Read for HUMS3000 at Carleton University.

This is a very interesting and unusual read. The text was intended to counterbalance some of the other authors from the Enlightenment that we are studying. Rousseau was unique among his contemporaries as he believed that progress wasn't necessarily a good thing. I found this text extremely interesting. Although I disagree with him on many points, especially his extensive discussion on women's roles in society, I also recognize that he has some nuggets of wisdom and ideas that I can observe in real life. One quote that really stood out to me was:

"Never in a monarchy can the opulence of an individual put him above the prince; but, in a republic, it can easily put him above the laws. Then the government no longer has force, and the rich are always the true sovereign."

I think many of us in the 21st century can relate to this. In today's society, we are so quick to label someone as right or wrong. It is refreshing to examine someone's thoughts as a whole and admit that some aspects are good while others are bad. This kind of analysis helps us to have a more nuanced understanding of different perspectives and ideas.

DNF (Did Not Finish)

I attempted to engage with this particular experience, but unfortunately, I had to give up. The pacing was truly insufferable. It felt as if time was dragging on and on, making it extremely difficult to stay engaged.

However, to be fair, the content did have its moments. At times, it was manageable and even enjoyable. There were certain aspects that held my interest and made me think that perhaps it would improve.

But alas, it soon became repetitive and drawn-out. The same ideas and patterns kept recurring, and it lost its新鲜感 and excitement. In the end, I simply couldn't continue.

Overall, it was a disappointing experience, with the pacing being the main culprit. I hope that in the future, more attention is paid to this crucial aspect to ensure a more engaging and satisfying experience for the audience.

**ROUSSEAU’S ARGUMENT AGAINST THE THEATER**

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), a Genevan philosopher, writer, and composer of the 18th century, is renowned for his works like 'The Social Contract,' 'The Confessions,' 'The Creed of a Priest of Savoy,' and 'Emile: Or On Education.'

In 1758, Rousseau wrote a letter to d’Alembert in response to an article by the latter in the Encyclopedia suggesting that Geneva should have a theater. Surprisingly, despite being a composer himself (e.g., 'Le Devin du Village'), Rousseau opposed the idea. His letter not only presents his stance on the theater but also offers insights into various other issues.

Rousseau believed that the theater had no real positive moral effect. He argued that it could not improve morals but rather change them in a negative way. By encouraging all our inclinations, it gave more power to those that already dominated us. The continuous emotion felt in the theater excited, enervated, and weakened us, making it harder to resist our passions. The interest in virtue shown in the theater was often just a way to satisfy our vanity without actually obliging us to practice it.
He also considered the impact of the theater on the poor. He pointed out that those who established the theater tempted the poor to go, and their poverty made some relaxation necessary for them. However, this very amusement could either increase their expenses or make them less zealous for work, thus doubly weakening them.
Overall, Rousseau’s letter is a fascinating work that addresses issues that are still relevant in today’s debates about contemporary culture.

It shows his deep思考 on the nature of morality, the role of art, and the impact of social institutions on individuals.

His arguments, though perhaps controversial, offer valuable food for thought and continue to be studied and discussed by scholars and thinkers alike.

I have a particular interest in the part where Rousseau scandalously endorses dancing by unmarried youngsters. This endorsement occurs under strict, collective surveillance. It's quite a remarkable stance. I mean, he's clearly not your typical Puritan who would frown upon such activities.

Moreover, the part where he reinforces creepy gender roles is equally fascinating. To support his views, he offers as evidence his current vantage of pigeons mating. It's an unusual and somewhat unexpected example.

Overall, these aspects of Rousseau's ideas add an interesting layer to his philosophical musings. They make us question our own assumptions about social norms and gender roles. It also shows the complexity and sometimes eccentricity of his thinking.

Nobody knows the trouble Rousseau’s seen.

As much as I treasure and esteem the systematic work of Hegel and Kant, neither of them have the passion that Rousseau evinces upon this or that page. His insights are so profound. One of my mentors would say of Kant that he had no idea how far his investigations would take him. I think of Rousseau it can be said that his insights were so profound that he could not hold to them. He had to betray his own realizations.

Here is a book about the theatre, ostensibly, but what it really addresses is the power and danger of mass culture. It foresees television and film long before the inventions making them possible had been conceived. Right now my favorite section is the seventh part, in which among other things Rousseau states the dangers of populism.

Yet his comments on the power of the imagination are also telling. He emphasizes how the imagination can shape our perceptions and desires, and how it can be harnessed or misused in the context of mass culture. Rousseau's ideas are still relevant today, as we continue to grapple with the impact of media and technology on our lives. His work serves as a reminder of the importance of critical thinking and self-reflection in an age of mass communication.

Can we critique the theater without being crazy sexist? Maybe?

In the world of theater, criticism plays a crucial role in its development and evolution. However, it is often disheartening to note that some critiques tend to be marred by sexist undertones. This begs the question: is it possible to offer valid and objective critiques without resorting to such discriminatory behavior?

