**"Emile or On Education" by Jean-Jacques Rousseau**

"Emile or On Education" is a significant work by the French philosopher and writer, Jean-Jacques Rousseau. It was translated by Sir Muhammad Ibrahim Joyo Sahib in the Sindhi language. This book is rich in description and introduction from various aspects. Firstly, from the perspective of the subject matter, its scope and logical structure, it is a successful and thought-provoking book in the field of education. Secondly, Rousseau, the author, is an important and prominent personality in the history of philosophy. Thirdly, the translation of this book by the highly respected and learned Sir Muhammad Ibrahim Joyo Sahib adds to its value.

In this book, Rousseau presents his ideas and thoughts through the character of Emile, that is, the education of Emile. The central idea and subject of this book revolve around the principles and methods of education and teaching. In the 18th century, the way education was provided was based on traditional and old practices, which lacked enthusiasm and comprehensiveness. The books were not properly analyzed and observed, and to some extent, the impact remained centered, perhaps making the act of reading the book not very effective, resulting in a deficiency in the practical aspect of education and teaching.

This book, "Emile's Education," is a propagator of progressivism and an evolutionary perspective in its essence and subject matter. Here, we are also going to discuss and analyze various aspects related to education. How can we create an environment conducive to the growth of education where every individual is a part of it? How can we clearly distinguish between traditional and non-traditional teaching methods? How can we shift the focus from the teacher-centered education to the student? And for the fulfillment of these and other educational goals, undoubtedly, the development of a progressive and evolutionary consciousness is necessary, which is also the center of this book.

The way Rousseau educates "Emile" in this book is an interesting and exemplary one, which is a theoretical example of educational deficiency and complex education in our society, and it is necessary for every educator and especially teachers to read and understand.

The basic objective of education is to bring about change and intellectual awakening with innovation, which is also happening in our society through the use of words. Words are carrying their secondary and lexical meanings and are being separated from negativity. Through change, our society is also evolving and developing. The philosophical, high-level principles of change, the possibility of change based on the scientific sequence of science and philosophy, traditional practices, and comparative studies, and the critical thinking based on our understanding are the basic keys to creating a new and improved education.

The "goal or objective" of new education is an important axis that plays a crucial role in the transmission of teaching and practical knowledge. We cannot create a complete student who is the center of overall educational progress without considering the educational goals and the psychological and intellectual preferences of the students.

The objective of new education is to create an individual who can prove to be a productive member of society through knowledge, vision, and observation. This is possible only when teaching and education are based on non-traditional and innovative educational techniques rather than traditional rigidity. In this book, the traditional teaching method and the secondary role of the teacher are represented as new and central perspectives and preferences.

"Knowledge or learning never harms anyone, but false knowledge or learning is a bloodthirsty enemy of humanity from the beginning." (Page 60)

I also tried to analyze and understand the "role of teachers" and found that in the new educational method, the role of the teacher is not secondary but of a central position.

A. Teachers should adopt a positive and friendly attitude towards the students (learners) so that instead of feeling ashamed of admitting a lack of knowledge or learning during the provision of questions and knowledge, they can conduct research and find the correct answer, thus creating a constructive approach.

B. Ignorance: "Not having knowledge without knowledge"

Not being able to answer a question, having a lack of thought and knowledge about a subject is more harmful than providing false knowledge and its consequences.

C. Teachers should avoid negative psychological attitudes such as egoism, guilt, and rage while pursuing the goals of education and teaching. These attitudes can create obstacles in the process of education and learning and lead to a lack of discipline.

"Emile's Education" presents an exemplary view based on a series of thought-provoking discussions, topics, critical and constructive questions and answers with Emile. Its acceptance and selection undoubtedly play an important role in making the students and the classroom environment non-traditional and exemplary.

In educating and training Emile, Rousseau not only emphasizes traditional education and teaching but also focuses on the overall development of the student's psychology.

"What you should love more than your country is what is present at the moment, and you should not love what is not! You should only love what is necessary for you to have." (Page 51)

According to the principles of psychology, education means creating a stable and positive change in the student's attitude. If the automatic part of the student's attitude becomes a part of his character / personality and communication, it makes his thoughts and communication more meaningful and valuable. The objective of education is not just to impart knowledge / information but also to understand society and life based on his experiences.

