The Deep Desire to LEAVE Everything Behind | Rousseau

I read a line somewhere which says, I would rather be a stranger in a strange place than be a stranger in a familiar place. And I just loved it. We all have been in a position like this, especially those among us who prefer solitude more often. We are surrounded by people we know, our families, friends, and co-workers, laughing and apparently happy. But there is always some inner voice whispering all the time, a quiet voice that keeps saying, This is not your place, you need to move on. And the strange thing is that this feeling appears even when nothing seems wrong on the surface. Everything looks normal from the outside. Yet deep inside, something feels out of place, as if you are living in a life that does not truly belong to you. And believe me, that might be the truest voice you will ever hear. Some of us learn to ignore it. We bury it under routines, responsibilities, and the expectations of society. But some people cannot silence it. That voice becomes stronger and stronger until one day, they feel an overwhelming desire to leave everything behind and start somewhere new. And those who actually follow that voice often end up discovering something very unusual about themselves and about society. What happens to them is exactly what I want to discuss in this video through the ideas of the Swiss-born writer Jean-Jacques Rousseau. But before we get into that, we first need to understand Rousseau's controversial claim, why he believed human beings were actually happier before civilization. Rousseau believed that if we go far enough back in time, before cities, governments, social hierarchies, and institutions, we would find a very different kind of human life. He called this early condition the state of nature. In this primitive stage, human beings lived much closer to the natural world. And because of that, their lives were far simpler and far less psychologically troubled than ours. According to Rousseau, early humans did not live in complex societies or crowded cities. Instead, they survived through hunting, gathering, and basic cooperation with nature. Their shelters were modest and temporary. They lived in what he described as rustic cabins, making their own clothes and tools by hand with whatever nature provided. Life in this stage was not luxurious, but it was stable and peaceful. One of the most important reasons for this peace, Rousseau argued, was the absence of inequality. No individual owned vast lands or accumulated enormous wealth. People possessed only what they personally needed to survive. Because of this, there was very little jealousy, rivalry, or competition between individuals. And this, according to Rousseau, made a profound psychological difference. In the modern world, much of our suffering comes from comparison. We constantly measure ourselves against others. Who has more money, more status, more recognition? But in the state of nature, such comparisons barely existed because social structures had not yet developed. Another crucial element of Rousseau's argument concerns human instincts. He believed that natural human beings were guided by two basic drives. The first was the instinct of self-preservation, which he called amour de soi, a natural desire to survive and care for oneself. But Rousseau insisted that humans possessed another equally important instinct, compassion. In his words, natural human life was shaped by an extended inquiry of the state of man, ruled by instincts for self-preservation, amour de soi, and a natural repugnance to suffering, a natural pity or compassion. This idea is essential to Rousseau's philosophy. According to him, early humans did not need moral codes, religious commandments, or legal systems to behave ethically. Their compassion was instinctive. When they saw another person suffering, they naturally recoiled from causing harm. This meant that cruelty and violence were far less common than we might imagine. Primitive people certainly cared about their own survival, but they were also guided by this basic emotional resistance to witnessing suffering. Their compassion acted as a natural restraint against brutality. In practical terms, this created a society where psychological conflict was minimal. People were not constantly worried about reputation, status, or dominance. Their minds were not consumed by pride or envy. Because their needs were simple and their desires limited, their emotional lives remained relatively calm and balanced. Human life, in its earliest form, was fundamentally good. There were no massive armies, no complex institutions, and no rigid social structures controlling individuals. People lived in small groups, often nomadic, taking from nature only what they needed to survive. Because society had not yet imposed its expectations, their minds remained relatively peaceful. Rousseau believed that this independence allowed people to enjoy what he called the fruits of an independent commerce among themselves. In simple terms, individuals interacted with one another only when necessary. They might exchange goods, cooperate briefly, or help each other survive difficult circumstances, but these interactions were not driven by envy or competition. They were simply practical exchanges between equals. Rousseau summarized this philosophy with a powerful idea that echoes throughout his work. Nature made man happy and good, but society corrupts him and makes him miserable. And this is what I am going to discuss now. According to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the great turning point in human history came from a very simple but fateful act, the invention of private property. At some moment in the distant past, human beings stopped living freely within nature, and began claiming parts of the earth as their own. Rousseau captures this moment with one of the most famous lines in political philosophy. The first man who, after enclosing a plot of land, saw fit to say, this is mine, and found people who were simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society. With this single act, something irreversible happened. According to Rousseau, this was not merely the beginning of ownership. It was the birth of inequality itself. The moment land became private property, human life began to change in ways that would eventually transform society completely. Before this point, people lived without rigid hierarchies. But once someone successfully claimed land as personal property, comparison and competition inevitably followed. Rousseau even imagines