Aristotle differed from Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau in one critical respect. He argued that human beings are political by nature, and that their natural capacities incline them to flourish in society.
I agree with Aristotle’s philosophy that humans are naturally social. Cities conform to the wishes and desires of humans but the idea of the institution has been around as long as humans have. The earliest of humans lived in their own forms of cities with their own set of rules they abided by.
So where some see entitlement, I see greater authenticity and audacity. Millennials will shoot for the stars—and if they fall down, they’ll get right back up and try it a different way.
While there is a sense of entitlement with the milleniall generation, there also comes a resilience different from former generations that allows this generation to bounce back from any failure and try again until their goal is reached.
“Human beings never existed in a presocial state. The idea that human beings at one time existed as isolated individuals, who interacted either through anarchic violence (Hobbes) or in pacific ignorance of one another (Rousseau), is not correct.”
Fukuyama is saying social interactions are apart of human nature. Never has any form of human even in the earliest time periods, have humans only lived lives of isolation and simply kept themselves unaware of the others around them.
Fukuyama rejects reductionist attempts to explain political and social institutions as mere epiphenomena of underlying economic or technological structures. “It is impossible to develop any meaningful theory of political development without treating ideas as fundamental causes of why societies differ and follow distinct development paths.”
The reductionists tried to say that the ideas of the people in a nation had little to nothing to do with the development of that nations political institution but Fukuyama believes that ideas are a key aspect of the development.