I remember having to read Rousseau's confessions at school. As the first-rate slacker that I was, I artfully dodged this pursuit. However, I did not escape the few lessons we were taught on this character. Based on those partial readings, I somehow came to picture him as a whiny, self-loathing, and moralizing character. In those attributes, he seemed quite credible as the father of democratic thought.

More recently, I have come across a variety of texts addressing a very different Rousseau. This Rousseau is not only very different from the image I formed of him but also, I suppose, very different from the image I was taught of him. The only flaw I knew about him was his rather 'complex' childhood sexuality as revealed in his autobiography. But I came to discover other peculiar traits that gave his thought more depth as well as his character. His originating the "collectivist methodology" or his (unhealthy) obsession with Sparta shine a very different light on the concept of the noble savage, one much less self-evident and politically correct.

It was in this particular mindset that I started this reading. I was not disappointed. Indeed, Rousseau is far from the poor cliché I had stuck in my mind. First of all, not unlike Locke, he is a great writer, witty and confrontational, which always makes for an easier lecture. Second, his work, if it happens to inscribe itself with earlier modern political theory, in the tradition of 'conjectural history', also provides a particular reflection on this theme. As far as I know, it is the first to do so. Also, his work is strikingly secular. If he happily acknowledges Locke or Hobbes, his relationship to religion - if any - is closer to Machiavelli's. Last, the assertions I have read that he was often regarded as the forefather of romanticism left me, until reading this text, skeptic at best. I am not knowledgeable enough about this movement to make up my own mind, but I now definitely see where this genealogy comes from. It is not the sentimentalism nor the aesthetic primacy but a sense of modernity as a right scourge that grants him this awkward position, as both the paragon of humanism and the omen of reactionary, anti-enlightenment, and nationalist thought.

‘I received, sir, your latest book against the human race, for which I thank you,’ Voltaire wrote snarkily after Rousseau sent him a copy of this treatise. ‘Never has so much ésprit been employed in trying to turn us into beasts.’ You can understand his dislike. Voltaire was the epitome of the civilized man - urbane, witty, a social creature. In contrast, for Rousseau (a more pessimistic figure), civilization had been steadily declining since the Stone Age.

Oh, those hunter-gatherers had it so good! Those were the days! Every man back then was ‘a free being, whose heart was at peace, and his body healthy’ - before the dark days of civilization. Rousseau's image of ‘l'homme sauvage’ was of a man in perfect harmony with his surroundings, whose needs (food, sex, safety) were all met by his environment, and who had no need for conflict or fear of death.

This was explicitly written against Hobbes's idea of pre-civilized life being ‘nasty, brutish and short’, but it seems to be based on no real facts or evidence - it's just Rousseau working backwards from what he disliked about modern life. His point was that inequality was ingrained in the very foundation of civil society.

Rousseau suggested that the development of the idea of ownership was a particular evolution in the human psyche - an evolution of selfishness where none had existed before. Anthropologically speaking, it's doubtful whether there was ever such a time without a sense of ownership, selfishness or struggle. But that's not really the point now, since we read Rousseau for his political-historical ideas, not his anthropological insights.

If we discard all the anthropological speculation, what's left? The important part: the statement about how undesirable social inequality is. This may seem obvious now, but it wasn't so obvious at the time. There was a reason why the ‘democratists’ and ‘republicans’ at the end of the century were seen as the spawn of Rousseau, because he set out this position in a very pointed way.

Rousseau didn't quite mean ‘revolution’ in the modern sense, but that was because the French Revolution hadn't happened yet. When it did, many critics saw it as the end result of Rousseauism. And there are hints of violence in his vision. But overall, the guiding motivation was outrage - outrage against a world where ‘a handful of people are drowning in excess, while the starving multitude lack basic necessities’. For Voltaire, this argument may have been against the human race, but for Rousseau, it was a way of bringing dignity and compassion to it.

This is truly a pity and the core of perfectibility, and our being is evolving!