" There are only two ways to live in society: either be a parasite and remain so, or prove your right to live by working hard and fulfilling your responsibilities." (Page 12)

Undoubtedly, the first task of the educational system's goals is to create such an individual who, along with knowledge / information, can live life in accordance with social laws and values. The objective of education is to create such an exemplary human being who, by following the laws of nature and society, can play a positive role in social fields and sectors, make correct decisions by using his thoughts, ideas, and senses, and understand and follow social and natural rules through the basic means of senses. Therefore, in "Emile," teachers also need to make the senses the guide for understanding and rational thinking.

Author's Introduction:

Nur Jovijo has a master's degree in psychology. He has been working in the EIF since 2010. Basically, Mr. Jovijo is an excellent master trainer. He has written 35 articles and essays in various newspapers and has also published 6 books.

My book, which was written approximately one hundred and ninety years ago and is amazingly based on human nature, Rousseau takes on the education of a child until his marriage, and in the meantime, he expresses his principles and beliefs...

Overall, it was interesting for us.

This book offers a unique perspective on the education and development of a child. Rousseau's ideas and methods were quite revolutionary for his time. He emphasized the importance of following a child's natural instincts and desires, rather than imposing strict rules and regulations.

By allowing the child to grow and learn in a more自由 and natural environment, Rousseau believed that the child would develop into a more well-rounded and independent individual.

The story of the child's education and成长 is both engaging and thought-provoking. It makes us reflect on our own educational systems and the ways in which we raise our children.

Whether or not we agree with all of Rousseau's ideas, his book is definitely worth reading for anyone interested in the topic of education and human nature.

The first five-star book in a while! I was reading this book mainly as a historical curiosity and a complement to my graduate studies on education.

I didn't anticipate that I would be as provoked, amused, moved, angered, and stimulated as I was. Rousseau is such a distinct and brilliant thinker, and to that, he is also a beautiful and thoughtful writer. Many of his ideas failed to persuade me, but I will never view education in the same light again.

Voltaire famously believed that Emile only had 50 good pages and that the rest was "a hodgepodge of a silly wet nurse in four volumes." I am not Voltaire, but I think he failed to understand that Rousseau could delve deeper into philosophy, society, and the human experience by writing about raising a child than he could by writing about anything else. In parenting, when approached properly, all of the important questions of life are asked and answered. To fully describe a method of parenting and education is to address the meaning of life and the good, the true, and the beautiful. Perhaps no subject covers that as comprehensively.

This is a must-read for anyone interested in Western philosophy, education, or parenting (or all three). The Allan Bloom translation, along with his introduction and footnotes, is essential.

How is it that the same book can be both so fascinating and so wrong-headed at one and the same time? The author of Emile posits that to rear a child, the parent must serve as a lifelong tutor, excluding any schools, spouses, relatives, or anyone else. Rousseau focuses on a fictional son named Emile. Throughout the book, he showcases his influence from infancy to early marriage.

Perhaps such a controlling form of mentorship was feasible only in a rural society. Moreover, Rousseau not only restricts himself to rural society but also attacks urban society. As I sit here in Los Angeles, encompassed by 10 million other Angelenos, I must concede that the education Rousseau describes is not only unfeasible but would also lead to early rebellion and a broken family.

Now, one wonders if this is the way Rousseau raised his own children. Not at all. The tragic fact is that the children he fathered were all abandoned to orphanages, as detailed by the author in his Confessions.

So, what then is the allure of this book? For perhaps the first time in Western Civilization, a man of profound intellect has taken the trouble to systematize education independent of religious influences. Rousseau acknowledges religion but prefers natural religion, the religion of common sense. He challenges the entire concept of catechisms and learning by any means other than deduction from observable facts.

Imagine Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin sitting thousands of miles away across the North Atlantic, reading this book and envisioning a new nation founded on "inalienable rights." We all trace our roots back to Rousseau. He was perhaps just a way station to the life we know, but he exerted a powerful influence. A man of intellect and emotion, he was simultaneously a victim of persecution and jealousy in his life, to which he reacted extremely.

I loved reading this book. It was a challenging read, but I found it rewarding. You see, I have always believed that one can learn as much from writers with whom one disagrees as from anyone else. Rousseau poses the right questions. It's just that he doesn't always offer the right answers.

Pas mal.

There are some interesting things (about La Fontaine's Fables, about the development of critical thinking in children).

However, globally speaking, I would not entrust children to Rousseau.

His education is cold, austere, pedantic, and misogynistic.

Rousseau's ideas on education may have some merits in certain aspects, such as his emphasis on the importance of nature and the development of the child's individuality.

But his overall approach seems too harsh and lacking in warmth and flexibility.

The description of his education as "cold" and "austere" implies that it may not take into account the emotional and psychological needs of children.

