Discourse On Inequality

Points were made.

However, it is quite concerning to note that they did not include women.

This exclusion seems rather unjust and shortsighted.

In today's society, women play an increasingly important role in various fields and have valuable perspectives and contributions to offer.

By not including them, the points made may lack comprehensiveness and fail to take into account the full range of experiences and viewpoints.

It is essential to ensure that women are given equal opportunities to participate and have their voices heard.

Inclusion promotes diversity and enriches the overall discussion and decision-making process.

Therefore, it is crucial to rectify this oversight and actively involve women in future discussions and point-making exercises.

Only then can we hope to arrive at more informed and well-rounded conclusions that benefit everyone.

After reading Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s ‘Discourse on the origin of inequality’, I reached the conclusion that philosophy is indeed an art of speculation. I had been eagerly anticipating this book as I’ve been intrigued by inequality for the past two decades due to unfortunate circumstances. Undoubtedly, had I read it in my youth, I would have been in awe. But now, with my empirical knowledge and personal experiences outside the realm of equality, I find it more in dissension.
Rousseau’s unsubstantiated statements can be distasteful to those hurt by inequality. The first part was somewhat euphoric, with Rousseau unduly ecstatic. However, it’s hard to find logic without evidence. I admit to enjoying both agreeing and disagreeing with him as he provokes the mind. If you prefer science to philosophy, you might find this book nonsocial. His writing, especially in the first few pages, was digressive and illusive. I struggled to separate the wheat from the chaff and almost gave up. His narcissism can amuse or vex the reader. I was both at times, so I had to read it in small portions.
Relating to his background, he gained my sympathy. After overcoming the initial hurdles, I began to speculate on his message. Throughout, his writing was condensed, repetitive, yet inquisitive. In the first part, I endured him out of curiosity. His longing for equality is relevant to love and compassion as natural needs. While not being harsh, I can see why some might find him delusional and pompous. Most of his arguments were presumptuous, premature, pompous, euphoric, and refutable. Nevertheless, his greatness lies in making his arguments interesting to debate. The themes were intriguing. The question by the academy of Dijon was somewhat rhetorical: ‘What is the origin of inequality among mankind? And whether such inequality is authorized by the law of nature?’ Rousseau chose to write a discourse on an answer that could be just one word: Vanity. However, the second part is tricky as there’s no clear definition of ‘The law of nature’. I found it a flaw that Rousseau and the academy implied it was an absolute law. The law of nature, like the law of man, is not absolute. There are only two absolute laws binding both man and beast, which I’ve elaborated on in my own literature. (See full review in two parts on my blog)

In this book, Rousseau endeavors to elucidate how inequality develops from the natural state of man. He accomplishes this in two steps.

In part 1, Rousseau provides a meticulous description of the natural state of man. Contrary to Hobbes, who asserted in his Leviathan that man was a 'homo homini lupus', Rousseau contends that savages are happy and innocent, which later commentaries termed 'the noble savage'. In this natural state, man focuses solely on himself, fulfilling his basic needs such as food, shelter, and occasional sex. Due to his simple intellect, he has no concept of vice and virtue.

After explicating this natural state, Rousseau proceeds to explain how inequality and, consequently, human misery evolve - this is part 2 of the essay. There comes a point when some noble savages will claim a plot of land for themselves, erect a fence around it, and construct a hut. From that moment on, property becomes the defining characteristic of man, and the family as a unit of society emerges. It is only after the advent of metallurgy and agriculture (referred to as "iron and wheat") that inequality begins to pose a problem - now there are those who possess more than others and can compel the others to work for them.

This wealthy elite will, however, be in constant turmoil, as they have much to lose while the poor have little to gain. Now, the rich begin to devise schemes and conceive the idea of laws - they will persuade the poor that it is in their best interest to sacrifice liberty in order to live securely. When laws are established, society descends into a downward spiral of ever-increasing corruption: laws necessitate magistrates, which leads to civil inequality (exercising power over others). This cycle culminates in despotism - in this state, there is a despot who wields absolute power over all others, effectively nullifying the social contract (cf. Locke) and thrusting man back into his state of nature.

