This piece was essentially composed for an "essay competition" (by the Academy of Dijon, I believe) prior to Rousseau's realization that he was a talented writer and that perhaps he should pursue it professionally.

Les Miserables, the musical, holds a special place among our favorites, and we have recently embarked on reading the book. This essay proved to be fascinating in that regard as it provides insights into the prevailing ideas in France during that era, which ultimately led to the revolution and more.

This was a period in modern western philosophy when the influence of the church had been steadily waning over the past couple of centuries (beginning with the Italian Renaissance), while the influence of science had been steadily rising. However, for a considerable time, the growth of the latter did not quite match the decline of the former.

One can observe this in the essay. Rousseau does not contend that liberty is a divine right. There is scarcely any mention of God in the essay, which was a refreshing change. Instead, he argues that the right is derived from nature. The problem, though, is that the knowledge at that time regarding how pre-historic men (whom he refers to as savages) lived was rather limited. Consequently, many of the assumptions he makes are not entirely accurate. He also makes broad statements without feeling the need to provide any evidence or offer an apology when unable to do so. For instance, he speculates on how language must have developed among men but offers no evidence to support his claim.

This is what I found captivating about the essay, although I might be completely off the mark. Perhaps the inspiration behind the philosophical thought's shift from God to nature is partly attributed to the encounter with new peoples (such as those in the Americas and the Caribbean) who were astonishingly different from anything the Europeans had hitherto witnessed? Rousseau, presuming these "savages" to be midway between pre-historic man and present-day Europeans, works backward to speculate on what men were like further back in the past, all the way to the "very beginning." Perhaps Rousseau was pondering, "If this is us, and that is them... perhaps there are others, even more distinct from us, with entirely different needs, wants, and value systems, at the very outset and a fundamental truth to be discovered there?"

All in all, this has undoubtedly piqued my interest enough to explore more enlightenment era philosophers.

I truly had a great liking for it.

The introduction presented in this copy has made this book significantly more effortless to understand and assimilate.

It can be neatly encapsulated as an in-depth analysis regarding the progression of inequality within diverse human societies, commencing from the state of nature and culminating in despotism.

I will be required to engage in more reading in order to firmly grasp a more refined and comprehensive philosophical perspective on Rousseau. However, for the most part, I am of the belief that his understanding remains valid and accurate even to this day.

His insights into the complex nature of inequality and its evolution throughout different social contexts offer valuable food for thought and continue to be relevant in our contemporary discussions on social justice and the human condition.

Overall, this book has provided me with a fascinating glimpse into Rousseau's ideas and has piqued my interest to explore his work further.

A unique perspective on human progression - or in the eyes of Rousseau, a lack of it.

Rousseau believed that society had deviated from its natural and ideal state. He saw modern civilization as a source of corruption and inequality.

In his view, the pursuit of material wealth and power had led people to lose touch with their true nature.

Human relationships had become based on self-interest rather than mutual respect and cooperation.

Rousseau argued that a return to a more primitive and natural way of life was necessary for true human progress.

He advocated for a society where individuals lived in harmony with nature and with each other.

This would involve a rejection of the artificial distinctions and hierarchies that had developed in modern society.

By returning to a more natural state, Rousseau believed that humans could rediscover their true essence and achieve a higher level of happiness and fulfillment.

His ideas challenged the prevailing notions of progress and civilization and continue to be relevant today as we grapple with the consequences of our modern way of life.

Are the French correct about ANYTHING!?

This is a thought-provoking question that leads to a great read full of the origin of the world's worst ideas.

We seem to be constantly engaged in a never-ending battle between Locke and Rousseau. One direction is upward and forward toward an ideal, while the other is backward and inward toward an ideal. For myself, I choose the upward and forward path.

It's interesting to note that Rousseau, who wrote a seminal text on education and raising children, also abandoned five of his own children soon after their births. This contradiction makes one wonder about the true nature of his ideas and actions.

So, what can we do with this information? It's up to each of us to decide how we will interpret and apply it in our own lives. Maybe it will make us more critical of the ideas we encounter, or maybe it will simply make us more aware of the complexity of human nature.