The first enlightenment occurred when the first man broke a piece of ground and declared, "This is mine!"

Moreover, the more we see of each other, the more we cannot do without seeing each other, and the more we desire to be seen.

Oh, me girl!

It seems that our relationships and the way we view the world are constantly changing and developing.

As we interact with one another, we become more aware of our own needs and desires, as well as those of others.

This process of self-discovery and mutual understanding is both exciting and challenging.

We must learn to balance our own interests with those of others and find ways to coexist peacefully and harmoniously.

Perhaps through this journey of growth and enlightenment, we can create a better world for ourselves and for future generations.

People vary in terms of their self-creation, their ethics, and their philosophies.

This variation is sometimes due to the making of the state and governments.

In a diverse society, individuals have different ways of shaping themselves, adhering to different moral principles, and holding distinct philosophical views.

These differences can lead to a rich tapestry of ideas and behaviors.

However, the actions and policies of the state and governments can also play a significant role in influencing these differences.

For example, laws and regulations can impact the ethical choices people make, and educational systems can shape their philosophical outlooks.

Therefore, it is important to understand the complex relationship between individual variation and the role of the state and governments in order to build a more harmonious and inclusive society.

Atatürk’ün okuduğu kitaplardan birisi olması nedeniyle dikkatimi çeken bu kitap, insanlığın gelişimi, eşitlik, adalet ve toplumların oluşumu gibi önemli konuları ele almaktadır.

Bende en çok iz bırakan iki konuyu paylaşmak istiyorum. Öncelikle, yazar iki tür eşitsizlik tanımlıyor. Birisi doğa tarafından verilen fiziksel eşitsizlik, örneğin kişilerin boy, ağırlık veya zeka düzeylerindeki farklılıklar. Diğeri ise toplum olmanın yarattığı politik eşitsizlik, örneğin sosyal sınıf ayrımı veya siyasi güçlerin dağılımı.

Eşitsizliğin ilerleyişi ise üç aşamda tanımlanmış. Birinci aşamada, kanun ve mülkiyet hakkının kurulmasıyla birlikte zengin-fakir ayrımı ortaya çıkıyor. İkinci aşamada, yüksek görev makamlarının kurulmasıyla güçlü-zayıf ayrımı ortaya çıkıyor. Üçüncü aşamada, meşru ve kanunlara uygun erkin keyfi erk haline gelmesiyle köle-efendi durumu ortaya çıkıyor.

Okuması biraz zor bir kitap olsa da, kült bir eser olması ve incelediği konuların derinliği nedeniyle kendini geliştirmek isteyen herkese tavsiye ederim. Bu kitap, insanlığın tarihini ve toplumsal gelişimini anlamak için önemlidir. Ayrıca, eşitlik ve adalet gibi değerleri tartışmak ve toplumda değişiklik sağlamak için de kullanılabilir.

Great!

I am very sympathetic to his views here.

His ideas seem to be well-founded and thought-provoking. It is refreshing to see someone express such perspectives.

I find myself in agreement with many of the points he makes.

It makes me stop and consider different aspects of the issue at hand.

Perhaps we should all take a closer look at his views and see if they can offer us some new insights.

His arguments are presented in a clear and logical manner, which makes them easy to understand.

I look forward to hearing more from him in the future.

Overall, I am quite impressed with his views and will continue to follow his work with interest.

An interesting perspective has been presented regarding why society has become corrupt. However, the axiom put forward in the first part is purely speculative and appears highly improbable. Reading this text reminded me of my school days when I had to grapple with "De rerum natura" and all its rather strange arguments (or perhaps that was just my perception at the time) employed by Lucretius to prove the mortality of the soul. I believe it could be a great idea to peruse more of Rousseau's work in order to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of what he was expressing and the reasons behind it. By delving deeper into his writings, we might be able to uncover additional insights and gain a more nuanced perspective on the complex issues he addressed. This could potentially enhance our understanding of not only Rousseau's ideas but also the broader context of society and its development.

