Pre-Modern and Modern Views of Nature and Death

 

Walt Whitman and Emily Dickinson in their poetry address diverse issues concerning nature and death. These are two aspects of life that all human beings have to live with and have to come to terms with the fact that they will have an effect on them. In this paper, there will be an attempt to compare the pre-modern to the modern view of nature through an analysis of the poetry of Whitman and Dickinson.

One of the most important aspects concerning the views of these poets is that they promote the idea that death is essentially something that has to be feared. This is especially considering that in the modern world, people more often than not, because of the adoption of science as the mainstay of everyday life, are afraid of dying. In addition, the concept of nature is one that is seen to be hostile to human beings and that there is need to bring about its taming. The taming of nature is considered an essential aspect of being civilized; meaning that being in touch with nature is viewed as regressive. Therefore, the modernist view concerning nature and death are essentially hostile to both because human beings do not often have control over these aspects of life.

The pre-modern and modern poetry’s views concerning nature and death have a considerable number of similarities. When it comes to death, both views look upon it as an extremely personal experience. This is exemplified in the pre-modern era where there was the belief that death brought about a level of relief from the problems of everyday life. Moreover, it was intensely personal because it was closely tied to religious beliefs in such a way that there was the promotion of life after death. Whitman, in “When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom'd”, seeks to understand death and questions why God allows it to take place (Whitman). The modern perspective is also fairly personal when it comes to death because it is believed to involve the complete end of a life. In the poetry of both eras, nature is viewed as being beyond the control of human beings, with the latter having to live the best way that they can within it.

Despite the similarities between them, there are considerable differences between the themes involving nature and death in the pre-modern and modern eras. Among the most significant of these is that unlike in the modern era, in the pre-modern era, there was an acceptance of death an inevitable, but this was tempered by the belief that there was life after death. Moreover, acts of nature were believed to be the will of God and because of it could not be questioned. In the modern era, nature is viewed as essentially being hostile to human beings, as seen in Dickinson’s "Apparently with no surprise" where she questions the benevolence of God (Dickinson). This is an important perspective especially the case considering that these beliefs have become influenced by science.

In conclusion, the pre-modern and modern views of death and nature are displayed in the works of Dickinson and Whitman. In the analysis above, there has been an attempt to show the similarities and differences between the beliefs concerning death and nature in these two eras. The result is the realization that despite the similarities and differences, the views were extremely personal.

The State of Nature

 

The state of nature is one of the most debated opinions concerning the nature of human beings by philosophers. This is an extremely important concept because it seeks an understanding of the manner through which humans before the formation of societies behaved. The analysis of the state of nature considered the reasons behind why individuals ended up becoming part of societies, which essentially brought about a situation where there was the creation of the nation-state. A consequence of such a situation was that individuals shifted from a state of nature to a state of society, and the problems that the latter entails. Among these problems are the restrictions that the society puts on the natural rights of individuals, to such an extent that they essentially become subject to a political system. In this paper, there will be an analysis of the state of nature, with reference to the opinions of John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau being compared and contrasted.

Among the most important philosophers to undertake to explain this concept are Locke and Rousseau, both of who consider individuals before the formation of societies had better lives than is the case with those who live in societies. Locke and Rousseau both consider the state of nature as having been more conducive for individuals, because they were able to exercise their freedoms better. Locke argues that individuals were able to live the way that they wanted without harming one another because they in the state of nature, they made use of reason. The governance of reason meant that they are able to ensure they attained all their needs without resorting to exploiting one another, as is the case in society (Locke 3). This argument is further advanced by Rousseau, who considers the state of nature as having been the creation of a situation where individuals were not able to harm one another because they did not know each other well enough (Rousseau 50). The arguments made by both Rousseau and Locke show that they take a common stance when it comes to the state of nature, where they believe that individuals had more freedoms, and could act in such a way as to ensure that their interests were catered for.

