I shall hopefully write a proper review once I have composed my thoughts.

But for now, I will seek to emulate the delighted and reverential tone of those critics whose choiciest lines of praise are plastered on the back-cover, front-cover and insides of books:

"A magnificent triumph of imagination, scholarship and reason!"

***

The discourse is divided into two parts. Part I deals with Man in the "State of Nature", a concept used to denote the hypothetical conditions of what the lives of people might have been like before societies came into existence, i.e. Savage Man. Part II deals with how inequality originated and was perpetuated among us humans.

Part I

Rousseau basically argues in Part I that it was not possible for inequality to set in, in the State of Nature. In that pursuit, he gives us an elaborate, vivid and - most importantly - convincing portrayal of the life of Savage Man as he imagines it to have been.

Let us conclude then that man in a state of nature, wandering up and down the forests, without industry, without speech, and without home, an equal stranger to war and to all ties, neither standing in need of his fellow-creatures nor having any desire to hurt them, and perhaps even not distinguishing them one from another; let us conclude that, being self-sufficient and subject to so few passions, he could have no feelings or knowledge but such as befitted his situation; that he felt only his actual necessities, and disregarded everything he did not think himself immediately concerned to notice, and that his understanding made no greater progress than his vanity. If by accident he made any discovery, he was the less able to communicate it to others, as he did not know even his own children. Every art would necessarily perish with its inventor, where there was no kind of education among men, and generations succeeded generations without the least advance; when, all setting out from the same point, centuries must have elapsed in the barbarism of the first ages; when the race was already old, and man remained a child.

Part II

Part II begins powerfully.

The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows, "Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody."

Rousseau then proceeds to begin from where he left off at the end of Part I. The life of Savage Man - a tranquil, solitary, equal one; what changed that?

In proportion as the human race grew more numerous, men's cares increased. The difference of soils, climates and seasons, must have introduced some differences into their manner of living. Barren years, long and sharp winters, scorching summers which parched the fruits of the earth, must have demanded a new industry. On the seashore and the banks of rivers, they invented the hook and line, and became fishermen and eaters of fish. In the forests they made bows and arrows, and became huntsmen and warriors. In cold countries they clothed themselves with the skins of the beasts they had slain. The lightning, a volcano, or some lucky chance acquainted them with fire, a new resource against the rigours of winter: they next learned how to preserve this element, then how to reproduce it, and finally how to prepare with it the flesh of animals which before they had eaten raw.

Rousseau traces the journey (or descent, as he would probably call it) of Man into domesticity, the idea of property, political society; a journey that sees inequality originate and entrench itself firmly in the human race. It is, again, a convincing argument, and a rewarding one for the reader.

The crux of the argument:

It follows from this survey that, as there is hardly any inequality in the state of nature, all the inequality which now prevails owes its strength and growth to the development of our faculties and the advance of the human mind, and becomes at last permanent and legitimate by the establishment of property and laws.

***

This is not something that I would have normally bothered to read. I owe this wonderful reading experience to the MOOC I am currently enrolled in, "The Modern and the Postmodern".

Link: https://www.coursera.org/course/moder...

The course is only three weeks in, and I would heavily recommend it to anyone who may have an interest in the subject matter.

Next up: The Communist Manifesto. Can't wait :)

Rousseau, another social contract theorist who should be read along with Hobbes and Locke, in his work titled "Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men," makes a comparison between man in the state of nature and man after transitioning to living in society. He thereby explains his ideas regarding why humans transitioned to living in society and established states. In fact, it might be more accurate to say that he is explaining the reason for the "social contract." For this reason, I recommend reading this work before his "The Social Contract."

Unlike Hobbes and Locke, Rousseau believes that man in the state of nature lived in peace. According to him, all men are equal; however, along with this, there are also two types of inequality. The first is the inequality he names as "natural" or "physical." This is brought about by nature, and factors such as age and health affect this inequality. The other inequality is named by Rousseau as "moral" or "political." He argues that this inequality is caused by the privileges that one person takes advantage of at the expense of others.