how different history might have been if someone had challenged that first claim. He writes, How many crimes, wars, murders, sufferings, and horrors mankind would have been spared if someone had torn up the stakes? And cried, Don't listen to this imposter. You are lost if you forget that the earth belongs to no one. But Rousseau also recognizes that by the time such claims appeared, society had already advanced to a stage where they could not easily be resisted. Human interaction had grown more complex, and the idea of ownership had already begun to take root. Once land and resources were divided and fenced off, a chain reaction began. From that moment forward, several powerful and destructive forces entered human life. The first was competition. Instead of living as equals who simply survived together, people now began competing for land, resources, and privileges. Cooperation slowly gave way to rivalry. The second consequence was jealousy. Some individuals accumulated more land, better tools, or more productive fields than others. This uneven distribution created resentment. Those who had less began to feel bitterness toward those who had more. Then came pride. With possessions came vanity. People began to take pride in their wealth and status while looking down on those who possessed less. Social superiority became something to pursue and display. And perhaps most importantly, human consciousness itself began to change. Rousseau believed that the human mind shifted from a simple question, Am I alive and well? to a completely different one. Am I better than them? In Rousseau's analysis, these developments were not minor side effects of property. They were its immediate consequences. The introduction of property created what he called burgeoning inequality. Once inequality entered society, equality between individuals began to disappear. Rousseau explains this transformation very directly. He writes that as soon as one man needed the help of another, then equality disappeared. Gradually, a division of labor developed. People no longer lived independently from one another. Instead, they began depending on each other's skills, tools, and labor. One person might grow crops, another might build tools, another might construct shelters. With this dependence came new economic structures and new social relationships. Rousseau describes the consequences like this. Property was introduced, work became necessary, and the vast forests were changed into glowing fields where one could soon see slavery and misery germinating. Agriculture and land ownership transformed the natural landscape, but they also transformed human society. Forests were cleared, fields were cultivated, and productive land became increasingly valuable. But alongside this progress, social divisions began to appear. Some individuals, those who were stronger, more cunning, or simply more fortunate, managed to acquire greater amounts of land and resources. Others, lacking property, became dependent on those who possessed it. Over time, this imbalance deepened. The wealthy gained more power and influence, while the poor found themselves trapped in dependence. In extreme cases, this relationship developed into forms of servitude or slavery. Thus, what appeared at first to be a practical development, organizing land and labor, gradually created rigid social hierarchies. And this was only the beginning. Rousseau argues that before property existed, wealth consisted only of things like land and animals that were freely accessible in nature. But once land became privately owned, anyone who wished to increase their share could do so only by taking from someone else. This new reality gave rise to entirely different forms of human behavior. Rousseau describes the emerging conditions as a world where domination and servitude or rapine and violence began to take root. Those who possessed nothing had limited options. In order to survive, they often had to depend on the wealthy, beg from them, or even attempt to take what they lacked. Meanwhile, the rich became increasingly attached to their power. Rousseau describes the final outcome with deep pessimism. Society, he says, eventually yielded to the most horrible state of war. Mankind, debased and desolate, brought itself to the brink of ruin. Human beings, once free and independent in nature, had now constructed a system that trapped them in endless conflict. And what comes next in each individual is what I am going to discuss now. As civilization continued to grow, Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed that society slowly imposed a completely new kind of life on human beings. A life built not on authenticity, but on performance. In the natural state, a person simply is. There is no need to prove anything, no need to impress anyone. But once society forms, something changes. A person is no longer judged simply by existence, but by how they appear to others. Rousseau explains that once society established ranks and social positions, individuals suddenly had to possess certain desirable qualities, or at least appear to possess them. Strength, beauty, talent, influence. These became traits that earned respect and attention. But because not everyone naturally possessed them, people quickly learned another strategy. Pretending. Rousseau describes this transformation very clearly. Because qualities like power and talent were the only ones that could win any consideration, one soon had either to have them, or to be able to affect them. To gain any advantage, one soon had to show himself as something different from what he actually was. This shift produced a profound change in human identity. In nature, there was little separation between who a person was and how they appeared. But in society, the two began to drift apart. Rousseau captures this change saying this. To be and to seem became two entirely different things. And once that separation occurred, a whole collection of new behaviors began to appear. Rousseau writes that from this moment emerged pomp and ceremony, deceitful trickery, and all the vices. Human interaction gradually became something like a stage performance. Instead of simply living, people began presenting carefully crafted versions of themselves. Reputation mattered more than reality. Appearances became more valuable than honesty. Society, in other words, forced individuals into a constant masquerade. To explain this psychological transformation, Rousseau later introduced an important concept. This term describes a form of unhealthy self-love that depends