Locke and Rousseau, despite the similarities of their arguments, also have a number of differences. Locke promotes the idea that in the state of nature, individuals were governed by reason (Locke 3). He essentially suggests that in the state of nature, humans have the capacity to think and determine what it best for them because of the presence of natural laws. This argument is one that seeks to show that the state of nature and the governance of natural laws are essential in the advancement of the rights of individuals. It also considers that this state to be the most conducive because it allows for the supremacy of natural laws over those of society. This is an argument that does not agree with that proposed by Rousseau, who proposes that in the state of nature, individuals are neither good nor bad. Instead, they live in an environment where they are not able to distinguish what it right from wrong. Moreover, Rousseau is of the opinion that individuals in a state of nature are essentially blank slates, who end up being influenced by societies, which are essentially determinants of whether individuals will be good or evil (Rousseau 46). Therefore, Rousseau seems not to believe that the state of nature involves the governance of reason, and this is especially considering that individuals do not know good from evil.

The origins of the political community are explained by both Locke and Rousseau and this is done in relation to the state of nature. Locke is of the opinion that human beings are born free and that they become involved in the political community out of the desire not to be alone. He suggests that humans are created by God in a manner that encourages them to seek companionship, meaning that they are inevitably drawn into a society that essentially develops into a political community (Locke 28). However, despite being a part of the political communities, natural law should take precedence, meaning that it is essential for the natural rights of individuals should be respected at all times. Rousseau, on the other hand, states that the formation of the political community or civil state is responsible for the erosion of the state of nature (Rousseau 167). He considers the latter to be real freedom that is the essential right of all individuals, but with the formation of political society, this freedom is disrupted because of the dominance of one group of individuals over another. The result is that most individuals end up not having the freedoms provided by the state of nature to undertake the actions that they need to in order to bring about the advancement of their own personal needs.

Despite their differences, both Locke and Rousseau provide very pertinent arguments concerning the state of nature. However, the account provided by Rousseau is one that is more convincing because it provides a perspective concerning the state of nature and how this state is affected by the formation of society. One of the most important arguments that Rousseau makes, and is more convincing than that of Locke, is that in the state of nature, individuals are essentially blank slates, meaning that they are unaffected by any form of corruption (Rousseau 50). Instead, they live in an environment where they are governed by their own needs, neither being good or bad. This is an important argument because it shows Rousseau’s belief that society is what brings about the disruption of the state of nature, to such an extent that individuals are pushed towards behaving in a manner that is against their nature (Widerquist and McCall). Furthermore, Rousseau’s argument shows that it is society that has an influence on the development of individuals into either good or evil, because they become affected by the restrictive practices that are a part of the social environment. A result of such a situation is that one group of people achieves dominance over another because they have the ability to enforce their will (Rousseau 259); essentially going against the state of nature where all people are not only equal, but are also free to do as they please.

The natural state of mankind can be considered an essential concept because it seeks to ensure that there is the promotion of the rights of individuals in society. This is especially considering that it involves individuals having natural rights that are inalienable, even within the social structure. The recognition of natural rights is fundamental in the establishment of means through which to ensure that individuals are not only able to live according to their own desires, but do so based on the governance of reason. Reflecting on the natural state of mankind is essential in the establishment of a conversation concerning the effects of society on the rights of individuals. It also helps to bring about a conversation about the need to ensure that there is a respect of the natural rights of individuals in such a way that enables these rights to be recognized even within a social environment, where the restrictions against them are numerous. The attainment of a just society, where individuals have a right to ensure that there is the advancement of their interests by the political class through the application of reason, is essential in the advancement of the state of nature. Therefore, rather than the state of nature being one governed by chaos, a reflection on it is an important means of bringing about a respect for the natural rights of individuals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government: An Essay Concerning the True Original, Extent and End of Civil Government. John Wiley & Sons, 2014.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The basic political writings. Hackett Publishing, 2010.

Widerquist, Karl, and Grant McCall. "Myths about the State of Nature and the Reality of Stateless Societies." Analyse & Kritik 37.1-2 (2015): 233-258.