The term "pedantic" suggests that his methods may be overly focused on formal learning and knowledge acquisition, rather than on practical skills and real-life experiences.

And the accusation of misogyny indicates that his views on women and their education may be outdated and discriminatory.

In conclusion, while Rousseau's ideas on education may have some interesting points, they also have significant drawbacks that make it difficult to recommend his approach as a whole.

My copy is highlighted up.

I highly recommend it to all educators.

Although I don't agree with everything he said, and I even giggle at his dislike of books, there is so much that I do agree with and have learned from.

This work offers a wealth of valuable insights and perspectives that can truly benefit educators in their professional growth and teaching practices.

The ideas presented are thought-provoking and can inspire new ways of thinking about education.

Even the parts that I don't entirely agree with serve as a catalyst for further reflection and discussion.

Overall, it is a must-read for anyone involved in the field of education, as it has the potential to enhance our understanding and improve the quality of education we provide.

If we aim to produce a good man, how should we proceed? This is the question that Rousseau poses in Emile.

In this extensive work, no facet of upbringing is disregarded. Beginning with the health of the mother prior to giving birth, we trace the path of a boy's life as he matures into a man and gets married - all under Rousseau's guidance.

The foundation of the upbringing is invigorating: a child must be permitted to follow his natural inclinations and do so in a natural environment away from the society that would corrupt him. There should be no lecturing as the child will not comprehend the reasoning of the adult who lectures. Instead, the child must discover for himself why a behavior might be good or bad. His curiosity must have free rein for him to learn through doing and exploring.

Practicality is of utmost importance. There is to be no book learning, no study of a second language, no grammar, and no moral parables beyond the child's understanding. When nature is the teacher, the youngster will learn to accept necessities without complaint, and his confidence will stem from his own achievements, not from imitating an instructor or following step-by-step instructions.

Rousseau contends that the result is a person who understands himself and his own capabilities without vanity or false pride.

The book is replete with sound advice that withstands the test of time; much of it being similar to what would be recommended today, although the possibility of such isolation from society and the city would be nearly impossible in the modern urban world.

Regrettably, three-fourths of the way through the book, Rousseau commences a prescription that is almost intolerable to this reader - that of what an ideal woman should be. To be fair, he could not be other than a man of his times when patriarchy prevailed, but any modern reader, especially female, would find Rousseau's passive, subservient, shy, retiring, homebody, not-speak-unless-spoken-to girl outrageous. He doesn't hesitate to state that a woman's husband is her master and that she must accept her lot with equanimity, or risk being justifiably rejected if she complains. Although there are many condescending remarks about the excellence of female intelligence, the female brain might as well be a grapefruit considering all the limitations on what is acceptable for her to learn and do.

The reader encounters a great deal of the pabulum that was historically doled out about the woman being the real master, using her charms and wiles to make the man do her bidding. This rings hollow in the 21st century in (most of) America.

Most striking is Rousseau's assertion that while a man should be indifferent to the opinions of others, a woman must go out of her way not only to be virtuous but also to appear to be virtuous. The good opinion of others is what she must live for, or she will be ruined.

The idea that sex could be enjoyable, that one could have several partners serially without the complete destruction of character, is beyond Rousseau, but he didn't live in an era when contraception was easily attainable. At least he admits that women can enjoy and desire sex as much as men, which was quite revolutionary for the time.

Overall, Rousseau's understanding of what it means to be a child is a wonder. His perception of the frivolities of society, of the emptiness of basing one's worth on money, things, and appearances, is impressive and convincing. He is always eager to make himself clear to the reader and defends his views effectively. However, he places little faith in the ability of a human being, once adulthood is reached, to learn from failure or discover truths that might not have been prepared for as a child. To Rousseau, there are many instances when, if things are not done correctly, the price will be paid for the remainder of a life.

After all, he is presenting an ideal that few could achieve, but there is nothing in what he suggests that could not be done, perfectly aligning with his high regard for practicality. Don't imitate everything I suggest, he says; just select what you think is best. Observe what I accomplish with Emile, my model of a man, and see if you can do better.

P.S.

Not long ago, I read Leo Tolstoy's Anna Karenina. Tolstoy must have read Emile because the similarity between Rousseau's title character and the male protagonist in Anna K. is remarkable. Not only that, but the female ideal Rousseau presents is present in the character of Kitty in Anna K. - right down to acting in exactly the same way in the same situation - that of caring for a sick man. Anna K. herself, who takes control of her life and steps out of the traditional female role - goes mad, of course.

