Rousseau delves into the concept of what he terms the «natural human being.» He explores the origin of governments and how they have given rise to inequalities among human beings. These inequalities are not based on natural capacities but rather on factors such as race, wealth, and position.

The first part of the book is significantly more engaging. However, in the second part, Rousseau often repeats the same ideas. Towards the end, the discourse becomes somewhat irrational and uninteresting, to the extent that I personally found it extremely difficult to read. Additionally, there are numerous footnotes written by Rousseau himself, which, in my opinion (and surely in his as well, since he added them to the end of the discourse), are often off-topic.

Rousseau sent a copy of this discourse to Voltaire, and Voltaire added a plethora of notes to it. Therefore, if you wish to read this book, I recommend the version with Voltaire’s notes. This way, you can sense the intellectual battle that ensued between the two of them.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in this book, disassembles the civilized natural man. The civilization and knowledge that have contributed to the formation of equality among individuals to zero and return him to his beginnings when he was a savage man living in the forests, caring only about his daily strength and the pursuit of his prey. This is done in order to give a clear and complete analysis of how equality among humans emerged.

Rousseau's exploration delves deep into the essence of human nature and the impact of civilization on it. He questions whether the progress of society has truly brought about equality or has instead led to its erosion.

By imagining a return to the state of nature, Rousseau attempts to understand the fundamental principles that govern human relationships. His work challenges our assumptions about civilization and forces us to reevaluate our understanding of equality.

Overall, Rousseau's analysis provides valuable insights into the complex topic of equality among humans and serves as a reminder of the importance of examining the roots of our social and political systems.

Rousseau's "A Discourse on Inequality" is, for the most part, a work of conjecture and rhetoric. At times, it even seems ahistorical. This is most evident in Part One, where he discusses the purity of "natural man" and the "savage" groups that existed during that era. For instance, he portrays the indigenous peoples of the Americas as lacking any sophistication or hierarchy, as the last remnants of humans in their "natural" state from which we have regressed so far. However, in reality, they were sophisticated, had hierarchy, and even maintained complex empires and developed themselves.

Despite the fact that not everything Rousseau says should be taken as fact, he does offer some salient observations, mainly in Part Two. He comments on private property (although I would argue that the patriarchy predates it as the origin of inequality) and how civil society, as we know it, along with civil law, functions to enforce the relations surrounding private property. This, in turn, makes it responsible for the inequality that prevailed then and persists today.

Overall, while Rousseau's work has its flaws, it still provides valuable food for thought and continues to be relevant in discussions about inequality and the nature of society.

The great philosophical work "Emile" was written around 1755, which means it has been more than two and a half centuries. Despite this long time, the book still remains popular in the publishing field. I don't think there is any other reason for this except that it is a work of a great philosopher. However, the content of the book itself has become very weak due to its great age and because of the dominant idea in (Jean-Jacques Rousseau)'s mind in most of his works. This fundamental idea in his books focuses on returning to nature and not deviating from it. In the author's view, the natural life is the true life in which a person's virtues and true morality grow, far from the artificial image that a person of his era lives.

The same idea was read by him in a previous book, and I think it will be the same idea in his book "Emile".

Well, I don't know precisely what I was anticipating, but it definitely wasn't this. Or perhaps I was indeed expecting 'the noble savage' to assume some kind of role, and I did get the noble savage, admittedly. So,按理说, I should be content. However, when people have previously informed me about the noble savage, they have omitted certain aspects.

The most significant omission is that HE is a bloke, not just a man, but a bloke. He is seldom happier than when he is alone. He doesn't spend an inordinate amount of time pondering things. There is no football, so, obviously, there is also something lacking in his life that he can't quite identify. But mostly, his needs are met by what is immediately available. He resides in a forest, and given the simplicity of his requirements, they are all right there for the taking. Occasionally, he will engage in sexual activity with a noble savagess, but, as it is so exquisitely described here – with more pleasure than ardor. And that just about encapsulates the book in many respects. What the noble savagess does in her spare time isn't really detailed here. The noble savage had his own unique language – by necessity, it was rather rudimentary, and it seems a bit difficult to understand why he bothered. This meant he wasn't particularly adept at abstract thought. The savage was also without society and, consequently, without what is referred to here as'moral inequalities'. The inequalities that existed in this happy early stage of human history mainly involved growing older and slower than other noble savages. Otherwise, everyone was essentially equal.

In some ways, this book is the paleo-diet equivalent of philosophy. There is a firm belief that we humans were happiest in our 'native' state, and that any deviation from that state has been debilitating – whether in terms of the food we consume, the society we inhabit, the medicine we utilize, or the houses we live in – despite the remarkable increase in our life expectancy, which is largely due to all of these.

The problem is that, unlike our decision to eat nuts and meat – or whatever it is that paleo-types believe we used to eat in our 'the state of nature' – we can't truly return to the primordial forest – because, well, we chopped it down. And 'the good life' has so corrupted our tastes that now we can't be satisfied with less, or even just 'enough'.

This is all seriously pessimistic stuff – which is yet another thing I hadn't quite anticipated. We are condemned to a life that makes us miserable, and there is no escape.

The main issue was in the development of agriculture. He makes the point that unless you have a society – and an unequal society at that – agriculture is essentially impossible. I thought this was an interesting concept. It's a bit like the tragedy of the commons, but perhaps more forcefully expressed. He contends that if you do all the work in ploughing and planting fields, growing grain, and so on, unless you have some means of saying 'this is mine' and backing that up with some form of force – when it comes time to harvest, then others will take everything and leave you with nothing. So, agriculture was pointless until there was society. And with society came all the evils associated with it – the need for laws, the problem of rulers and the ruled, of 'the refinements of luxury and effeminacy'.

