EffacerI am very interrested by what is being said. I do agree on the fact that Rousseau and Golding had different ideas (if looking at the quote as you did). This contrast in ideas made me think about this: If everyone wrote a book on the survival of a bunch of kids on an island... I wonder to what extent the stories would differ. Would the people who think that man is naturally good write a story about kids collaborating together, and the ones who think the opposite write a story about kids starting wars and savagely killing pigs? Or would everyone write about how evil a kid is because the social belief is that adults have to make kids good through discipline?
EffacerI really like they way that you interpreted this quote, Marie-Pier. It was a different way of seeing it and was very refreshing. I do agree with you that Golding's point of view for this novel is that people are naturally evil and without the good influence, disaster can strike. I also like what Simon is saying about different points of views in the writing of this subject. Being one to think that people are born more neutral/good than bad/evil, I would probably write this scenario with them turning against each other because that is what the situation would come to. In a situation where you have to fend for yourself, I think you are more likely to turn against someone since you probably feel like you are alone and the most reliable person around you is yourself.
EffacerI like your idea, Marie-Pier. The quote by Rousseau and Lord of the flies by William Golding have complete different ideologies. Rousseau says that all children born, are born good. But in the book, William Golding portrays the fact that maybe not everyone is born automatically good. Like when Roger throws rocks at he littleuns by the beach, or jack, just being a nasty person altogether. Since these children are of very young age, maybe not everyone is born good.
EffacerIt's interesting how you say : "Without rules or guidance to understand the difference between right and wrong the boys are slowly caving into their primitive state" I think you are right by saying that without order, chaos happens and the boys become less gentle but I think they aren't necessarily returning to their own primitive state... they seem to evolve into a different, careless, intrepid boys who strive to survive and to do so, they must follow the leader; the leader who destroys all obstacles and problems. At the beginning of the chapter, Maurice and Roger kick over a sand castle made by the littluns. However, "In his other life, Maurice had received chastisement for killing a younger eye with sand. Now, though there was no parent to let fall a heavy hand, Maurice still felt the unease of wrong-doing." (p.63) Maurice followed Roger's destruction because there was no way he could know better, there is no one to tell him not to. However, he feels guilt. His primitive state of following the leader for survival comes out and proves to be quite gentle, he feels exposed by his wrong-doing and quickly runs away.
EffacerI like what you said about Golding’s goal to prove the opposite of Rousseau`s quote. I also like the example you gave of Roger’s acts when his environment is lawless. How he can do what he wants without any punishments or re-precaution. Rogers’s first actions are bad; which illustrates how human nature can turn to bad. However Jack`s cold bloody killing of a pig isn`t necessarily a sign that he is a bad person. But more his need to survive. Although Jack’s actions can be perceived as gruesome, they can be explained or accepted for his sake of survival. It was probably necessary and someone had to do the dirty job. But it is true that his actions towards Piggy at the end of the chapter were very wrong and savage.
EffacerYou’re analysis makes a lot of sense, his ideology goes against what Golding portrays in his book. I think he is more on the side of “society needs to guide humans in the right direction for them to be good”. This is portrayed though several concrete examples like for example, when the narrator describes Roger throwing the rocks. “Round the squatting child was the protection of parents and school and policemen and the law. Roger’s arm was conditioned by a civilization.” (P65)
EffacerI agree 100% with what you have to say and especially how you talked about Jack killing the pig without any remorse or guilt and that he even found it amusing. Also how the boys are slowly showing their true colors because they are stranded on an island and have to deal with eachother 24\7, it really helps us see who gets influenced by society and who can still be good with everything going on (Ralph, Piggy, Simon)
EffacerBravo, well said Marie-Pier! I couldn't agree more! I also find it interesting how you contradict by saying in the novel they're evil instead of good,(because youre trying to proove that not everyone is born good) as you said, Jack and Roger represent more evil as the story goes on and their intentions are no longer good because they feel as so their is no punishments related with their actions
EffacerNever even thought of it that way! Very good point, Marie-pier. I agree when you say that they are losing their civilised manners and falling back on instinct, which Golding is proving to be destructive, primitive and savage.
EffacerI thought that was a really good way to look at the quote and the chapter overall. When I read this chapter it makes a lot more sense now that man is naturally evil/destructive, and it makes me see this chapter's events in a different light because I can see now that they boys are reverting back to their primitive state that, arguably, they have been in since birth.