Rousseau, in this book, has described how to raise the fictional student Emile in a way that is in harmony with nature. The book consists of 5 parts. Roughly speaking, the first part deals with infancy, the second part with childhood, the third part with pre-adolescence and adolescence, the fourth part with late adolescence, and the fifth part with early adulthood and the relationships between men and women.

The idea of raising children in accordance with nature intrigued me, but I found some of Rousseau's ideas rather extreme and difficult to implement. For example, there is a significant medical opposition. As a doctor, it was too much for me. Or he advises that no knowledge should be taught to children until they learn to reason (he means adolescence). However, what we know from scientific studies today is that introducing a child to as many words as possible at an early age has a positive impact on the child's cognitive development. I think that if we take into account the time when the book was written, these details may not be so obvious to us.

Especially the first two parts of the book are really very smoothly written and full of tips that will guide every parent.

In the third, fourth, and fifth parts, philosophy weighs more heavily. Philosophy lovers may perhaps be satisfied, but I enjoyed the first two parts more. In the fifth part, the roles of men and women are described. If you look at it with today's value judgments, you may find this part a bit sexist.

I had heard that Rousseau had a great influence on French-style parenting, so I decided to read the book, and after reading it, I think it was worth it. I think every parent, every educator, and everyone interested in child development should read this book.

Here are a few quotes that I liked:

"In my opinion, the person who best knows how to endure the good and bad things in this life within us is the best-raised person."
"After seeing what all these tears are good for, why should they refrain from crying?"
"To be careful so that Emile does not get hurt, let him be like this. That he never gets hurt and grows up without knowing pain really bothered me."

The details of his misogynistic approach do not interest me.

I find such behavior and attitudes abhorrent and not worthy of my attention.

Misogyny is a deeply ingrained problem in our society, and rather than dwelling on the specific details of one person's actions, I prefer to focus on ways to combat this harmful ideology.

There are many ways to work towards gender equality and to challenge misogynistic beliefs and behaviors.

We can start by educating ourselves and others about the importance of respecting and valuing all genders equally.

We can also support organizations and initiatives that are working towards this goal.

By taking these steps, we can help to create a more inclusive and equitable society for everyone.

I recently delved into Durant’s The Story of Philosophy. There, he lamented that philosophy had become overly fixated on epistemology (the concern with how we think) rather than ethics (the worry about how we can lead a good life). Durant envisioned a future, not too distant, when philosophy would overcome its preoccupation with epistemology and once again become a sort of self-help club for thinking individuals. In many respects, this book is a take on ‘how to live a good life’ – or rather, how to educate people so that they are capable of living a good life. However, a lot of it might make you wish philosophy would stick with epistemology for a while longer.

Almost every time Jean-Jacques mentions women in this work, you can expect either your blood to boil or run cold. The fact that the smartest of men could say and believe such dumb things constantly amazes me. On the positive side, like Plato, he believes girls should be educated and play an active role in society. But he also believes that women are meant for entirely different things than men and that these separate roles are determined by nature and thus impossible to change.

Just about the only thing I knew about Rousseau before reading this was his belief in the noble savage. That is, he thought society was the cause of all corruption in the world and that humans in their natural state are wonderful to each other. So, it’s reasonable to guess that he would also think the proper way to educate people is in accordance with natural principles of some sort. And this, I think, is his lasting influence.

I’ve recently read Dewey’s Democracy and Education, and I was surprised by how often Dewey referred to Rousseau and this book. I had also recently read The Social Animal, which in many ways pays homage to this book (expressly so). So, reading this was becoming increasingly important. To understand the ongoing significance of this book to education, it might be best to start with the view opposite to Jean-Jacques’. Remember how bored you were during much of your time at school? Well, a lot of the reason for this was that you were asked to remember things you weren’t really interested in. If you ever thought of saying to your teacher, “Look, enough of this crap already, I’m bored out of my bloody mind – can’t you torture flies or something rather than torturing me?” Your teacher would most likely say to you, “Now, listen you snotty-nosed little bastard, it’s hard enough having to teach this crap to an empty-headed fool like you, but what you have to realize is that although this stuff is as boring as bat-shit now, give it a couple of years and you have no idea just how important it will all turn out to be.”

Education, in this model, is always for some future time (a time that is always unspecified) and will help in ways that can’t really be put into words at the moment. The fact that kids buckle under and keep on ‘learning’ in a kind of half-sleep says much more about power relationships within classrooms than anything else. (The 'anything else' here being ‘what is important for kids to learn?’ ‘how is it best to teach them?’ and ‘what is it that they are actually learning when we force them to pay attention to this crap anyway?’)