It is evident that there are flaws in Rousseau's account: evolutionary anthropology has demonstrated that the noble savage is an illusion, and our ancestors were as bellicose as any chimpanzee troop. It is also clear that Rousseau is incorrect regarding the steps in his narrative of the rise of inequality. Agriculture led to the specialization of society, which in turn gave rise to aristocracies and castes of priests and public servants, ultimately resulting in vast kingdoms.

Nevertheless, I admire Rousseau's courage in criticizing civilization - thinkers like Hobbes and Locke (and others after them) placed excessive confidence in enlightenment ideals. Although Rousseau's portrayal of our ancestors was distorted, he revealed how the concept of property can give rise to an unending competition among individuals and, consequently, a perpetual state of unhappiness for all of mankind. And even though his social contract hypothesis has been disproven, he was the first to present an evolutionary account of human institutions and societies - one must give him credit for this (he predates Darwin by over 100 years!).

It is easy to perceive how the doctrines of (1) 'the noble savage' and (2) the corrupting effects of inequality contain the seeds of the French Revolution and, later, Marxism and communism. I believe we all experience the nagging feeling of our own relative prosperity compared to more than half of the world's population; this inequality is, in the end, philosophically unjustifiable. But as the French Revolution and communism have illustrated, the struggle to rectify social injustices can spiral out of control and destroy the very thing it was intended to heal.

Let this essay serve as a lesson in how misinterpretations can have far-reaching consequences: Rousseau never advocated the destruction of inequality; he merely asserted that artificial inequality (based on civil conventions) should give way to natural inequality. Rousseau was not a communist; he simply desired a meritocracy.

The original article is rather short and unclear. It seems to be missing some key information. However, based on what is provided, here is an expanded version:

The situation is not very clear. It seems that there is something called "dis bien mv". But without further context, it's difficult to understand exactly what this means. It could potentially refer to a music video, a product, or something else entirely. Maybe "dis bien" is a title or a description related to the "mv".

To truly understand the significance of "dis bien mv", more details would be needed. For example, who created it, what is its purpose, and what kind of content it contains. Without this additional information, it's hard to form a more comprehensive understanding.

Perhaps further research or investigation is required to uncover the true nature of "dis bien mv". This could involve looking for additional sources of information, such as reviews, interviews, or official statements. Only then can a more accurate and detailed description be provided.

Rousseau’s Discourse on the Origin of Inequality is a rather peculiar and concise work.

He commences by描绘 the “state of nature”, an abstraction intended to represent what can be inferred about humanity’s uncivilized state based on historical, philosophical, and contemporary knowledge. Rousseau accurately critiques Hobbes and Pufendorf for presuming to know human nature when they only know specific individuals. How can they be certain that what they describe is not historically contingent?

Rousseau then reverts to the fundamental Lamarckian concept of the human species and constructs a hypothetical scenario to account for how we arrived at the modern era. He does not assert that his scenario is entirely accurate, but rather that it accurately reflects what must be true to such an extent that similar investigations will yield the same conclusions.

Subsequently, he delves into the origin of language. Here, he is completely unpersuasive, even if all of his premises were valid. He contends that language must have emerged from children attempting to communicate their needs to their mothers. This gradually evolved into a means of communication that adults also began to utilize and even expand.

However, if this were the case, why don’t modern babies develop their own proto-language while parents attempt to teach them actual language? As far as is known, they do little more than cry. Additionally, if adults do not require or desire a language and thus do not develop it, why do they continue to use it once they have developed it as a baby? According to Rousseau, no one except the mother even understands, so there is absolutely no incentive for it.

Rousseau then proceeds to the formation of civilizations. With a proto-language in place, humans began to cooperate in activities from which both parties stood to benefit, otherwise remaining independent. At a certain point, people began to replicate the conditions in which plants grow and volcanoes produce natural iron. Land cultivated by an individual became, more or less, his informal property, and trade commenced.

At some juncture, an egotistical farmer decided to claim his land regardless of whether he was farming it or not. As the individual advantages of property spread, alliances were formed to protect it from the poor. These alliances were led by chieftains without independent authority, but over time, the practicality of having a guaranteed leader led to the rule of elders and then hereditary succession.

This scenario is all well and good if one accepts Rousseau’s linguistic and Lamarckian premises, which no modern person does. Nevertheless, this book was highly influential historically. It is also well-written, straightforward, and contains some interesting insights. It is worth reading if one wishes to understand Rousseau and the French Revolution; otherwise, it can be left aside.