According to Rousseau, the best state of man is his state in the state of nature; because he is equidistant from both reason and instincts. Man in the state of nature, despite natural inequalities, is peaceful and free. An individual does not harm another individual; because he has the feeling of "pity." However, when a person "encloses a piece of land with a fence and says 'this is mine'," then the trouble begins. After this, man begins to engage in agriculture and metallurgy. He transitions to living in society. In this process, he develops certain abilities; but not everyone has equal abilities and these abilities do not develop equally. As a result, while some people become rich, others begin to become poor. In addition, as people begin to produce something, they also become dependent on what they produce. All of these give rise to the inequality that Rousseau names as political inequality. In the final stage of inequality, which is "despotism," man returns to the state of nature again; because everyone is equal, because everyone except the despot is a "nothing." This state of nature is, of course, a corrupted version of the first state of nature.

I read this from İdea Publications. The translation sometimes gave me a headache. There were sentences that I felt as if I was reading from Google Translate. Also, I wish the translator had used the versions of some words that are used "among the people." I understand that for a philosophical text, everyday words are not sufficient; but it seems that it is also necessary not to use too many words that "give the feeling of being newly created."

Rousseau is one of the (opposing) philosophers whose minds can only be understood if one delves into their souls first. He is sensitive, with contradictory actions, and has a sense that is not immune to strangeness, wildness, and injustice from all humans, reaching to the point of pathological manifestations.

His writing is very important in idolizing the path for many social theories, especially Marx's social theory. And it will be one of the tasks to compare the ideas between Marx and Rousseau, although Marx had not read this book of Rousseau, and of course after that there were reflections on the French Revolution by Edmund Burke, due to the almost similar theoretical bases from which both started, although Marx was more specific and strict in concepts.

This book is very important for those who will read Rousseau's "The Social Contract", which is the book in which he tried to solve the dilemma of the difference that he detected in this book and considered it an unnatural state that calls not for reform, but for complete destruction and rebuilding anew.

Well, this was my first encounter with my series of readings on Rousseau, and it was an extremely smooth and, indeed, a highly convincing one.

He commences by referring to what he is undertaking as conjectures. Interestingly, he refrains from presenting historical examples to support his affirmations. Nevertheless, he does allude to the drawbacks of a historical approach in this regard.

In this book, property - and essentially wealth - is regarded as the fundamental wellspring of inequality. Whatever else exists, such as power and rank, is considered attainable through wealth.

However, at times, he appears rather uncertain about certain issues, principally revolution. He sometimes views it as the sole means to restore decency and freedom in a society. But then it seems that since revolutions will not lead us back to nature, they are somewhat fated to be doomed.

Nonetheless, I have plans to delve deeper into Rousseau's works, and that is truly encouraging.

This initial reading has piqued my interest and left me eager to explore more of his ideas and perspectives.

I anticipate that further readings will provide me with a more comprehensive understanding of his theories and their implications.

Overall, this has been a fascinating and thought-provoking experience, and I look forward to continuing my exploration of Rousseau's works.

The original article is not provided, so I can't rewrite and expand it specifically. However, I can give you a general example of how to expand an article.

Let's say the original article is: "The dog is running in the park."

Expanded version:

The energetic dog is joyfully running in the beautiful park. The park is filled with lush green grass and colorful flowers. The dog's tail is wagging happily as it enjoys the freedom and fresh air. It seems to be having a great time exploring the different areas of the park.

Remember to provide the original article so that I can rewrite and expand it according to your specific requirements.

The past is often romanticized, and the "noble savage" archetype is glorified. A brief history of human development shows that as society evolved, people began to consider each other and seek public esteem. Those who excelled in various aspects, such as singing, dancing, strength, dexterity, or eloquence, gained more consideration. This was the first step towards inequality and vice.

The difference between good and bad men is determined by public esteem. The magistrate is a judge of right, while the public is the truest judge of morals. Although the public may sometimes be deceived, it can never be corrupted. Therefore, the rank of citizens should be regulated not according to personal merit, as this would give the magistrate too much power, but according to the actual services done to the State, which can be more accurately estimated.

