Sociology has long been concerned with the matter of human interaction and the essence of communities and their unity. While the general public does not pay much attention to such issues, many sociologists and psychologists have long been concerned with the question regarding the most comfortable conditions of human beings and their innate preferences. In his chapter, Along or with others?, Roochnik provides an objective picture of Aristotles’ and Rousseau’s visions of human preferences. Initially, the author offers his own story of discovering the serenity in solitude, accentuating the fact that his “thoughts flowed more smoothly, free from a stress so routine that it was unnoticeable,” and he was free from social pressure (Roochnik, 2016, p.27). As a result, this spurred the question which permeated the chapter: when is the person feeling the most comfortable and themselves – when taking a peaceful stroll through a remote forest or in dialogue, teamwork, and competitiveness with others?
The first perspective discussed by Roochnik involves the opinion of Jean‐Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau draws a parallel between the primitive men from the stone age and modern human beings. The philosopher claimed that men in the stone age led a much simpler life. Sexual need drove primitive man to associate with a woman for a few minutes of contact in the condition of nature, and that was all (Roochnik, 2016). He was a recluse who had nothing, and most importantly, he did not compare himself to other people.
Still, humans were innocent and comfortable with themselves in the natural world since they lacked imagination and technology. The pace of life was easygoing and unplanned, and yet, the change in society transformed people’s way of living. The philosopher introduced the concept that all humans are social creatures by default it is the greatest natural feeling (Roochnik, 2016). The development of technology made primitive man conscious of his similarities to other human beings as well as his supremacy over other creatures. In society, people constantly judge themselves by contrasting themselves with others (Roochnik, 2016). As a result, humans no longer have a real link to their own instincts and emotions (Roochnik, 2016). People stop acting spontaneously, and rather, what they desire, or believe they desire, is dependent on how they perceive themselves.
Nevertheless, the author provided one more concept that contrasts the opinion of Jean‐Jacques Rousseau. Aristotle’s perspective stands that the family and the community can support human existence and, indeed, helps people with their survival (Roochnik, 2016). However, in contrast to its simpler and rudimentary constituents, the city’s objective or goal is not only existence but quality living (Roochnik, 2016). In this sense, what Aristotle implied is that people created communities not for the mere protection of the species but for engagement. The philosophers viewed society as people whose innate desires included building and stratifying communities and meeting their personal needs (Roochnik, 2016). In this case, Aristotle emphasizes the necessity of logos, which means speech or thought. The philosopher’s concept is that the impulse to engage in conversation and connect with others, and even ourselves, is fundamental to who people are (Roochnik, 2016). This explains the reason why people enjoy communication and even gossip.
Toward the end, the author does not give a distinct answer to the question of what makes the man feel like himself. Roochnik (2016) states that in order to give an exact answer, much research will be required. In turn, the writer offers everyone to answer this question themselves by replying to what is more significant to them, the example of which is on the last pages of the chapter: “talking – about your hopes, problems, passions, political inclinations, ideas, questions” (Roochnik, 2016, p.63). Thus, every reader should decide for themselves which is right.
Upon reading this chapter and reviewing the questions offered by the author, I realized how the overall perception of self and one’s own desires in modern man is muted. The perspective of Jean‐Jacques Rousseau was a significant addition to Roochnik’s chapter since it compared people from the stone age to modern people, whose desires are driven by socially constructed rules, norms, and ideals. Moreover, Aristotle’s opinion in the second part was effective as well since it showed that logos is an essential part of human existence and it is the driving force of society.
Overall, the question of the author is valid, and it is still open to debate since there is no one answer, and with the help of philosophers’ perspectives, Roochnik showed the duality of this matter. From personal experience, I feel the influence of technology and other amenities that transformed people’s lives. Many people become obsessed with how they are perceived with the advent of social media platforms or pursue the most prestigious career for the sake of validation. This is the reason why many people decide to be within the community rather than alone. Therefore, people are dependent on society and its overall structure and are most productive when they are together, rather than alone.
Reference
Roochnik, D. (2016). “Alone or With Others.” In Thinking philosophically: An introduction to the great debates (pp.27-64). John Wiley & Sons.