The civilization has inflicted the most severe tortures on mankind. And everything that humans are involved in civilization makes them more desperate due to the gap that arises within society and the damage to natural resources. Here, Rousseau speaks of a return to nature, the original innocence, the savage man...

Civilization, with its complex systems and structures, has brought about not only progress but also a host of problems. The inequalities and injustices that exist within society have led to a sense of alienation and despair among many.

Rousseau's idea of returning to nature is not a call to abandon all aspects of civilization but rather a plea to find a balance. By reconnecting with nature, we can regain a sense of simplicity and authenticity.

The savage man, in Rousseau's view, is unburdened by the artificial constraints of society. He lives in harmony with nature, following his instincts and desires.

Perhaps by looking back to our natural roots, we can find a way to heal the wounds inflicted by civilization and create a more just and sustainable world.

There is something that troubles me about the second speech. Is it too idealistic and condescending? Yes. But that's not the question. What troubles me, I believe, is that despite the admitted naivety of the work, it remains very telling. As my professor, Mr. Knee, said, sometimes stories make the heart understand what cannot be understood by reason. Even if everything seems wrong, I seem convinced.

The second speech presents an idealistic view that may come across as condescending. However, its naivety doesn't overshadow its significance. It has a certain charm that makes it appealing. Mr. Knee's words hold true in this context. Stories have the power to touch our hearts and make us understand things that logic alone may not be able to convey. Despite the flaws or imperfections in the speech, there is something about it that compels us to believe.

Perhaps it is the passion and sincerity with which the ideas are presented. Or maybe it is the way the story unfolds, captivating our attention and drawing us in. Whatever the reason, the second speech has managed to have an impact on me. It has made me question my own beliefs and perspectives. It has shown me that sometimes, the simplest of ideas can have the greatest influence.

This piece of writing is truly a disappointment.

It is filled with elements that are not only unscientific but also racist and sexist.

Despite the fact that I assume the author had good intentions, the end result is a miserable read.

Inequality is indeed a topic that warrants serious discussion and discourse.

However, this particular work fails to meet the mark.

It lacks the necessary objectivity, fairness, and respect for different races and genders.

It presents a one-sided and inaccurate view of the world, which can only serve to further divide and polarize people.

We need more thoughtful and inclusive discussions on inequality that take into account the complex and diverse nature of our society.

This article is a prime example of what not to do when writing about such an important and sensitive topic.

Hopefully, others will learn from this mistake and produce more meaningful and valuable contributions to the ongoing conversation about inequality.

The title of the book is great and the overall idea is good. However, it is difficult to focus due to the poor translation and the lack of connection between the ideas. For those who want to read it, it is recommended to rely on the translated version by Paul Ghannam.

Note: The bad translation is by Adel Zaiter.

https://ia601800.us.archive.org/9/ite...

It is important to have a high-quality translation to fully understand and appreciate the content of the book. The poor translation not only affects the reader's experience but also may lead to misunderstandings. Therefore, it is advisable to choose a reliable translation when reading foreign books.

In conclusion, although the book has a great title and idea, the poor translation is a significant drawback. It is hoped that a better translation will be available in the future to make the book more accessible to a wider audience.

Fun.

It has actually aged remarkably well.

Except perhaps the part regarding gender relations and some of its speculative anthropology as well as the talk about "savages".

But hey, it's more of a thought experiment than empirical science!

It is really well-written, polemical, and witty, with several fun and memorable phrases.

The polemical part with Hobbes, for example - I must admit that I find Rousseau's position more convincing.

At least it left me with an optimistic feeling about human nature.

Overall, it's a work that still holds value and interest despite its age and some of its more dated aspects.

It makes you think and question, and that's what good literature should do.

Whether you agree with Rousseau or not, there's no denying the impact and influence his ideas have had over the years.

It's a fascinating read that I would recommend to anyone interested in philosophy, anthropology, or just good writing.