The original text seems to be a complaint about a bad translation. Here is the expanded and rewritten version:

The translation is extremely bad!!

It is truly a disappointment. The quality of the translation is so poor that it fails to convey the intended meaning accurately.

There are numerous errors and inaccuracies, which make it difficult to understand the original text.

This kind of bad translation can cause confusion and misinterpretation, especially in important documents or communications.

It is essential to have a good translation that is both accurate and流畅.

A professional translator should be able to handle the task with care and precision, ensuring that the translated text is of high quality.

In conclusion, we need to be more careful when choosing a translator and make sure that we get a good translation that meets our needs.

I truly relished this work.

It was an absolute delight, completely setting aside my assessment of its philosophical worth.

There are some remarkable ideas contained within it, accompanied by a vast amount of speculation.

It is extremely worthwhile to read not only for its significance in the history of ideas but also because it turns out to be a surprisingly pleasurable read.

The author has managed to present a complex and thought-provoking piece that engages the reader on multiple levels.

Whether one is interested in philosophy, intellectual history, or simply a good read, this work has something to offer.

It challenges the reader's assumptions and encourages them to think deeply about the nature of ideas and their impact on society.

Overall, I would highly recommend this work to anyone looking for an intellectually stimulating and enjoyable read.

What does it mean to be a natural human?

Rousseau directly delves into this question, pondering how far man has strayed from his original state (or what he is biologically meant to be). As he developed from his primitive (natural) state, he lost his origins and place in the natural order. He was once much simpler:

“I see him satisfying his hunger under an oak, quenching his thirst from the first stream, finding his bed under the same tree which provided his meal; and, behold, his needs are furnished.”

This is a deeply philosophical work that discusses human development and our disconnection from the natural world. Once, man was like any other animal, equal in basic survival needs and lacking a developed community. He hunted, gathered, ate, slept, mated, and died. He was primitive, basic, and natural. But then he evolved and became something different.

According to Rousseau, ownership marked the beginning of this change. Man staked a claim on the land and animals, creating a dominion for himself. Societies were born, language was formed, and different nations emerged, leading to wars over ownership. People became rich while others starved. Divisions grew stronger, and inequality defined what followed. With our advanced cognitive abilities, we separated ourselves from the rest of the animal kingdom. Modern civilization no longer reflects our innate drives or desires; it has become distorted, resulting in inequality among people and between man and animals. We are no longer part of the natural world.

“The first man, who, after enclosing a piece of ground, took it into his head to say, \\"This is mine,\\" and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society.”

Instead, we claim the world as our own and exploit it. We use nature to our advantage, and this is where the power dynamic comes into play. A Discourse on Inequality presents a human superiority complex that causes this deviation from equality, which branches into human society, politics, and wealth. Every corruption Rousseau traces back to this ideology, and he is right. The book is astute, understanding society's problems, but aside from a return to the natural state, Rousseau's words offer no solutions to mediate this inequality.

Modern environmentalist thought suggests we should preserve what remains of the natural world. We need to protect it for our long-term survival as a species. Rousseau understood that we are part of nature, not above it, despite our divergence. And most environmentalists do not fully appreciate this. Rousseau also believed that man was naturally vegetarian and that the earth belongs to all species.

“It follows that animals ought to have a share in natural right, and that men are bound by a certain form of duty towards them.”

Remembering our duty to others, both humans and animals, is a powerful point the book tries to convey because we do not own this world. And for philosophy written in 1755, this is in line with what some of us feel today.

___________________________________

You can connect with me on social media via My Linktree.

__________________________________

Rousseau's attempt to find the primary causes of social inequality and refute the theories expressed by Hobbes in "Leviathan" regarding the original state of nature of man is worthy of praise for its extremely fine analysis. However, I feel inclined to dissent from what Rousseau has put forward. Personally, I find myself closer to Hobbes' theories. I believe that in the primordial state of nature, human beings were not at all as good and altruistic as Rousseau claims. Instead, driven by an instinct for self-preservation, they were mainly dedicated to their own personal interests. As a result, they were induced to associate only to defend those interests and avoid the harmful consequences of living in isolation in a state of war of all against all. Rousseau's advanced theories, although masterfully sustained, seem in reality to be put forward only to enhance his fierce, yet understandable, criticism of the customs of the era, by opposing them to the myth of the good savage. Nevertheless, it is an illuminating text that I recommend to all.