EffacerI was really confused after writing my other comment because i wasn't quite sure was the quote meant. BUT you just made it a whole lot clearer for me, thank you! So I totally agree with you that this quote is irrelevant to the novel because they are influenced by each other and the situation. They we're not already evil and savage, but the "society" that they are in made them who they are.
EffacerInteresting point on how it takes time for society to properly teach us its values. I don't believe that it is pessimistic to view humanity in this light but rather beautiful that we are able to overcome our nature.
EffacerI completely agree with the thesis that men needs systems which impose order and obligations upon each person to operate in a respectful and social manner, as opposed to a anti-socially destructive manner. You can see this aggressive and dark, primitive behavior increasing within the group as the novel progresses.
EffacerIn my opinion, this quote means that the early stage, in other words an uncivilized state, is a beautiful thing because it is a natural feeling, it’s who we really are, not who society wants us to be. However, I see this quote mostly in contrast with the book Lord of the Flies rather than in relation with it. The book establishes that without society and civilisation, humans are naturally prone towards evil and savagery. This is observable in chapter 4 in Jack, the one who seems to represent the more savage side of human beings and also that most are succumbing to violence. P.67 “Jack rushed towards to twins. “the rest are making a line. Come on!” “But—““—we—““Come on! I’ll creep up and stab.” The mask compelled them.” Here, we notice that the group gives more and more in to savagery and the thrill of violence by slowly leaving their civilized ways. P.72 “Look! We’ve killed a pig—“Jacks attempts to become a successful hunter are making him abandon his civilised way to surrender entirely to his animalistic nature. In opposition with the quote, he is acting like a wild animal when he returns to a more primitive state . P. 75 “This from Piggy, and the wails of agreement from some of the hunters drove Jack to violence. The bolting look came into his blue eyes. He took a step, and able at last to hit someone, stuck his fist into Piggy’s stomach.” This quote proves Jack’s lack of self-control, and that he is resorting to violence to solve his problem. Instead of trying to sort things out in a civilized manner, he uses violence to prove his superiority like an animal.
RépondreEffacerYou're right about the behaviour of Jack, but when it comes in calling him a natural savage..im not so certain. Maybe you're right but i felt like he was nice at the beginning, specially with Ralph. Even if he was evil towards Piggy because he didn't seem to like him, he seemed nicer with the others and I (its my opinion so dont take it badly) believe that his savagery is due to the lack of adult supervision, which, like u said, is part of society and civilisation, but i also believe that he started to become savage after he almost killed his first pig. I mean like, the will of killing a pig made him thirsty for blood and death which triggered his savage but mostly obsessive behaviour. I mean like i believe that he wasnt savage but the blood and the will of killing got him messed up and maybe even made him a little psychotic because after all he wanted was to kill the pig . He did everything to be able to kill the pig, like painting his face, strengthening his spear and even ask for more people to help him. So in brief, i believe he nor the others are naturally savage, they learn to become savage due to their situation and the need of surviving.
EffacerYou're right Miranda! The boys need to be savage and selfish to survive, and Jack shows this very well, in his determination to kill a pig. And the boys all feel the lack of supervision and rules that they had before they got on the island, and because of it, they need to be savage to eat, to be respected of others... Hard to say if they are naturally savage, of forced to be savage by nature...
EffacerI also agree with Miranda, and especially the way you described how Jack becomes more savage after he killed his first pig, in my mind i associated this right away with Macbeth. So if you could say that this is the begginning of Jack's evilness and later in the novel it will come rught back at him and bite him in the butt.
EffacerI have to agree with Mirenda and Sarah here because I also think that Jack and the other boys are not naturally evil, they became evil because of the circumstances they were faced with. But you make a good point that Jack has become more of a savage than any other boy because he feels he has to show his power and authority so that the other boys respect him, in which he succeeds. And you are also right that instead of talking and solving their problems like they would in civilisation they use violence instead which is a bad thing.
EffacerI would have to disagree with you on this. The fact the an uncivilized state is a beautiful thing, is completely true to me. But, this relates to the book because, in Chapter 1, Jack was not the most violent person and EVEN agreed on just being the leader of the choir. But the island/other boys changed him, he did not just turn evil all of a sudden. The fact the he suddenly hit Piggy because of his anger was not because he was already savage but because he was influenced by the circumstances he's in
EffacerLiking the counter arguments Victoria! But I do think that we tend to revert to our natural instincts when taken by surprise or stressed. When Jack hit Piggy, he was overcome by emotion, an amalgamation of contempt and rage. it is normal for our bodies to return in "survival mode" when it is required.
EffacerCe commentaire a été supprimé par l'auteur.
RépondreEffacer