However, some may argue, "Bro….. F the State !! " This shows that there are different views and opinions on the role and importance of the State in society.

**Title: Rousseau's Views on Society and Human Nature**

Rousseau believed that nature was originally innocent and pure. In his eyes, nature was like the gospel of the Lord, and Christ was the first human. He never asked "What if this was for me?". He was the one who freed humanity from countless chains and restrictions. However, after him, some people coveted wealth and possessions, and for this purpose, they invented laws, customs, and treaties. As a result, the earth became a prison for slaves. Rousseau also emphasized that God loves the poor.

He said that religion requires us to believe that God, when creating people, immediately took them out of the state of nature, and they became different because God wanted them to be so. But religion does not prevent us from making assumptions deduced from human nature and the surrounding environment, regarding what the human race might have been like if left to itself. This is the question presented to him, and this is what he examines in this letter.

In fact, he expounded on these assumptions in the first part of the book, but in my opinion, the second part and the subsequent appendix of comments were not what he really wanted.

Rousseau also described the modern civilized person as suffering and restless, always seeking more difficult work, working until death, and even longing for death to live or obtain eternal life. He is proud of his servitude and looks down on those who have not had the honor of serving the great and the rich. In contrast, the primitive or savage person, as he sometimes called it, lived in himself and was content.

Rousseau also discussed how property rights led to the emergence of inequality and how laws were established to maintain this inequality. He believed that these laws were often corrupted by desires and interests, and finally led to tyranny.

In conclusion, Rousseau's views on society and human nature are profound and thought-provoking. His works have had a great impact on later generations and are still worthy of our in-depth study and reflection.

I had a significantly more arduous time delving into this discourse in contrast to his previous one on art and science, which I truly relished.

Once I managed to wade through his meanderings, which constituted approximately half of the book, I was completely enthralled, and this redeemed my rating and, of course, my overall enjoyment.

It appears to be essential to bear in mind the timing of its release and refrain from applying modern filters; otherwise, one can easily grunt and chortle at his treatise on the "noble savages" in the first half of the book.

If one can accomplish this extremely challenging task, one can commence to read between the lines and grasp his deeper point, namely that the more we progress and acquire, the less content we are, and the greater the degree of inequality between the haves and the have-nots.

The second half of this work was far more palatable as there were numerous engaging quotes and gems related to the rise and fall of all forms of government, from monarchy to aristocracy to democracy.

Some of his writing was astonishingly uncanny when used as a lens for analyzing the current state of world affairs and global democracy.

For the casual reader, I would personally suggest skipping to part II; however, if one can once again cast aside one's filters, one may also take pleasure in Part I.

The original article is not provided, so I can't rewrite and expand it specifically. However, I can give you a general example of how to expand an article to 300 words.

Let's assume the original article is: "The importance of exercise. Exercise is good for our health. It helps us stay fit and strong."

Here is the expanded version:

The importance of exercise cannot be overstated.

Exercise plays a crucial role in maintaining our overall well-being. It is not just about looking good but also about feeling good from within.

Regular physical activity helps us build and maintain strong muscles and bones. It improves our cardiovascular health, making our hearts stronger and reducing the risk of various diseases.

Moreover, exercise is a great stress reliever. It helps us clear our minds and boost our mood.

Whether it's going for a jog, hitting the gym, or engaging in a sport, finding an exercise routine that suits us is essential for a healthy and fulfilling life.

So, let's make exercise a part of our daily lives and reap the numerous benefits it has to offer.

**Title: A Critical Analysis of Rousseau's Views on the State of Nature and Inequality**

Rousseau is a creative genius whose writings have had a profound impact on the collective imagination of modern humans. In this essay, he argues that to understand the origin of inequality among humans, we must start our analysis from the "state of nature," a time when we were relatively equal and free. However, this concept of the state of nature is more of a myth than a reality. It is not supported by serious paleoanthropological research but is rather a product of the imagination, intended to replace the biblical narrative with a different description of human origin.

