JJ Rousseau, my bestie worstie.

Mary Wollstonecraft was indeed right to dunk him like a basketball due to his general misogyny. However, after reading the second discourse for class, I have grudgingly regained some respect for him.

The man can write, and he makes a lot of good points. Even if, to a teenage dyke living in the 21st century, it sometimes reads like [joker voice] we live in a society.

Rousseau's ideas, although often controversial, have had a significant impact on philosophy and social thought. His exploration of the nature of man, the origin of inequality, and the role of society is both profound and thought-provoking.

Despite his flaws, Rousseau's work cannot be ignored. It forces us to confront our own assumptions and beliefs about society and human nature.

Perhaps, in the end, we can learn from both Rousseau's strengths and weaknesses and use his ideas to build a more just and equal society.

Dear friends, this book titled "Discourse on Inequality" and "The Origin of Inequality" has been translated. But in fact, this book has no value in reading and spending time. Its reading has no educational or useful point for intellectuals and people of knowledge and civilization... First, some of the strange and peculiar views and sentences of Rousseau in this book are written for you below, and then in the final section, we will examine these views together.

Economic, political, social, and moral inequalities are all unnatural and emerged when humans deviated from the natural life and established private property. To protect their property and privileges, governments and states were created.

Most of our miseries are of our own making because we have distanced ourselves from the simple way of life that nature has considered and recommended for us... I dare say that the state of deep thinking and being lost in thought of humans is an unnatural state, and thinking humans have become corrupt animals... Wild animals that lived freely in nature, except for the wounds on their bodies and the passage of time, had no other miseries. Examining the history of civilized society is in the nature of revealing the past illness of humans.

The first human who, by enclosing a piece of land, said to himself: This is mine, and the simple people who found a tablet believed his words, was the true founder of civilized society. If someone had been found and shouted that they should not listen to the words of this liar and not forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all of us and the earth itself belongs to no one, all the crimes and wars and murders and misfortunes of humans would have been prevented... Therefore, economic, political, and social inequalities and most of the evils of modern life result from the establishment of individual and private property.

To maintain private property, force was gathered and came into being in the form of the state, and then laws were made so that the weak would get used to submitting to the powerful with the least force and cost, and a situation arose where a group of people with privileges benefited more than they needed, while a large number of hungry people were deprived of the basic necessities of life.

The abortion and infanticide to prevent pregnancy and such sins that animals and the first and wild humans were free from, destroy the human soul and bring civilization in the form of a cancer on the face of humanity. Compared to the corruption that civilization has brought to humans, the life of wild animals is healthy and rational.

We must return to the state of awe, but the poison of civilization has entered our blood, and by crying out to the jungles, it will not be uprooted. The best thing is to read the teachings of Jesus Christ and by applying his teachings in life, drive the devil away from ourselves!! We must be convinced and abandon philosophy and return to the religious faith that protects us against pain and death.

Dear wise friends, as you have read, this man has a fundamental problem with civilization, knowledge, and philosophy. Rousseau's mission with himself is not clear, and he throws values into us and goes so far as to condemn knowledge, literature, art, physics, chemistry, astronomy, and the philosophical progress of humans as the blame of civilization and the cause of the misfortunes of humans... Such a person objects that the printing press is harmful to the people because the philosophical ideas of Voltaire and Spinoza and other great thinkers are spread among the people, and this is dangerous for religion... When you read the writings of Rousseau, you will newly realize why a great man like Schopenhauer says that Rousseau is not in the ranks of great thinkers like Voltaire and places him in the category of fanatical atheists.

Rousseau, with all his courage and based on religious fanaticism and ignorance, takes aim at the religious morality and the salvation of humans through religious moralities. But if you turn the pages of history back and forth, you will see what great teachings these Abrahamic religions, whether Islam, Christianity, or Judaism, have given to humanity until today that have led to the happiness of humans on this earthly planet? Except for creating hundreds and hundreds of wars and massacres and plunders and captivities and the destruction of cities and the annihilation of many civilizations from Asia to Africa and South America and the killing of thinkers and sages who had made the growth of humans and the progress of civilization the purpose of their work... Yes, dear friends, all these are the privileges that these religions have bestowed upon humanity throughout history, and Rousseau, with all his shamelessness, takes aim at this privilege and sees the way of salvation in it and forgets how Christians enslaved the free people in the jungles that Rousseau called them savages and barbarians, and how Christians and the Church violated the native children of Canada and other red countries, and today the Pope, with a simple apology according to his word, washes away all those killings and crimes and despicable acts.

Dear friends, never have an attitude like Rousseau and beings like him towards civilization and knowledge, and let this be a message to your ears that if your wisdom and perception do not keep up with human civilization and the times, you will be burned.

Rousseau sends his book to Voltaire, and Voltaire writes to Rousseau: A book that is written against the human race has come into my hands. Never has such a cleverness been used to make us people stupid. A person, by reading your book, is inclined to walk on all fours. But since I have lost this habit for more than sixty years, I feel with great regret that I am not capable of taking it up... The corruption of our actions has almost made the wild animals as corrupt as ourselves.

