The Natural and the Cultural in Man: Rousseau vs. Aristotle

Abstract

Environmental sensitivity has reinforced the classical Rousseauian antithesis between nature and culture, marginalising man to the point of contempt. On the other hand, the “gender perspective” and transhumanism, such as that of Israeli philosopher Yuval N. Harari with his Homo Deus, assume the existentialist approach of man as causa sui, a demiurge who designs his essence with all-embracing freedom. In this way, nature is dehumanized, and man is denaturalised, challenging the classical idea of nature as a motor and horizon of plenitude imprinted on beings, a tradition where man is not a being against, not even before nature, but the most natural being in the universe. After some introductory considerations, our exposition follows this order: firstly, we will make some conceptual clarifications on the meaning of the natural in man. Secondly, we will recall the Rousseauian vision of human nature, which we consider still dominant in Western culture. Thirdly, we will reflect on the naturally social dimension of human existence, and finally, we will present Aristotle’s reasons that refute entirely the Rousseauian idea that contrasts nature and culture, demonstrating that man as a cultural being is, at the same time, the most natural being in the universe.