The state of nature, according to Rousseau, is a pre-civilization and pre-culture state where humans are simple animals with basic needs and fears. They are amoral, without community or family, and free to satisfy their needs as they please. The only thing that prevents them from completely ignoring or eliminating each other is "pity," a "natural" sentiment of empathy for others. In short, humans in the state of nature are identical to a group of Bonobo chimpanzees.

Rousseau believes that the origin of inequality lies in the appearance of property, technological progress, and the division of labor. With the emergence of society, morality, family, community, law, and other institutions also appear. However, he also argues that the creation of society and our interdependence within it have led to the appearance of social masks, predisposing us to cunning, hypocrisy, jealousy, servitude, greed, war, and other vices. His conclusion is that inequality is the result of the progress of the human spirit, legitimized by laws and the right to property.

However, there are several problems with Rousseau's views. First, the idea of the "state of nature" is a myth. Humans are always cultural beings, and we cannot separate them from culture. The relationship between humans and nature is complex, and the fact that humans can transform and shape nature distinguishes them from animals. Second, the origin of all these "evils" in the natural human is unclear. Are they not at least potential in humans? After all, the humans he describes want to escape from this "state of nature." Third, his claim that the family is not natural is also questionable. The recent Marxist attempt in Russia to abolish the family was a lamentable failure.

In conclusion, while Rousseau's ideas have had a significant impact on modern thought, they are not without flaws. We must carefully analyze and evaluate his views to understand their true meaning and significance.

We have here exampled in glorious prose one of the primary reasons for coming to grips with this topic having taken so long and leading down so many dead-ends.

While I do give a nod to Rousseau for his perspicacity in being in and sometimes even originating the right arguments, he could be a profoundly poor observer, historian, and human being. His example of "man in a state of nature" is the purest form of misanthropy and makes much of the rest of his work dubious at best.

This was a vitally important topic and he was right in the thick of it at the time. However, his grounding theses should not be taken seriously except with a large block of salt. He can perhaps be forgiven for not having a better understanding of anthropology, especially since it was a century before Darwin laid out the biological foundations of species development. But still, his portrait of the ideal Savage is almost laughable.

He would have been better off leaving that kind of fabulation alone and simply diving into the current political and social realities of his day. He also betrays cultural biases. This is a great text to argue against. That his conclusions are what they are is all the more surprising considering the assumptions on which he based them.

The problem with reading Rousseau’s ‘Discourse on Inequality’ over 250 years after its composition is twofold. On one hand, the content can seem obvious due to its profound influence on subsequent works. On the other hand, it can appear archaic as much has been superseded.

Despite this, it was still worthwhile reading. I might not have bothered if my mum hadn’t given me a copy. The overall argument about human nature inevitably seems dated, and the repeated references to ‘savages’ can grate. Rousseau’s views on women are particularly irksome. His statement about women’s chaste power within the marriage bond is just plain annoying.

Thankfully, I found in the footnotes that Voltaire disagreed with Rousseau’s misogyny. Voltaire believed that women are capable of doing everything men do, and the only difference is that they are nicer.

Nevertheless, Rousseau does make some valid and well-articulated points. His arguments about the development of language are notably strong, and it’s easy to see why they were influential at the time. It’s also fascinating how he sets aside god and religion from the start, a radical stance in a time when heresy could lead to being burned.

I think this point is still relevant today, especially given the current trend of claiming to have discovered timeless truths about human nature from behavioural economics experiments.

Rousseau’s critique of explorers’ accounts of so-called savages is also interesting. He finds them unscientific and likely inaccurate. His views on environmental destruction also seem prescient.

Perhaps the most memorable part for me was his rhetorical question about a system where private reason dictates maxims contrary to public reason. It’s a powerful question that makes us think about the disconnect between individual and social values.

‘A Discourse on Inequality’ is only 114 pages long, but the introduction by Maurice Cranston runs to 44 pages. This is excessive, and I don’t think Rousseau’s entire biography was necessary for context. I read the introduction last and didn’t find it very enlightening. However, the editor’s notes were excellent, especially the grumpy interjections from Voltaire.

Overall, while ‘A Discourse on Inequality’ has its flaws, it still offers valuable insights into human nature, society, and language. It’s a classic work that is worth reading, despite its age.