It should seem, then, that the nature of society dictates another, a higher branch, whose superiority arises from its being the interested and natural conservator of the universal interest.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Even if one is interested only in one's own society, which is one's prerogative, one can understand that society much better by comparing it with others.
Invoking nature with its implied supremacy ignores that many cultures have fundamentally differing ideas of even what nature is, much less how it should work.
Not only is the self entwined in society; it owes society its existence in the most literal sense.
That a society controls, to a greater or lesser extent, the behavior of its members is a universal; but the methods, the particulars of that control, vary from one culture to another.
Every society needs to examine itself in relation to other societies.
If a man made himself an expert in any particular branch of human activity, there would result the strong tendency that a peculiar aptitude towards the same branch would be found among some of his descendants.
It is also, I would guess, a universal that in all societies people value respectability granted to them.
Really, the only thing that makes sense is to strive for greater collective enlightenment.
That human beings seek their own well-being and that of those close to them is not an especially provocative discovery. What is important is that this universal aspect of human nature persists no matter what economic system is in place; it merely expresses itself in different forms.
Things are still in early stages, but one can imagine that as we build up and systematize our theories of these associations, and try to boil them down to their core, the result might point us toward the sort of fundamental principles I advocate.
No opposing quotes found.