“ Reason” has to balance with passions and feelings when defining healthy human nature. The fact is, passions and feelings are stronger than reason in human nature, mainly due to the makeup of the three human brains, with one added on to the other---conservatively not discarded---in each evolutionary epoch.
This to me means reason does not arrogantly dictate to the powerful lower brain, reason rides the lower brain like a great horse, or a great sports car, without trying to destroy the nature of the thing, which would topple the rider.
Since we generally know what “reason” is, how are the passions and feeling defined in human nature? Not merely as sentimental gush or animal rage. Throughout human history human passions and feelings have revolved around being kin-centered, gender defined, age-grading, marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, xenophobic, religious-making, with group-selection as the primary unit of selection.
An odd thing to have to admit here for a conservative but Rousseau was more or less right in thinking that man is healthy in proportion to how close he approaches real nature. But Rousseau was wrong in thinking that natural man was a peaceful altruistic communist. And Rousseau didn't say that man also needs to perfect himself by evolving in the material world to higher life.