Rousseau, who does not have the ability to confront a wise and intelligent human like Voltaire, again takes refuge in the hem of religion and faith to strike at him. He, who had changed his path from the Protestant religion to the Catholic religion for his own benefit, again returned to his previous religion to sell his book, but the Protestants also did not welcome him and his writings, and it was difficult for the clergy and bishops that all humans would be equal and live like the first Adam. Voltaire was a lover of rich literature and theater, but in the city of Geneva, the Protestant religious people did not allow the performance of shows and theaters. Voltaire, as always, tried to make these ignoramuses aware, but Rousseau's head and face were found, and he shouted: Wild animals never show shows, Plato was against shows, the Church does not allow the performance of the marriage ceremony and the burial of the actors of the theater... Gentlemen, the theater is a school of lust.

Dear friends, it is strange that Rousseau, such a being with such dangerous thoughts, takes aim at the salvation of humanity and devises a plan for humans.

I hope this review has been useful for you, dear knowledgeable and wise friends.

"Be victorious and Iranian"

The first human who, having enclosed a piece of land, thought of saying "This is mine" and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society.

This wonderful description is actually, according to Rousseau, a milestone in our transition from the state of nature to the civil state. In the state of nature, we were equal except for physical differences. There was no distinction between rich and poor, no relationship between master and slave among us. However, with the right of property, society gradually created the distinction between rich and poor, then between strong and weak, and finally between master and slave through its own contracts. When this development reached its final stage, the circle closed, and we found ourselves back where we started: a situation where all individuals are actually nothing and equal again, and where there is no law other than the will of the master and no rule other than the master's own desires.

According to Rousseau, the strong and those becoming strong benefited from the laws of society. These social laws "gave new fetters to the weak and new forces to the rich, destroyed natural liberty irretrievably, established forever the law of property and inequality, converted巧妙 a clever usurpation into an irrevocable right, and for the profit of a few ambitious men condemned the rest of mankind to perpetual labor, slavery, and wretchedness."

And these cannot be reversed by a new contract anymore. Because "if we give the slightest attention to this matter, we will find new reasons to justify it, and we will see that, due to the nature of the contract, it is irrevocable; for if there were no superior power to guarantee the dependence of the parties to the contract or to force them to fulfill their mutual obligations, the parties would remain the sole judges of their own affairs, and as soon as one party found that the other had violated the terms of the contract or no longer considered it suitable, it would always have the right to renounce it."

Therefore, the only way to escape from this relationship is to use force. "The uprising that ends with the drowning or overthrow of a sultan is just as legitimate an act as those that the day before made his subjects obey his rule and manage their lives and property. It is only force that keeps him in power, and it is only force that can overthrow him; thus everything is in accordance with the natural order." We thus see the logic that inspired revolutions in Rousseau.

Rousseau is also one of the main writers who influenced Atatürk. When we reread Atatürk's views on the revolutions in Turkey, we can more easily understand the parallels: "Sovereignty and sultanate cannot be given to anyone by anyone through negotiation or discussion on the pretext of knowledge. Sovereignty and sultanate are taken by force, power, and coercion. The Osmanoğulları had become the vassals of the sovereignty and sultanate of the Turkish nation by force. They have continued these usurpations for six centuries. Now, the Turkish nation, by protesting against the excesses of these encroachments and by revolting, has actually taken its sovereignty and sultanate into its own hands. This is a fait accompli. The issue is not whether we will give the sultanate and sovereignty to the nation or not. The issue already consists of expressing a fait accompli that has become a fait accompli. This will be a matter of course. If those present in the assembly and everyone considers the matter as such, in my opinion, it will be in accordance. Otherwise, it will again be expressed in the circle of the principle of truth. But it is likely that some minds will be cut off."

Rousseau's critique of earlier social contract theorists, such as Hobbes, is a significant aspect of his political philosophy. He argues that they have wrongly transferred the ideas acquired in society to the state of nature. Hobbes' pessimistic view of human nature, which Rousseau also critiques, is seen as a downside of "Leviathan." Rousseau is considered a favorite political philosopher by many, including the author, due to his intuitive approach. He goes on to explain in detail how Hobbes wrongly injected the need to satisfy a multitude of passions, which are products of society, into the savage man's concern for self-preservation.

One of Rousseau's key psychological findings is the sociality of desire. Even the basic passions that surround us are influenced by our existence in society. The woefulness we experience is a result of our self-conception of desires within the framework of virtue and vice. To break free from this conception, we need to dissociate from social influences and find contentment in moderation.

Rousseau's discourse can sometimes appear anti-philosophical or anti-rational, as it did in the "Discourse on the Arts and the Sciences." However, he is not against philosophy as a whole but rather believes that it is only necessary for a select few, not the entire human race. He argues that if the preservation of the human race depended solely on the reasonings of its members, it would have long ago ceased to exist.

Perhaps the most significant aspect of reading Rousseau is his ability to capture the essence of the human condition in society. The shift from the state of nature to society requires a fundamental change in human consciousness. We can no longer be unconcerned with the views of others, as our self-definition is now based on how we are perceived by them. A Rousseauvian analysis of modern institutions that claim to offer absolute freedom in society could suggest that they are attempting the impossible, as humans are social beings who thrive on the search for honor and acceptance.