The answer might lie in the hands of the critics themselves. By being more self-aware of their biases and making a conscious effort to set them aside, they can approach their reviews with a more open and fair-minded perspective. Additionally, theaters and the industry as a whole can also play a part in promoting a more inclusive and non-sexist environment. This could involve initiatives such as providing training on unconscious bias for critics and ensuring that diverse voices are represented in the field.

Ultimately, while it may not be easy to completely eliminate sexism from theater critiques, it is possible to make significant progress towards a more equitable and respectful approach. By working together, we can create a theater landscape that is not only rich in artistic expression but also free from the shackles of discrimination.

Rousseau's Justification of Censorship

Rousseau presented his justification of censorship, where he reviewed most of the standard arguments.

He believed that uncensored material could undermine the morals of citizens, especially women and minors.

For Rousseau, the main target to be censored was theatrical performance rather than political writing.

Nevertheless, the basic premise remained the same: we need to be protected from ourselves.

He argued that without censorship, the unrestricted dissemination of certain content could have a negative impact on the moral fabric of society.

Theatrical performances, in his view, had the potential to corrupt the minds and values of the people.

By censoring such performances, he aimed to safeguard the moral well-being of the citizens and maintain the social order.

Although his focus was more on theatrical works, the underlying principle of protecting society from the harmful effects of certain materials was applicable across the board.

Rousseau's ideas on censorship continue to be a subject of debate and discussion in the field of philosophy and social theory.

Rousseau is a complex figure who can be seen as both an Enlightenment and anti-Enlightenment thinker. As a proponent of the Enlightenment, he believed in the power of reason and the ability of individuals to improve themselves and society. He argued that people are born free and equal, and that society should be organized in a way that respects these natural rights.

However, Rousseau was also a critic of some aspects of the Enlightenment. He believed that the pursuit of reason and progress had led to the alienation of individuals from themselves and from nature. He argued that modern society was too focused on material wealth and social status, and that this had led to a loss of moral values and a sense of community.

Rousseau's ideas had a significant impact on both the Enlightenment and subsequent intellectual movements. His emphasis on the importance of individual freedom and natural rights influenced the development of democratic theory, while his critique of modern society and its values inspired Romanticism and other anti-Enlightenment movements.

Brilliant.

This simple word holds a world of meaning. It can describe a person's intelligence, a bright idea, or a remarkable achievement.

When we say someone is brilliant, we are acknowledging their exceptional mental capabilities. They have the ability to think deeply, solve complex problems, and come up with innovative solutions.

A brilliant idea is like a flash of inspiration that has the potential to change the world. It can be a new business concept, a scientific discovery, or an artistic masterpiece.

And a brilliant achievement is the result of hard work, dedication, and a touch of genius. It is something that stands out from the crowd and earns the admiration and respect of others.

In conclusion, the word "brilliant" is a powerful descriptor that encompasses many different qualities and accomplishments. It is a word that we should strive to live up to in our own lives.

This is a crucial yet neglected work by Rousseau. It lies midway between the Second Discourse and the Social Contract.

Much of what Rousseau states about the theater and the role of women goes against our liberal values. However, it is essential for understanding his republicanism and his conceptions of society and the common good. It is also a vital document for evaluating his stormy relationship with Geneva, his homeland.

One of the most interesting aspects in the book is the last section. It contains what could be Rousseau's most extensive praise of ancient Sparta. Rousseau was the eighteenth-century's greatest admirer, even idolator, of Sparta. In the Letter, his encomia shift from enthusiastic to passionate.

Since that praise exemplifies so much of what was fundamental in Rousseau's thinking, both it and the Letter as a whole are compulsory reading for anyone desiring to understand him.

Published Friday, 15 June 2012.

I completely disagree with almost everything in it.

Rousseau's attitude towards women is one aspect that I find unacceptable. His views seem to be rather outdated and discriminatory.

Moreover, his vehement disapproval of theatre and emotive tales also goes against my own beliefs. Theatre and such forms of art can be a powerful means of expression and can have a profound impact on people.

However, despite my differences with Rousseau's ideas, I have to admit that reading this has been helpful.

It has allowed me to gain a better understanding of his perspective and has also given me the opportunity to reflect on my own views.

In terms of writing style, it has been an easy read. The language is clear and concise, which makes it accessible to a wide range of readers.

Overall, while I may not agree with much of what Rousseau has to say, this reading experience has still been valuable.

Maybe it's because I read this after Plato's _Republic_ and Aristotle's _Poetics_, but this was truly a breath of fresh air.

Bloom's translation is simply wonderful. It makes this text extremely accessible, allowing the reader to easily engage with the ideas presented.

However, it must be noted that the section about women is rather offensive and antiquated. It reflects the social and cultural attitudes of the time, which are far from our modern understanding of equality and respect.

Thankfully, this was really only a relatively small section of the discourse. The rest of the text contains many valuable insights and thought-provoking discussions that make it well worth reading.

Overall, despite the flaw in the section about women, this work offers a unique perspective and contributes to our understanding of the intellectual history of the time.