entirely on the opinions of others. A helpful explanation comes from scholars of Rousseau's work. In the natural state, this kind of self-love barely exists. Human beings experience only a basic and healthy concern for themselves, which Rousseau calls amour de soi. This simple love of oneself is natural and necessary because it protects survival. But civilization introduces something very different. In social life, amour prop begins to grow. It becomes a self-love which is relative, depending on the opinion of others. Once this form of self-love takes hold, a person's identity becomes tied to how others see them. You must impress people. You must appear successful. You must present yourself in a way that wins approval. Your clothing, your speech, your achievements, your social connections, all become tools for shaping how others perceive you. Reputation turns into a fragile possession that must constantly be protected. Ambition becomes the desire to outshine others. And social approval becomes the currency that determines a person's worth. Rousseau observes that in civilized life, a person must seek incessantly to interest others in his lot and make them realize that it is in their interest to work for his sake. In other words, survival now depends on persuading others that helping you benefits them. This creates a complicated and often exhausting social game. Rousseau continues by describing the psychological consequences of this system. He writes that this necessity makes him cunning and two-faced with some, tough and domineering with others, and forces him to abuse all those whom he needs when he cannot make them fear him. To survive within society, people begin acting strategically rather than honestly. With some individuals, they behave politely and flatteringly. With others, they behave harshly or aggressively. They manipulate situations, hide their true intentions, and constantly adjust their behavior depending on who they are dealing with. Gradually, this way of living becomes normal. People learn to act. And in doing so, they slowly betray their natural selves. This social mask, what we might call the false self, becomes deeply embedded in everyday life. But Rousseau believed this transformation was extremely dangerous. Once people begin living behind masks, they become trapped in endless comparison with others. He emphasizes this paradox again with the same haunting observation. One had to show himself as something different from what he actually was. In the light of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's analysis, the common urge to abandon society is not madness. It is, in many ways, a natural reaction to the pressures that society places upon individuals. Modern life constantly subjects people to external judgment. Careers, social standing, reputation, and wealth are all measured against the lives of others. Instead of discovering who we are, we are often told who we should become and what we should desire. Over time, this constant comparison produces a deep sense of exhaustion. Rousseau would interpret this feeling as a kind of internal rebellion. The natural self quietly resisting the artificial life imposed by society. Consider the moment when someone suddenly feels the impulse to leave everything behind. A person might want to quit their job, abandon the city, travel endlessly, or retreat to a quiet cabin far away from the noise of modern life. Rousseau would argue that this impulse is not simply irrational behavior or emotional instability. Rather, it is the voice of our original nature trying to speak again. It is the same part of us that once thrived on simplicity, independence, and authenticity. After years of chasing recognition and status, the soul eventually protests. It whispers a difficult but honest thought. This life is not truly mine. Sometimes personal experiences intensify this feeling. Traumas, disappointments, or midlife crises can push individuals to question the direction of their lives. But beyond personal struggles, there is also a broader human concern. The search for meaning. Few writers express this crisis more vividly than Leo Tolstoy. At the age of 50, Tolstoy found himself confronting a deeply unsettling question about the purpose of his existence. He wrote, What will come of what I am doing today or shall do tomorrow? What will come of my whole life? The question haunted him so intensely that he soon realized its deeper meaning. He was really asking, Why should I live? Why wish for anything or do anything? Is there any meaning in my life that the inevitable death awaiting me does not destroy? This crisis nearly pushed Tolstoy toward suicide. He searched through science, philosophy, and intellectual knowledge hoping to find answers, yet none satisfied him. In terms that resonate with Rousseau's thinking, Tolstoy eventually felt that modern life, despite its comforts and achievements, lacked genuine meaning. Only after abandoning many of his privileges and turning toward a simpler spiritual way of living, did he find relief from this despair. A similar story appears in the life of Henry David Thoreau. Dissatisfied with what he saw as society's quiet desperation, Thoreau decided to withdraw from ordinary life and spend time living near Walden Pond. His reason was simple and direct. He explained it with a line that later became famous, I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life and see if I had not lived. For Thoreau, stepping away from society was not an escape from life, but an attempt to understand it more clearly. By stripping away unnecessary distractions and facing nature directly, he hoped to rediscover the essence of existence. For thinkers like Tolstoy and Thoreau, the desire to leave society behind was ultimately a search for authenticity. Both believed that modern civilization had surrounded human life with artificial values, wealth, status, prestige, and endless competition. The urge to escape these pressures was therefore a reaction against those artificial expectations. For some individuals, the demands of civilization eventually become suffocating. In those moments, the idea of a freer and simpler life becomes incredibly attractive. It is the call of what Rousseau would describe as the natural self, the part of human nature that existed before society reshaped our desires. Although Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed civilization had corrupted human life, he did not literally argue that everyone should abandon society and retreat permanently into the wilderness. He understood