A lot of malarky at times, but a wonderful text (literary). It's truly a remarkable piece that manages to combine elements of charm and depth.

Despite the presence of some rather absurd or perhaps overly flowery language at certain moments, the overall text has a certain allure that keeps the reader engaged.

The discussions that this text has sparked have been extremely fruitful. People from different walks of life and with diverse perspectives have come together to analyze and dissect its various aspects.

These discussions have not only enhanced our understanding of the text but have also led to new insights and interpretations. It's amazing how a single piece of literature can have such a profound impact and bring people together in such a meaningful way.

Overall, this text, with all its quirks and oddities, is a true gem that continues to captivate and inspire.

I found difficulties in connecting the ideas. I don't know where the problem is! Is it from the original book or from the translation (translation by Adel Zaiter)?

I have reached almost one-third of the book. I haven't been able to finish the book.

It seems that there is a lack of coherence in the text, which makes it hard for me to follow the train of thought. Maybe the translator didn't convey the author's intentions accurately, or perhaps there are some inherent flaws in the original work.

Despite these challenges, I am still determined to try to understand the remaining part of the book. I will carefully analyze each sentence and look for clues to bridge the gaps between the ideas.

I hope that by doing so, I can gain a better understanding of the overall message of the book and overcome the difficulties I am facing.

I came across this after reading the introduction of Althusser's "Lessons on Rousseau" and I was not let down.

The work is rich in both style and argumentation. Although there are certain (fairly obvious) shortcomings on Rousseau's part.

I am thoroughly looking forward to tracking the development of his thought in the subsequent texts.

And also the numerous adaptations and radical appropriations.

(The addition of the margin notes from Voltaire's edition of the text significantly enhances the entertainment value tenfold).

This exploration into Rousseau's ideas through Althusser's lens has been quite engaging. It allows for a deeper understanding of Rousseau's complex theories and the various interpretations and adaptations that have followed.

The combination of Althusser's analysis and the additional margin notes provides a multi-faceted perspective on the subject matter.

It makes the reading experience not only intellectually stimulating but also somewhat entertaining.

I can't wait to see how the story unfolds in the proceeding texts and what new insights and perspectives will be revealed.

Overall, this has been a great discovery and I'm excited to continue delving into this fascinating topic.

I don't know what the f just happened.

It was so sudden and unexpected that I'm still in a state of shock.

But you know what? I really don't care that much.

All I know is that I need to get the f out of here as soon as possible.

This place has become too crazy for me.

I don't want to be a part of whatever is going on anymore.

So I'm just going to walk away and not look back.

Maybe it's not the smartest thing to do, but at this moment, it feels like the only option.

I don't know where I'll go or what I'll do next, but it has to be better than this.

Sure, whatever man.

This simple phrase seems to convey a sense of nonchalance or indifference. It might be used in a conversation when someone doesn't really care about the topic at hand or when they are willing to go along with something without much thought.

However, upon closer inspection, "Sure whatever man" could also imply a certain level of sarcasm or even disrespect. It might be a way for someone to dismiss an idea or opinion without actually engaging with it.

In some cases, it could be a sign of laziness or a lack of interest in taking the time to have a meaningful discussion.

Overall, while "Sure whatever man" may seem like a harmless phrase, it can have different meanings depending on the context and the tone in which it is used.

The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said 'This is mine', and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. This simple act of claiming ownership over a parcel of land had far-reaching consequences. It led to a whole new way of life, with property rights and social hierarchies being established.

\\n  However, this development also brought with it many problems. 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.\\n

If only someone had had the courage to question this false claim of ownership and remind others of the true nature of the earth and its resources. Maybe then, we could have avoided much of the suffering and conflict that has plagued humanity throughout history. But alas, we have allowed the idea of private property to take hold, and now we must live with the consequences.

A short book in which Jean-Jacques Rousseau explains the differences among people that civilization has created and enhanced since its progress.

Rousseau delves into the various aspects of these differences, exploring how society has shaped and molded individuals in distinct ways.

He examines how the development of civilization has led to disparities in wealth, power, and social status.

These differences, according to Rousseau, have had a profound impact on human relationships and the overall fabric of society.

By analyzing these distinctions, Rousseau aims to shed light on the complex nature of human civilization and its consequences.

His work serves as a thought-provoking exploration of the human condition and the role of civilization in creating and exacerbating differences among people.

This book ended after much effort due to the poor translation of Adel Zaiter, may Allah have mercy on him, relying on a PDF copy of Paul Ghannam's translation. The book was rich and incorporated several fields such as anthropology, political science, and philosophy. Rousseau attempted to explain the differences among people based on induction and reason. Rousseau's train of thought was smooth and coherent. In this book, Rousseau decided that the differences among people were caused by these transformations:

1. The right of property (rich-poor).

2. The creation of societies (strong-weak).

3. Tyrannical sovereignty (lord-slave).

I recommend reading it, but with Paul Ghannam's translation.