Rousseau is addressing the question, “What is the origin of the inequality among men, and is it authorized by natural law?” He is highly skeptical about whether man can use such absolute language when discussing the natural. He doubts our ability to define nature and law. Thus, nature itself proves to be an elusive concept. He presents a suggestion (not to be taken as his literal view of our past, I believe) of a pre-social, pre-political existence (and consequently, pre-moral). Rousseau’s natural man shows a natural pity and a capacity for self-improvement (not just a capacity for change, but a tendency towards it). Natural man is constantly changing, striving, and at odds with stasis. As soon as we socialize, something corrosive happens. Contextualization among others inevitably emerges and makes the natural differences among men evident. Once among others, we start to love, speak, and engage in commerce, and thus find a use for beauty, intelligence, and cunning. We develop the distinction between virtue and vice, which serves as a normative, even corrective, means to signal and reflect value. Man delights in praise and envy in the face of virtue, and feels consternation towards vice. From this new relative, normative context, both pride and shame emerge. This pride, or amour propre, is not the self-love of amour de soi that Rousseau praised as man’s natural virtue. As man becomes social, excessive self-importance (pride) or self-consciousness (shame) replaces the self-love that once filled our natural state. If pity fostered our natural compassion and helped us find the humanity in another, amour propre promotes cruelty, callousness, and an unapologetic self-interest. This shift from the internal to the external is irreversible. As soon as one is aware of the gaze of the other, how can he hope to return to himself? As soon as society has introduced the concept of morality to the individual, a return to the amoral becomes impossible.

Here I find something of modern selfhood in Rousseau’s account: as soon as we are conscious of another, there arises a human need to be liked, approved of, and admired. This gives rise to a performative basis for interaction and existence, a disconnection between the true self and the social self. We find ourselves slaves to pride, expectation, and validation as we are constantly and inextricably attuned to others’ perceptions of us. Pride and shame then perpetuate this consumptive state of being. Civilization seems to be a ruinous thing, covering our natural inclination towards pity with the more corrosive attributes of pride and shame. Cultivation and specialization, which create dependence among individuals, lead to possession, and from possession, the concept of property and ownership. Protective forward-thinking and greed prevail. The game is zero-sum, and all men are measured by the yardstick of wealth, rank, or power. I am left with feelings of defeat and exasperation, wondering how modern man might try to recultivate pity (and therein, empathy and compassion) to counter the contemporary ills of inauthenticity (the performative nature of interaction), self-conscious insecurity, caustic pride, and debilitating shame.

This book presented a highly interesting argument regarding the reason for inequality in the world.

As an individual who doesn't typically lean towards reading books of this kind, I must admit that I took great pleasure in this particular one.

The author's perspective was both thought-provoking and engaging, making it a captivating read from start to finish.

It delved into various aspects of inequality, exploring not only the social and economic factors but also the historical and cultural influences that have contributed to its existence.

By presenting a comprehensive analysis, the book offered valuable insights into this complex issue, challenging the reader to think critically about the world we live in and the role we play in perpetuating or alleviating inequality.

Overall, I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in understanding the causes and consequences of inequality and seeking ways to make a positive change.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a French philosopher and thinker, published the book "Discours sur l'origine et les fondements de l'inégalité parmi les hommes" in 1754. It was translated into Arabic by Adil Zaiter with the title "Asl al-Tafawut Bayn al-Nas" in a recognized translation.

The book is divided into three parts (preface, first part, and second part), along with the author's notes. Rousseau began writing this book with a letter to the Republic of Geneva (at that time) and an informative preface carefully selected to present the reader with the dilemma he intended to explore to clarify his previous convictions regarding the legitimacy of the natural state of humans and their elevation above the subsequent civilized manifestations. In his view, humans deviated from their noblest values and distorted their nature from what they were created for.

In the first part of the book, Rousseau recalls the primitive state of humans, subject to the laws of nature or what was then termed "the state of savagery." Through reliable observations of primitive tribes and living creatures such as wild and domestic animals, and his assumptions based on them, he finds that the natural state of humans at the beginning of creation was closer to inner peace and had fewer vices. He argues that good and evil, or virtues and vices, had not yet been discovered and defined. The human spirit accepted living in harmony with its environment, with the least amount of vice, without resulting in hatred, oppression, or a desire for revenge. Humans were engaged in a struggle for their survival and immediate concerns. He also mentions the biological constitution of humans and the driving forces behind their intellectual and psychological development, which ultimately led to the formation of the beginnings of human social forms. Here, I partly agree with Rousseau in his description of the idyllic state free from malicious vices and any form of logical and perverse thinking for humans in their natural state. However, I think he exaggerated the reality of that human state, although the assumption expresses many characteristics that logic accepts.

