Absolutely brilliant. I could fill pages upon pages with highlighted passages from this book.

However, it only receives 4 stars due to several factors. There are a large number of digressions, which Rousseau himself acknowledges in several passages. Additionally, the role assigned to women may be potentially unsatisfactory. Moreover, Book V seems perhaps unnecessarily long.

This work has had an obvious influence on Thoreau and Kant. Thoreau was influenced by Emile's first education being physical, as Emile becomes a man before becoming a member of any profession. This, along with Rousseau's commendable wisdom on ignoring desires, acts as a precursor to Walden. Kant was influenced by Rousseau's admission of the limitations of the mind in understanding the Divine in his Creed of a Savoyard Priest, a subsection within Book IV.

Anyone interested in spirituality should definitely read this subsection for Rousseau's deeply original spiritual thought.

Ideas similar to Plato's 'learning as recollection' in the Meno, a mystical Christian oneness, and a brilliant compassion for animals in his quotations from Plutarch can be found here. Much like the Republic, this is not just a text of political psychology but foremost a guide to living a good life.

Rousseau's ideas on sexuality, though no doubt considered regressive today, nonetheless possess a great deal of moral force.

Finally, what most stands out to me is Rousseau's liberal ideas on the harmony of religion and moving from conventional forms of religion to the spiritual truths behind them.

Overall, this book is a remarkable work that offers profound insights and thought-provoking ideas.

This book is truly remarkable!

Rousseau presents all the insights that no modern politically correct individual with a rational mind would have the courage to express!

Certainly not a book for contemporary audiences or those with a weak constitution. Of course, I say that sarcastically.

I truly hope that this book is not only required reading in colleges but also for anyone who intends to become a teacher or a parent.

It is also an excellent read for those interested in epistemology, education theory, or anyone who is simply fed up with mainstream institutionalized/socialized education.

It offers a unique perspective and challenges the status quo, making it a thought-provoking and valuable resource for a wide range of readers.

I can't be fair to this book since I dislike Rousseau so intensely.

Anyone who has read about him and his life will understand. Rousseau's ideas and actions have often been controversial.

But I don't agree with his educational philosophy. His view that children should be left to grow and learn naturally without much interference seems too extreme to me.

Moreover, I don't like when fiction is used solely to hammer in someone's philosophy. It feels forced and artificial.

I believe that fiction should be a form of entertainment and a means to explore different emotions and experiences, rather than a propaganda tool for a particular ideology.

Perhaps if I could put aside my personal biases, I might be able to see some value in this book. But as it stands, I find it difficult to appreciate.

I ain't reading all that. It's just too much text for me to bother with.

I mean, who has the time and patience to sit down and go through all those words?

There are so many other things I could be doing instead.

Maybe I'll just skip this article and move on to something else that catches my eye.

It's not that I'm not interested in the topic, but sometimes you just have to prioritize.

And right now, reading this long article isn't at the top of my list.

I'll come back to it later if I have the chance, but for now, I'm going to focus on more pressing matters.

A society is composed of citizens. If one desires a strong and virtuous society, it is essential to begin at the very foundation; with the citizen, and more specifically, with the child. Rousseau's book, in my opinion, is his epic masterpiece. (Notice that I say "his" masterpiece, not necessarily a philosophic masterpiece, although that argument could potentially be made, I believe.) This work combines all of his best ideas, presented through the story of a young boy named Emile. If one could raise a child in the "right way," Rousseau's way, one would have a nation of citizens who would form a society that was moral, valued self-expression, and took pride in their community. This book can be regarded as both a figurative allegory and a literal guidebook on how to raise a child, as I believe Rousseau wrote it with both aspects in mind.

It is also, and most importantly in my view, a critique of modern society. Rousseau was a decidedly anti-enlightenment thinker, and his harsh and scathing words about the state of modern society during that era cut deep. He believed that courage, bravery, and love of community had been replaced by pseudo-intellectualism, office jobs, and mothers who left their babies with nannies and failed to instill in them the values that would shape a strong and upright society. Of course, the modernization of the world has its advantages, and it could be argued that Rousseau was a man trapped in a fantasy of romantic notions of warrior societies, similar to Sparta or Rome. Such societies were fading away, and in their place, new ways of thinking, scientific methods, and distrust of religion were emerging. Many at the time saw him as a man fixated on a fantasy, and his famous feud with Voltaire through public letters highlighted the struggle between the old and new cultures.

Even so, Rousseau's words still hold true today. One need not look far to observe that, despite all the conveniences of modern society, there has also been a softening of our minds and bodies, which seems like a disappointing outcome considering the millions of years of hard work, innovation, and struggle that our ancestors endured to develop new and better ways of living. Rousseau urges us not to let that spark of humanity die out in favor of comfort, convenience, fancy words, and modern entertainments. This is my absolute favorite work of his and one that has inspired me in my personal life like few other philosophical texts have. "I do not draw my rules from the principles of high philosophy, but find them written by nature with ineffaceable characters in the depth of my heart" - Rousseau, Emile.