This text is quite easy to read and understandable.

However, it lacks passion.

To make it more engaging, we could add some vivid descriptions or personal anecdotes.

For example, instead of simply stating that it's not passionate, we could say something like "It fails to ignite that spark within me, leaving me rather indifferent."

We could also expand on the reasons why it's easy to read and understandable, perhaps by giving some specific examples.

Another option would be to add a call to action or a question at the end to encourage the reader to think further about the topic.

By making these changes, the text would become more interesting and engaging, capturing the reader's attention and making them want to read more.

Fetishization of the "savage man" is truly gross.

It is an unjust and demeaning perception that simplifies and distorts the lives and cultures of others. However, his theorization of inequality as an artificial social condition is truly great.

By highlighting that inequality is not an inherent or natural state but rather a construct of society, he challenges the status quo and calls for a more just and equitable world.

His insistence on pity as a fundamental part of human nature is also a very refreshing inclusion.

After the emphasis previous philosophers have placed on reason and/or selfishness, his recognition of the importance of pity offers a new perspective on human nature.

Pity allows us to empathize with the suffering of others and motivates us to take action to alleviate that suffering.

Overall, while the fetishization of the "savage man" is unacceptable, his other ideas and theories have much to offer and can contribute to a more nuanced and understanding view of the world.

The book number 45/2021
The origin of disparity among people
The author: Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Translated by Adel Zeitar
Classification: Intellectual studies
# The book
This is the third encounter with the author Jean-Jacques Rousseau after his books "The Creed of Nature" and "The Social Contract". He wrote this book in 1755, criticizing society. The book describes the state of man who lives enslaved everywhere and explains the corruption that occurs. Whoever reads this book realizes that it is a unique philosophical text that has imposed itself for centuries. The book is the first part of "The Social Contract". Rousseau builds his philosophy in the book on the question of whether humans are good by nature, then how do societies become corrupt? And how do governments that are established to defend individual rights degenerate into tyranny? These are the questions that Jean-Jacques Rousseau addressed regarding the origin, not equality, and it is a genuine and interesting exploration of the issues that were widely explored in the philosophy of the eighteenth century (to be continued): human nature and the best form of government. Now we have the 2020 edition published by Dar al-Sharq for Publishing and Distribution, translated by the author Adel Zeitar, with 208 pages.
# The Age of Enlightenment
It is the beginning of the industrial era and the spread of revolutions and upheavals against the church. Rousseau followed in the footsteps of his fellow philosophers such as Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, David Hume, and all of them attacked the institutions of the church and the state. The Age of Enlightenment can be defined according to Wikipedia as: "It is the emergence of man from the stage of intellectual infancy and his reaching the age of maturity or reason." The intellectual infancy is defined as "dependency on others and the inability to think individually or act in life or make any decision without consulting the person who is authorized for us." From this perspective, the clarion call of the Enlightenment came to say: "Use your minds, oh humans! Have the courage to use your minds!" The Age of Enlightenment prevailed in Europe during the eighteenth century. It originated in England, but the real development was in France. The concept of enlightenment came to generally include any form of thought that increases the enlightenment of the mind from darkness, ignorance, and superstition, benefiting from the criticism of reason and the contribution of science.
# The book
The book consists of a letter and two parts
1. The letter
In 1753, the Academy of Dijon posed a question to the public: What is the origin of the disparity among people and is it authorized by natural law? To address this issue, Rousseau traveled to Geneva, reflecting on the first image of man, to reveal the contradiction between the first man and the current man. Rousseau concludes that equality among people began with the transition of man from the primitive natural state to the civil state. Before civilization, man did not differ from his fellow man in anything, and he was free and not subject to slavery. Until the manifestations of civilization covered societies, and the love of possession emerged among people to establish the situation of the rich and the poor. Then leadership authorized the situation of the strong and the weak, while the associated authority established the relationship of the master and the slave. Then the civil disparity denied natural equality, and civilization was the origin of slavery, oppression, and the law of the strongest.
Rousseau denies the primitive man the quality of the wild being as imagined by the previous philosophers. Rather, he goes further than that and believes that the civil state of man is what makes him a wild being. That is, the modern man who abandons his natural rights in the name of laws that authorize disparity degrades himself to below animality. When he points out that the primitive man is peaceful by nature, he says about the wildness of the civilized man: What he commits of murders and massacres in one day of battles and what he commits of atrocities in the way of seizing a city is more than what happened in the natural state throughout entire centuries and simply on Fridays.
Also, Rousseau reexamines the system of human kingships. If the classical rational philosophy says that what distinguishes man from other animals is that he is rational first, then Rousseau's philosophy says that feeling is primary and the kingdom of the will over rational thinking, affirming the idea of freedom as a characteristic that distinguishes man.
The role of the general idea of the book is about the return to nature and its purification and how civilization caused the corruption of our humanity and the emergence of disparity and hierarchy, as man has changed from living in the forest to living in society. Civilization and culture are the origin of all the evils that appeared in the human soul.
Speaking about the misery of the modern civilized man in contrast to the praiseworthy freedom and comfort of the first natural man: "On the contrary, you will find the civilized man sweating, trembling, and constantly worried, searching for more difficult occupations. He works until death, and strives for death to live or cheats life to obtain immortality. He flatters the great who oppress him and the rich who despise him, and spares no effort to obtain the honor of serving them. He boasts proudly of his servitude and his protection, and boasts of his slavery, speaking with contempt of those who did not have the honor of being his equals. And what are the many harsh humiliations that this wild native does not prefer to the horror of such a life that did not even enjoy the pleasure of doing good! But it is necessary to see the end of all these great efforts that he has the words "authority and republic" with meaning in his mind, and that he knows the existence of a kind of people who see the value of the opinions of the rest of the world, and who know that being happy and satisfied with themselves with the testimony of others is more than with their own testimony. And the fact is that this is the real reason for all these differences, for the savage lives within himself, and the civilized man always lives outside himself. He only knows how to live in the souls of others, and for this reason he draws the feeling of his own life only from their judgment alone, and it is not my subject to prove how many indifference to good and evil arises from such behavior.