Rousseau makes this point beautifully when discussing what happens when you teach kids the catechism. When I was a child, my family used to have a record of Brendan Grace doing a comedy routine about a priest asking a group of boys questions for their confirmation. Not being Catholic, there was always a sense of naughtiness in getting this insight into the happenings in that other world. One question was, “What is the mystery of the trinity?” And the boy who is asked replies, in an accent the priest can’t understand, “Three divine persons all in the one God.” The priest says he doesn’t understand, and the boy says, “You’re not supposed to understand, it’s a mystery, isn’t it?”

Rousseau says that if you want to see just how effective such teaching is, such rote learning despite the utter lack of understanding (or even a lack of an expectation of understanding) on the part of the student – all you need to do is talk to the student about the subject outside of their learned (rehearsed) response. Once out of role, you’ll see not only that they’ve understood none of it at all but also that their understanding is actually quite different from your intention. Why? Well, mostly because what they are being asked to ‘learn’ has no relevance or interest to them now. So, at best, they remember disconnected pieces rather than anything like a consistent whole.

Now, think about what we are teaching kids by teaching them this. We are teaching them that it’s not important for them to understand anything properly, but that they’ll get a pat on the back if they can parrot back what appear to be meaningless jumbles of words in more or less the right order.

What the child understands doesn’t really matter at all. What matters is that their heads are filled with ‘knowledge’ that will make sense ‘sometime’.

So, is there an alternative to this? Well, according to Rousseau, there is – and that is to teach according to what the child is interested in learning and needs to know now. And if you want to teach the child something they are currently not interested in learning, then it’s up to you to find a way to make learning that thing essential for the child in the here and now. For example, he talks about getting his student lost in the woods so that he can teach the child the importance of knowing how to find directions from the position of the sun and therefore how the earth travels around the sun and how the sun shifts position in the sky according to the time of the year. The point is, as anyone with kids knows, kids live in the present. If that’s the case, you really do need to teach them in the present too. When people see the point of something, learning is as easy as breathing. That’s what we humans do – we are learning machines. But it’s so easy to make it hard for kids to learn and to convince them they’re not good learners. And the best way to achieve this is to try to force them to learn stuff they have no interest in or even any way of working out what possible interest they might have in it.

Now, all that is the good part of this book. You have to know that this book was written for a very small group of people – that is, ‘nice’ people who can afford servants. This is about how to go about the education of boys, but not just any boys, only a very few well-off boys. It wouldn’t take much to be completely turned off this book. The long and rather boring discussion of religion, the sexism, the endless marriage preparations, and the classism weren't really to my taste. All the same, the parts of this that are good are particularly good.

For the most part, Rousseau managed to maintain my interest through his language. He uses it very thoughtfully and precisely, which makes his writing engaging. Additionally, his extreme ideas and scenarios regarding a child's education and tutorship are quite captivating. Rousseau showcases his creativity by meticulously analyzing everything down to the tiniest detail. This perspective has provided me with numerous lessons to learn.

However, the part that I didn't care much for was his last chapter on Sophie. While it's a great name for an ideal woman, she fails to live up to her name of wisdom when it comes to her "role." Rousseau is extremely explicit about his ideas on women, and they are far beneath those of the average person in the modern Western world. I was quite astonished that he would hold such views on women, considering his aversion to oppression and domination. But then again, I haven't read any other works by him before. Perhaps this isn't a surprise to those who are more familiar with his body of work. Anyway, I could continue to discuss this, but it goes without saying that he is very backward in his description of the ideal woman in most respects, although some of it was acceptable.

Please read the last chapter first.

If you can accept Rousseau at his most offensive, then perhaps you should proceed with the remainder of the book.

Personally, being a feminist to a significant extent, I simply cannot tolerate this work.

I have encountered an excessive amount of praise for this work from numerous individuals who haven't completed it (that is, read Rousseau's portrayal of Sophie), which leads me to completely refuse to discuss it.

If you hold the "but, gender issues aside" persuasion, you should take into account that during that era, there was already a sufficient feminist perspective, and we're not referring to something radical (think Austen), so an apology is not fitting.

It is essential to recognize that the treatment of gender in Rousseau's work is highly controversial and does not align with modern feminist ideals.

By ignoring or downplaying these issues, we risk perpetuating harmful stereotypes and misunderstandings.

Therefore, it is crucial to approach such works with a critical eye and engage in meaningful discussions about their implications.

Only by doing so can we hope to move forward and create a more inclusive and equitable society.