The racism of the “noble savage” idea is quite well-known, but I did not invent it. Most people find out the “noble savage” is a racist, discredited idea before they even learn what the “noble savage” is. I have definite sympathies with Rousseau, because it is my own opinion that humans, being neither good nor evil, act in one fashion or the other due to the context they are placed in. Rousseau’s thinking was similar, but he saw human nature as “good,” and the effect of “society” as inherently negative. I differ from Rousseau in that I see the subject as more complex. Humans are neither good nor evil, and the effects of society can be either positive or negative, depending on whether those societies are adapted or maladapted to their circumstances. For example, the same impulse of “greed” in our society’s context is usually negative, but in primitive societies that very same impulse leads to the kind of actions we normally would consider “altruistic.”

This is why primitive societies are of such interest. They are obviously well-adapted to human nature, and the ecological conditions they exist in. Our own society can make no such claims. Thus, they are of interest as a guide to extrapolating what constitutes a well-adapted society, so that society’s effects can be positive, rather than negative.

However, romanticizing primitive societies as utopian as Rousseau did provides an unrealistic understanding, and thus undermines any such endeavor. Hobbesian pessimism that humans are inherently selfish and violent merely accepts the status quo and compromises for an inferior life subject to Leviathan’s literal reign of terror.

Though Rousseau’s ideas specifically had a significant role to play in the history of the idea of evolution, neither Hobbes’ nor Rousseau’s ideas could be considered in any way “evolutionary.” Yes, they divided history into stages, but then, so did Christianity itself, broadly, into the pre-Christian and Christian eras. For Hobbes, history shows the progress of humanity as we leave behind the bellum omnium contra omnes thanks to the ruthless violence of Leviathan. For Rousseau, history shows the regress of humanity from a solitary, Edenic state, to our current weak, corrupted form. Neither notion has the slightest to do with evolution (though both concepts of progress and regress are often attached to it by the ignorant). Evolution is about change–whether positive or negative is irrelevant, and thus, it is almost invariably a “mixed bag” of first one, and then the other. The history of evolution is littered with “failed experiments.”

Nowhere in any of the foregoing have I mentioned the work of Daniel Quinn, but if you were to identify my argument as “Quinnian,” you would be correct. Neither Hobbes nor Rousseau mention the Fall, but in both of their work, it is the “elephant in the parlor room.” Hobbes, though an atheist, espouses a view of humanity that is clearly based in the Christian idea of unsaved, sinful humanity. They are not terms Hobbes would use, but his depiction is indistinguishable from Christian homeschooling textbooks. Hobbes does not attribute “salvation” to any sacrificed godhead, though; instead, the State is humanity’s savior. It is a trivial difference in the overall arc of the story presented. For Rousseau, the Fall is a concept to rebel against.

The point of my “rant,” as should have been clear, is that “good” and “evil” are not inherent to our nature, but a product of our social context, which can be altered. Thus, if we find our situation not to our liking, then we cannot excuse inaction with invocations of “human nature.” Rather, it becomes our responsibility to create a society more to our liking. Perhaps I should have stated that more explicitly.

Also, just wanted to point out a pretty big internal contradiction in your argument (rambling). You accuse Rousseau of racism by romanticising the notion of primitive man as a ‘noble savage,’ which appears to just be a simple (and empty) attempt to discredit Rousseau. But then two paragraphs down, you argue that “…we can focus on our superior soul or intellect, and laud ourselves as the best. Neither is true…” I guess what I’m left wondering is, what’s your point? Are primitive men superior to civilised men because of their nearness to pure and successful anarchy, or are they just another form of bland humanity, that you seem to have a pretty bland understanding of. If they are as muddled as the rest of humanity, why do you care that Rousseau regards them as superior? Surely that’s a better ground to attack Rousseau on than his supposed racism. Finally, it’s important to note too, that both Hobbes and Rousseau avoided any mention of divine creation or ‘the fall,’ and their model of humans progressing through stages of growth closely resembles evolution (though the term had a while still to be invented in the scientific arena). So why do you get so up yourself about the fall? I can only assume its because you needed some logical bridge between the proposed subject (the State of Nature) and your desire to rant for a few paragraphs (which I feel justified in calling a rant, because you stop far short of reaching any conclusion other than conventional morality bores you). Let me know what you think.