Rousseau's work on the education of a young boy to manhood is an overly long yet interesting one.

It delves into various aspects such as how the young boy should be introduced to literature, religion, and women. The first half of the book, specifically on education, caught my attention.

The author presents persuasive reasoning for his views on educating a young boy. Although I don't agree with all of his thoughts on education, I'm truly impressed by the amount of thought he has dedicated to this topic.

However, some of his comments are rather controversial. For instance, he states that women should aim for flattery and tact, and that travel has no positive educational value.

Emile, the protagonist, is educated to lead a practical life, learning to make things and be self-sufficient. Men, according to Rousseau, should study truth. Interestingly, Emile is not taught to read until he himself thirsts for knowledge.

'Robinson Crusoe' is regarded as the best treatise on an education according to nature. This book was first published in 1762 and has since sparked numerous discussions and debates on the subject of education.

Rousseau's section on opinions is presented in five books. I was extremely impressed with the first four books, of course, despite there being many contradictions and sometimes information that is contrary to what science has now reached. But overall, he discusses education in a beautiful philosophical way and sequence. As for his fifth book, I definitely have an objection that it is just a glorification of a woman's duty to obey a man. But I agree with him that a woman should remain a woman and not demand to become a man.

Rousseau's works offer a complex and thought-provoking perspective on various aspects of society and human nature. His ideas on education, in particular, have had a significant impact on educational theory and practice.

However, it is important to approach his works with a critical eye and consider the historical context in which they were written. While some of his ideas may seem outdated or even offensive today, they still provide valuable insights into the development of Western thought.

By engaging with Rousseau's works, we can gain a better understanding of the intellectual and social currents that have shaped our world and continue to influence our thinking today.

Rousseau stands out from other writers due to his far-reaching ideas for his time and the presence of thoughts that remain valid even when criticized in today's context. In this examination, you will find not what I didn't include but what I did, as what I didn't include were things acceptable for the period when the work was written. Even in what I didn't include, there were ideas that pushed me to think for my children and myself. Now, I will move on to my quotations, and the parts I have indicated in bold are what I want to serve as a guide when I look back and read my analysis:

"According to Rousseau, the'most important of all knowledge' but the 'least advanced' is the knowledge of human rights. Defining man will lead us directly to the primary source of evil and the source of inequality among people."

"In Rousseauan philosophy, man is by nature good. It is the disordered relationships systematized by the civil state that distort and negativize this nature to an unknowable extent."

"The child, in his weakness and ignorance, can only stand and continue his life with the mercy of other people; nature has entrusted him to them."

"The education of women is a very important matter: the morality of men depends on them."

"The first education is the most important education, and it is undoubtedly the education of women. If the Creator of nature had wanted the first education to be the education of men, he would have given them milk to feed their children. Therefore, address women preferentially in your educational efforts; because they are closer to this field than men, more effective, and success interests them more."

"Plants are raised by cultivation, and humans by education."

"It is not important whether my student is raised as a soldier, a religious person, or a lawyer. The profession I want to teach him is life. When he leaves my hands, I am sure that he will be neither a judge, nor a soldier, nor a religious person: first and foremost, he will be a human being."

"People only think about protecting their children; this is not enough: when children become adults, they must be taught to protect themselves, to endure the blows of fate, to challenge poverty and wealth when necessary, and to live in the ice of Iceland and on the burning rocks of Malta. There is no use in trying to take precautions to prevent his death. He will have to die; and if his death is not the result of your attention and care, it will be misinterpreted. More than preventing the death of the child in question, it is to make him live. To live is not to breathe, but to act; it is to use our organs, our senses, our abilities, every part of us that gives us the feeling of life. The person who lives the most is not the one who leaves the most years behind; it is the one who feels life the most. A person buried at the age of one hundred may have died as soon as he was born. He could have gained by dying young, at least he would have lived until then."

"The first cries of children are demands: if they are not paid attention to, these demands will soon become orders; they start by asking for help, and finally, they order to be served."

"If he falls, if he has a bump on his head, if his nose bleeds, if he cuts his finger, stay calm at least for a moment instead of running around him in a panic. What troubles him when he is injured is not so much the injury as the fear. What I have to do is to free him from this second trouble at least."

"One must avoid extremes in both severity and weakness. If you keep children in constant pain and trouble, you endanger their health and lives and condemn them to unhappiness; if you tremble too much over them, if you try to protect them from even the slightest misfortune, you prepare them for great unhappiness, you raise them very fragile and sensitive, and you may prevent them from living in the adult environment they will have to live in without you one day as they should."

"The surest way to make your child unhappy is to get him used to getting everything. Because the demands that are easily met will constantly increase, and finally, you will have to refuse them because your strength is not enough, and this sudden refusal will cause him more trouble than the feeling of being deprived of his demands."

"Nature wants children to be children before they are human beings. If we try to break this order, we will have raised out-of-season fruits that will be raw and tasteless and will soon rot: and we will have raised old children. Children have their own way of seeing, thinking, and feeling; it is completely meaningless to try to put ours in their place."

"Interest your student in the phenomena of nature, and you will soon see that he is a curious person; but by all means, do not try to satiate him to feed his curiosity. Put problems in front of him and let him try to solve them. Let him not know what you said, but let him know what he understood on his own: let him not learn with knowledge, but let him find the knowledge himself. When you put authority in place of reason, the child can no longer think; he becomes only a puppet of other people's thoughts."

"You want to teach geography to a child and you bring him globes, maps: a whole bunch of tools, why do you need these? At least, why don't you show the roots to the children instead of the examples to know what you are talking about!"

"The difference between the knowledge of your students and mine is that yours know the maps and mine make the maps."