There is no need to say much. This is the number one non-fiction book of 2022 that I have read. Epic. I give it 4 stars because there are many long and flowing passages (even the author himself admits this), but when it comes to talking about the horror of Rousseau, it is truly...

This is a book that I really hope parents and teachers will read before they have the idea of going to teach or having children. Of course, read it and break away from the old way of thinking. One of the important things when reading these philosophers is not to be sure, not to hold on to personal thoughts stubbornly, and to be brave enough to discard and doubt.

Epiccccc

I read this for a course on Education. It's rather jolly and not overly controversial until one reaches book three. It is indeed an important book that I firmly believe all educators should peruse, yet they must do so critically.

I have heard some people lauding this book, while others have been quick to condemn it. I've been taught that when reviewing famous educators, it is essential to research their intentions when formulating their philosophy. For instance, A. S. Neill aimed for a happy childhood. One of the primary reasons I assigned this book a low rating is that it doesn't seem probable that Rousseau had many noble intentions for his philosophy.

Another aspect that is frequently pointed out is that Rousseau was ill-suited to demonstrate how to raise a child, given that he himself abandoned his own child.

However, I will concede that this book is often exaggerated when summarized. For example, I initially thought that Rousseau intended for Emile to refrain from reading any books except Robinson Crusoe and be shielded from every other type of book. In reality, his actual intention was for Emile to predominantly read Robinson Crusoe and acquire different subjects by reading the book. (Still a bit peculiar, Monsieur Jean-Jacques, but not as strange as I had initially heard.)

I recognize that this is a classic of Rousseau literature and in many ways it's not bad for its time.

However, it is very hard for me to swallow, knowing how philosophy has advanced and having had the benefit of Plato's works. Rousseau may not have had full liberty to study Plato's works, given when Plato was dug up. He is SO held within the structure of his time, which can be seen throughout in his biases and his assumptions on class, race, and gender. It is painful to swallow if you are not in the majority on any of those.

Secondarily, he has so many biases on what knowledge is and who it should come from. This is frustrating when one considers that academia and that certain sort of knowledge has its own biases embedded within it.

Aside from all of these premises, when one looks through to consider what Rousseau is trying to say about education and how one must tenderly care for how a child is raised so as to inspire a love of learning that does not require this outside praise, you can actually see the beauty of Emile. Indeed, today's idea of everyone gets a medal, no one looses, is very much the opposite of what Rousseau is saying and we shall see the types of personalities this produces in years to come.

Rousseau's work, while a classic, has its limitations due to the context of his time. His biases and assumptions can make it difficult for modern readers to fully embrace. However, when we look beyond these aspects and focus on his ideas about education, we can still find value and inspiration.

Education is of utmost importance as it shapes the future of a child.

It all begins with giving the child a proper name. A name is not just a label; it holds significance and identity.

When we give a child a correct name, we are not only bestowing upon them a means of identification but also setting the stage for their self-esteem and sense of belonging.

A well-chosen name can have a positive impact on a child's confidence and how they are perceived by others.

It can also influence their personality development and the way they interact with the world around them.

Therefore, it is essential to put thought and consideration into naming a child, as it is the first step in their educational journey.

By giving them a name that is meaningful and appropriate, we are laying the foundation for their growth and success.

Education truly starts with this simple yet crucial act of naming the child correctly.

Rousseau's "Emile" is a famous and somewhat deceptive work, and the closest model to it is Plato's "Republic," although it also has some differences.

Plato's work is clearly a record of the dialogue between Socrates and several young men about the nature of justice, which guides them to discuss all the fundamental problems of politics, education, and many other topics.

However, Rousseau's work is a record of the education of a boy named Emile by his tutor. After Emile's birth, the tutor takes on the responsibility of his education. In this work, political issues are left aside. Before dealing with political life, it is important that we reorient our understanding of other matters, and religion is also among these other matters.

Rousseau opened up a third way, and for this reason, he was very dangerous. Like Hobbes, he rejected the claims of the Christian theocratic government and expressed his doubts about the motives of the clergy. However, he also affirmed the psychological and political advantages of religion in the correct understanding of it.

According to the description in the book "Emile," until the age of fifteen, he grows up in Enzevaux, accompanied only by his tutor. He does not see his parents and has no friends among his peers. There is no one there to cast a shadow on his thoughts about himself and his environment. Everything he learns comes from experience.

He learns to live in nature and rely on himself, and also learns to respect some limitations. He becomes far-sighted, but not too much concerned about the future.

He is curious about some practical matters, but not initially about lands and peoples, because he has never read a history book, seen a map, or rotated a globe. The tutor guides this education from behind the scenes, very much like a puppet show that shakes the puppets of camping. He does something so that Emile can learn his lessons, but he does not feel that he is learning to see.

Emile has no concept of power because he has never been confronted with it. He has no idea of the natural world as a thing and only respects the natural things around him. He has no concept of human nature or its different types and only knows himself.