that society was already deeply established and that people could not simply undo history. Instead, his idea was that individuals should attempt to reconnect with their authentic nature while still living within society. This process requires a conscious effort to step away from the pressures of comparison and appearance. According to Rousseau, individuals must learn to reduce the influence that society's expectations have over their lives. One important step is reducing dependence on social approval. Much of modern anxiety comes from worrying about what other people think. Rousseau suggests that people should gradually detach themselves from this constant need for validation. That might mean refusing to participate in endless networking, competition, or status games. Instead of shaping one's life around approval from others, a person should pursue personal freedom and inner peace. Another important step is simplifying desires. Society encourages people to constantly pursue more, more wealth, more possessions, more recognition. But Rousseau believed that true contentment often comes from wanting less rather than obtaining more. When human desires remain simple, they are easier to satisfy. This idea later appeared clearly in the work of Henry David Thoreau, who famously emphasized the importance of simplicity with the words, simplicity, simplicity, simplicity. Rousseau also believed that reconnecting with nature plays an essential role in rediscovering the natural self. Spending time outdoors, walking through forests, observing rivers, sitting quietly in a park or garden, allows the mind to step outside the constant noise of society. These moments do not need to serve any practical purpose. Simply observing the natural world can calm the mind and remind individuals of a slower and more genuine rhythm of life. Rousseau's own life provides powerful examples of these ideas. In his later years, he wrote a reflective work titled, Reveries of the Solitary Walker. In this book, written quietly during old age, he described how solitude and nature became a refuge for him after years of public conflict and criticism. During long walks through forests and fields, Rousseau found a sense of peace that society had never provided. One passage captures this experience beautifully. Rousseau writes, These hours of solitude and meditation are the only ones in the day during which I am fully myself and for myself, without diversion, without obstacle, and during which I can truly claim to be what nature willed. Rousseau also described a particularly happy period he spent on the Isle of Saint Peter, living quietly with a friend's family. He later called those two months, the happiest time of my life, explaining that he felt so content that, it would have contented me for my whole existence without the desire for another state arising for a single instant in my soul. What made this time so fulfilling was not wealth, ambition, or achievement. It was the freedom to live slowly and simply. During this period, Rousseau embraced what the Italians call far niente, the art of doing nothing. He left behind the pressures of work and intellectual debate and spent his days wandering through nature, studying plants, and allowing his mind to drift into quiet reflection. Without the constant demands of society, life began to feel renewed. The goal remains the same, allowing the inner voice to be heard again. Even while celebrating the powerful desire to escape society, I will warn about an important paradox within human nature. Human beings are deeply restless creatures. No matter how much freedom they gain, complete contentment rarely lasts forever. Rousseau observed that, the thirst after happiness is never extinguished in the heart of a man. This simple statement carries a very profound truth. Even if someone leaves society behind and reduces life to its simplest form, the inner drive for something more does not disappear. The human mind constantly imagines that somewhere else, life might be better. This means that even the act of escape can carry its own illusion. People often believe that once they leave their current circumstances, happiness will naturally follow. Yet Rousseau suggests that the same restless nature travels with us wherever we go. We may abandon cities, careers, and social pressures, but the deeper longing for fulfillment remains alive inside us. A similar insight appears in the reflections of Henry David Thoreau. While observing the struggles of ordinary people, Thoreau wrote a line that became famous. The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. Many individuals dream of escaping the routines that exhaust them. They imagine that by leaving crowded cities or stressful environments, they will finally discover peace. But Thoreau recognized something more complicated. A person may leave the noise of society, yet carry their desperation along with them. Someone who finds solitude may soon begin yearning for companionship. The shape of ambition changes, but the impulse itself rarely disappears. Because of this, the urge to move on can sometimes become a repeating cycle. A person climbs one mountain only to notice another peak rising ahead. One place left behind soon leads to thoughts of another destination. Even Rousseau himself noticed this strange pattern in the human heart. He admitted that even in solitude, an absolute silence leads to sadness. The mind continues to question whether true fulfillment lies just beyond the next step. In modern psychology, this pattern is often described as the hedonic treadmill. The idea that human happiness tends to return to a baseline no matter what circumstances change. Rousseau might interpret this through his concept of amour-propre, the tendency to measure ourselves against others. Even after leaving society, the mind may still ask new questions. I left that world behind, but am I living better than others who chose the same path? In this way, the same psychological patterns follow us even into solitude. Human nature rarely stops seeking some kind of advantage or distinction. Rousseau's philosophy does not promise permanent happiness. Instead, it reminds us that beneath all the layers of civilization, there still exists a natural freedom and goodness within human beings. The urge to move on, to search, and to question our lives may actually be evidence that this natural self is still alive. And perhaps that restless search itself carries meaning. Because as Rousseau once suggested, man's freedom consists in never doing what he does not want to do.