The second part of the book, which deals with the formation of civil society and its institutions, the denial of the mechanism of creating inequality and its causes, and then the criticism of the degradation of the human self while highlighting the manifestations and reasons for that degradation, is, in my opinion, the most important part and gives the book its intellectual and literary value. It has an advantage in describing human societies in terms of all their artifices and revealing the gaps in comparison to a more natural and equal state.

It is not surprising here to understand that the origin of evil stems from the first act of possession and how the acquisition of wealth led to the consolidation of the principle of inequality through the differentiation of wealth and power - and terms such as honor, social status, and personal adornment are just the result of wealth and power. As for the manifestation of this social inequality among humans, according to Rousseau, it took three forms. The first was the establishment of laws and the recognition of property, which gave rise to wealth and poverty. The second was the government, which defined the strong side with power and the weak side subject to it. Finally, power transformed from a legitimate power that derives its legitimacy from the voluntary support and trust of the people to a tyrannical power where the ruler is the absolute master, and his legitimacy is embodied in oppression and coercion, and his direction is his will, desires, and the entourage of his followers. Here, the division according to the concept of master and slave emerged, which is emphasized by the laws and the governments strive to strengthen.

My criticisms of the book are, first, the translation, which could have been more focused on conveying the meaning rather than being overly concerned with literal translation and dissecting the text in accordance with the French original. Second, the appendices in which Rousseau included excessive explanations in points outside the essence of the subject or that were redundant and did not add much to the idea. Finally, regarding the idea itself, the solution that Rousseau hinted at to combat evil and cure societies suffering from it (which he did not emphasize), which is to return humans to their previous state created by nature and to turn away from all the achievements of civilization, the manifestations of modernization, and from science, thought, and the arts, is a solution that is impossible to achieve in any society, let alone generalize. Perhaps Rousseau's subsequent works, such as "The Social Contract," for example, have dedicated pages to more realistic approaches.

In general, the book, especially its second part related to civil society, is of great importance and should not be overlooked.

Quotes from the book:

"I would have wished, then, that there should be in the state no one who could say that he was above the laws, and that there should be no one outside who could compel the state to recognize his authority; for if there were in the government, whatever its constitution might be, a man not subject to the laws, all the rest would necessarily be at his mercy."

"If we look at human society with an impartial eye, free from prejudice, it appears that in its origin it was nothing but the violence of the stronger over the weaker, and the subjection of the latter to the former, or the revolt of one faction against the other, or the imposition of the will of the few upon the blindness of the many."

"Since the state of nature is that in which the care of our own preservation is the least prejudicial to that of others, this state was the most favorable to peace and the most suitable for mankind."

"And what is more, man has committed more crimes, wars, miseries, and horrors since he pulled up the stakes and filled in the ditch, and said: 'Beware of listening to this impostor, for destruction is written for you if you forget that the fruits are for all and the earth is no one's property!'"

"The rich did not know the pleasure of dominion until they despised others from the moment they became rich, and they subjugated their ancient slaves to subject new ones, without thinking of anything but the oppression and enslavement of their neighbors, like hungry wolves that, having once tasted human flesh, refuse all other food and desire nothing but to devour men."

"And indeed, it is far from being true that the subjects can expect any advantage from their masters so long as they and all that they possess are the property of the latter, or so long as the latter pretends to be so; for they are obliged to give up, in addition to what their masters leave them of their own property, that which their masters think fit to take from them, and they are grateful if they are not despoiled of everything."

"Finally, it is proved that the grasping of the stronger and the richer at the summit of power and wealth is seen while the multitude struggles in misery and darkness, because those do not estimate the things which they do not enjoy except in proportion to what others are deprived of, and because they return unhappy if the people do not remain miserable."

"And this is because despotism, which reigns everywhere, tolerates no other master, and when despotism speaks, there is no more right or duty for the counselor, and there is no more virtue for the slaves than blind obedience."