He also has no concept of divinity and initially does not understand the concepts that have no practical purpose. Emile has never been curious about the divine connection because he has no concept of "God," "man," or "world." Emile is not a philosopher; he is everyone alone.

Rousseau did not describe human beings as morally unfaithful; rather, he prudently sounded the call of conscience, kindness, virtue, and wonder in the face of God's creation. Unlike the Christian clergy, he did not attribute these human qualities to the works related to God's grace or the inherent goodness of faith.

Rousseau pointed out the poles and claimed that human beings are naturally good and that this goodness is transformed in their own religion. He posed the deepest modern challenge to Christianity because he was the first to offer the advantages of religion to human beings without relying on revelation.

I read this text as it is a crucial Western canon piece regarding parenting and education. Despite the author's chaotic personal life (his biological children ended up in an orphanage), which makes me not recommend him as an absolute authority, I thought he should at least pose interesting questions. And indeed, it was interesting on multiple levels.

Rousseau emphasizes raising a child according to nature, similar to the nature in "natural law," not the one in "the natural man is an enemy to God." He has a more optimistic view of human nature than I do, but he's right that much不良行为directly results from active, misdirected parenting, not human nature. So, he stresses what could be called incentive-compatible parenting, structuring children's rules and environments to properly incentivize the right behaviors in the long run. His incentives are like "I will lock you in a dark room for the night if you repeatedly wake me up at night for no good reason" (an actual example) or "if you're going to be dumb, you've got to be tough," rather than just giving a cookie. He's a big advocate of exposing children to natural consequences.

Rousseau is very skeptical of children's ability to understand history, philosophy, politics, etc. conceptually. He claims that most attempts to teach them these topics only lead to rote repetition, and this actually swayed my thinking a bit in his direction. He'd rather have an [N]-year-old be a happy [N]-year-old, excelling in what an [N]-year-old does, than a miserable one acting like an [N+3] year old. He believes if the child is always well-adjusted, he'll easily understand subjects when he's old enough and end up with a deeper understanding than through premature rote learning. This resonated with my personal experience. Around 12, I couldn't appreciate something as accessible as "Screwtape Letters," but around 16-17, my philosophy switch turned on, and I started reading and enjoying stuff like Locke. (Fortunately, I was encouraged to read and given age-appropriate material rather than forced into philosophy prematurely.) Part of his argument appeals to infant mortality, saying "let the kid enjoy his early years, since there's a good chance they're all he'll ever have," a point that might not occur to most modern readers.

His perspective on family is interesting. He thinks only a father (or a father-figure present from birth to adulthood) can adequately educate a child. The latter part of the book discusses marriage a lot. His ideas on women's education are from 1762 (enough said), but he does描绘a good picture of a young man's whole education being pointed towards married happiness. He gives firm recommendations on moral education, encouraging parents to avoid creating any mystery around procreation, explain it to kids before they find it interesting, and protect young adults from temptation.

He views travel as an important part of education, specifically calling for travel focused on understanding local cultures (especially outside homogeneous large cities) and government, not just for entertainment, historical, or scientific tourism.

He gives surprisingly great importance to practical and physical education.

He has a very negative view of his contemporary, degenerate moral culture. How things have changed...

He's very enthusiastic about agriculture, small-town living, and teaching children a marketable skill (specifically endorsing carpentry).

I read the Project Gutenberg edition, which is of good quality and free.

**The Educated Human**

26 January 2016

Rousseau's view of humanity is complex and rather critical. He despises the corrupting nature of humans and how it affects the world. His statement "God makes all things good; man meddles with them and they become evil" sums up his perspective. He believes the world is initially good and people are free, but from birth, the corrupting influence of humanity takes hold. His book is about insulating children from this corruption through education to create a new and evolved human. However, he fails to recognize that human corruption may be inherent rather than just a result of social interaction.

The text also explores the education system in Rousseau's time. Back then, children of the aristocracy were educated by private tutors, often learning social conduct. The lower classes were apprenticed. Our modern education system, a byproduct of industrialization, treats children as similar products and grades them on standardized tests, which has its own problems. For example, the idea that everyone can write a perfect essay or be good at maths is not true.
Rousseau also touches on religion. He is not an atheist but a natural theologian who believes in God but questions human understanding of religion. He warns about the danger of fundamentalism and the need to be cautious when teaching children about religion.
The social sphere is another aspect Rousseau discusses. He views the world of the French aristocrats as decadent, full of debauchery and political machinations. This is why he suggests his protegee and wife leave the city and live in the country.
Finally, the idea of marriage in the treatise seems rather unrealistic. Rousseau needs to find the perfect woman for Emile, but the question remains whether this experiment could actually work.

Conclusion
Rousseau's ideas on education, religion, the social sphere, and marriage are thought-provoking and still relevant today. While some of his views may seem extreme or unrealistic, they challenge us to think about the way we educate our children, the role of religion in society, and the impact of our social environment.

Overall, "The Educated Human" provides a valuable perspective on the human condition and the importance of education in shaping a better future.