By returning to the history of the first man, how he began, lived, and faced the natural conditions until he reached his current state, and how civilization and political systems were formed, and why the relationship of the individual with authority changed from protection and defense to slavery and usurpation. In a short letter, Rousseau takes you back in time to describe (as he sees it) how the previous ancestors lived a better freedom than the contemporary man (at that time), and how the individual himself brought about his own isolation and dependence on the systems that eventually oppressed him.
The argument that Rousseau made is that there are two types of disparity:
1. Natural, that is, it is from the natural state. Such as differences in ages, health, and character traits, etc.
2. Cultural, which are the different privileges that some people enjoy over others. Such as wealth, power, etc.

This book was penned centuries ago, and it's truly fascinating how the points it presents remain applicable, to some degree, in our modern world.

It serves to solidify the beliefs I already held regarding society as a whole. The entire social game seems to be a curse masquerading as a blessing. Our human intelligence, while bestowing numerous benefits, also gives rise to unnecessary suffering.

Many in positions of power are, unfortunately, sadistic egomaniacs. A novel idea he introduced is his conviction that selfishness and cruelty are not truly innate. According to him, the savage man had no need for such instincts, and they were artificially implanted with the advent of advanced society. This makes perfect sense to me.

He also posited that strong romantic love between two people and that of a mother and child are artificial constructs added by society. His reasoning was that the savage man had no use for all of that, thereby rendering negative sentiments like jealousy and possessiveness moot. I find myself in agreement with this as well.

I won't assign a rating to this book as I didn't invest sufficient time in delving deeply into it to provide a fair assessment. I read it hastily after abandoning it for over 2 months, simply because I was intrigued by the main points it was communicating.