The part of this that I will remember, I think, is the surprise I had at finding him so certain that the fundamental determinant of the human condition is social isolation – the great individual standing free and relying solely on his own ingenuity for his own well-being. This is fundamentally incorrect in every way. The only thing that makes us human is human society. He really could be describing Orangutans rather than humans. The idea that humans like such isolation seems like an odd thing to have ever gained popularity. The whole thing sounds far too much like crushing loneliness – hardly something to be desired.

Rousseau once said, "The first man who, having enclosed a piece of land, had the audacity to say, 'This is mine,' and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society. How many crimes, wars, murders, how much misery and horror would he not have spared the human race if, uprooting the stakes or filling in the ditch, he had shouted to his fellows, 'Beware of listening to this impostor. You are lost if you forget that the fruits are for all and the earth belongs to no one!'" He kind of went crazy.

His words carry a profound message about the origin of property and its implications for society. By enclosing the land and claiming it as his own, that first man set in motion a series of events that led to inequality, conflict, and suffering. If only someone had intervened and reminded people of the true nature of the earth and its resources, perhaps the world would be a very different place today.

Rousseau's statement also makes us question our own beliefs and values regarding property and ownership. Do we really need to divide the world into "mine" and "yours"? Can we find a more equitable and sustainable way of sharing the earth's bounty? These are important questions that we need to consider as we strive to build a better future for ourselves and for generations to come.

Who do you even think you are? This simple question can carry a lot of weight. It can be asked in moments of frustration, confusion, or even anger. Sometimes, we may ask this question to ourselves when we feel lost or unsure of our place in the world. But when we direct it at someone else, it can be a powerful way to challenge their assumptions or actions.

Do you think you have the right to do what you did? Do you believe that your actions are justified? These are the kinds of questions that may be implied by the phrase "Who do you even think you are?" It forces the person being asked to stop and consider their behavior and the impact it has on others.

At the same time, asking this question can also be a way to assert our own boundaries and values. It shows that we are not willing to let others walk all over us or take advantage of us. So the next time you find yourself asking "Who do you even think you are?" remember that it can be a powerful tool for self-expression and communication.

Rousseau has penned the first anti-civilization, anarchist philosophical essay that I'm cognizant of.

Surprisingly, it doesn't seem to be completely recognized as such. However, it's evident what Rousseau is expounding upon when he proclaims, "All ran to meet their chains thinking they secured their freedom... Such was the origin of society and laws, which gave new fetters to the weak and new forces to the rich, destroyed natural freedom for all time, established forever the law of property and inequality, changed a clever usurpation into an irrevocable right, and for the profit of a few ambitious men henceforth subjected the whole human race to work, servitude and misery."

When I initially perused this book, it was an eye-opening experience to the highest degree. This is because I had never come across someone with such a congruent viewpoint as my own before. It was a liberating encounter, as if he was articulating my very words.

Rousseau leads the reader all the way back to the dawn of humanity and guides you step by step through the evolution of society (and the division of labor) until we arrive at our present, abysmal state.

Finally, some pragmatic philosophy! It outshines Marx by a long shot. THIS is true materialism.

This incident truly had me fired up. It was like a spark that ignited a burning passion within me.

I could no longer remain silent or passive. It was time to rise up and take action.

No more would I let things slide or accept the status quo. I was determined to make a change, to stand up for what I believed in.

With this newfound energy and resolve, I was ready to face any challenge that came my way. I knew it wouldn't be easy, but I was willing to put in the effort and do whatever it took.

It was time to make my voice heard and show the world that I was not one to be ignored. I was going to rise up and make a difference.

If a monkey were to have pity,

then perhaps the monkey would have no problems.

However, in our society, which is often considered bad in some aspects,

the concept of pity may not be as straightforward.

On the other hand, if the monkey has no pity, should we read Hobbes?

Hobbes' ideas about human nature and society might offer some insights into why a lack of pity could exist.

Perhaps in a world where survival is the main concern, pity is seen as a weakness.

But is this really the case?

Maybe we need to reevaluate our understanding of pity and its role in society.

Could it be that pity is not only a moral virtue but also a necessary ingredient for a harmonious and just society?

These are questions that we should consider as we strive to make our society a better place.

I didn't fully understand the second speech, but otherwise it was really interesting, frankly??

It seems that there are some parts in the second speech that I failed to grasp clearly. However, despite this, the overall content was quite engaging. Maybe it was due to the complexity of the topic or the way it was presented. But still, I found many aspects of it quite captivating.

I'm not sure if it was my lack of knowledge in a particular area or if there were some nuances that I missed. Nevertheless, I'm glad I listened to it as it gave me something to think about.

I think I need to go back and listen to the second speech again, perhaps with more focus and attention, to try and understand those parts that eluded me the first time.

Overall, it was a worthwhile experience and I look forward to exploring more such interesting discourses in the future.

Rousseau's Discourse on the Origin of Inequality is a remarkable classic that I'm truly glad I took on. It is not only incredibly interesting but also delves into topics that remain highly relevant in our present times. However, I must admit that I have this sense that perhaps I should have revisited it during my college days to fully fathom and appreciate its depth and significance. The ideas presented in this work are so profound and thought-provoking that they require a certain level of academic rigor and intellectual maturity to fully understand. Despite this, I have still managed to gain a great deal from reading it, and it has certainly opened my eyes to many aspects of human nature and society that I may not have otherwise considered.