"Everyone wants to be happy, but to be happy, one must first know what happiness is. The happiness of the natural man is as simple and pure as life itself; it is not to suffer pain and trouble: health, freedom, and the necessary things constitute this happiness."

"According to an old Ottoman custom, the Sultan was obliged to produce something with his own hands."

"Your answers should always be serious, definite, short, and not invite hesitation. I don't even need to say that they should be correct. Children only acquire the dangerous habit of lying after they feel that those who govern them lie, which is an even greater danger. A single lie told by a teacher to a student destroys all the fruits of education."

"There is nothing in human nature to replace those who are happier than themselves, only those who are closer to them."

"Why are kings merciless towards their subjects? Because they never think of being human. Why are the rich so heartless towards the poor? Because there is no fear of being poor in them. Why do the nobles despise the people so much? Because a noble is sure that he will never be one of the people. Why are the Turks generally more humane and hospitable than us? Because in their completely absolute and arbitrary rule, the importance and wealth of individuals are always in fluctuation and oscillation, so they do not consider the states of decline and misfortune as completely foreign to themselves; anyone can fall into the fate of the person he helped today tomorrow."

"The compassion we feel for the sufferings of others cannot be evaluated by the magnitude of this suffering; what we feel for those who suffer this pain is important."

"We evaluate happiness according to appearance. A cheerful person is usually an unfortunate person who wants to deceive both others and himself. In some gatherings, many people who laugh a lot, are very outgoing, and seem very relaxed are unhappy and troubled people at home. A person who is truly satisfied with himself is not a cheerful and crazy person; such a person envies, trembles over, and is afraid to reveal these pleasures, joys, for fear that they will disappear. A truly happy person does not talk much, does not laugh much; in other words, he confines his happiness to the surroundings of his own heart. Noise, commotion, wild cheerfulness is the cover of troubles and sorrows. Excessive cheerfulness is torn from tears rather than laughter."

Emile is a fascinating philosophical work that delves into the values and perspectives crucial for a good education. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a prominent figure in the romantic movement, presents his ideas on the education of the ideal male and later touches upon that of the ideal female.

As expected from a romantic author, Rousseau believes that human nature is fundamentally good. He argues that evil stems from a lack of resources. For instance, he states, “All wickedness comes from weakness. The child is wicked only because he is weak. Make him strong; he will be good. He who could do everything would never do harm.”

Despite numerous complaints about the state of civilization, Rousseau emphasizes the importance of teaching a child well to handle the realities of civilization.

Although influential in its time, Emile contains many attitudes that would not be accepted in today's society. Rousseau was an elitist, frequently making disparaging remarks about the lower class. Moreover, he lived in an era when men and women were treated almost as different species.

Nevertheless, his response to the ideals of the enlightenment is significant. Logic and reason had almost disregarded emotions and instincts. While rationality is important, much is lost when emotion is suppressed and ignored. However, in my opinion, Emile went too far in the other direction, favoring natural tendencies over well-thought-out responses.

In conclusion, Emile represents some positive perspectives on education but should be taken with a grain of salt. Rousseau has both progressive and restrictive ideas, and Emile provides a valuable insight into the perspectives and attitudes of the mid-to-late 1700s.

This was literally 512 pages of man-splaining. It was an experience that left me with a sense of frustration and disappointment. The author seemed to assume that he knew everything better than anyone else, and he didn't hesitate to share his opinions in a condescending manner.

Every page was filled with his one-sided arguments and his attempts to impose his views on the reader. It was as if he was on a mission to prove himself right, regardless of the facts or the perspectives of others.

I found myself constantly rolling my eyes and sighing as I read through those pages. There was no room for dialogue or debate, only the author's endless monologue.

And that's all I have to say on that. It was a waste of time and a prime example of why we need to be more aware of the phenomenon of man-splaining in our society.

I skimmed this a couple of times last semester and this semester for different papers.

Rousseau is indeed an excellent rhetorician. His writing is easy to follow, and he is highly skilled at painting vivid images for his readers.

Although he makes some interesting and valid observations regarding childhood psychology, the majority of this work is a rather atrocious attack on biblical anthropology.

If only our modern education system had let these ideas be proven wrong by the test of time, rather than stubbornly persisting in the same errors.

Instead, it would be much better to read the Proverbs in the Old Testament and then move on to Aristotle's Politics, Ethics, or Poetics. These works offer more profound and valuable insights that can truly enhance our understanding of various aspects of life and human nature.

By exploring these classic texts, we can gain a more comprehensive and accurate perspective, rather than being misled by Rousseau's one-sided and often flawed arguments.

In the beginning, I would like to mention that Jean-Jacques Rousseau once worked as a tutor for a child from the noble class in his life, but the experience did not last and ended in failure. Also, he abandoned all five of his children to the foundling hospital without leaving any mark or evidence that would enable him to return to them one day, so no one could know their fate... Therefore, most of the followers of his life believe that this book was a kind of atonement for the sin of abandoning his children as a father or an attempt to record a better method of education after analyzing the failure of his tutoring experience... And for those who want to know more about his life, I recommend reading his "Confessions of Jean-Jacques Rousseau".

Regarding the book:

A tutor devotes himself to the education of the child "Emile" from infancy to adulthood, but which child? Jean-Jacques Rousseau specifically chose the children of the rich for this, as the children of the poor and the countryside are capable of educating themselves!!

He focused in his educational method on the importance of enhancing experience to solidify knowledge and exploring the true nature of science through practical application of experiments and seeking to use them in real life, and answering questions with answers that stimulate curiosity and do not satisfy it to unleash the queen of thought... And this method was considered strange and revolutionary in his era, which focused on languages, history, and religion, that is, theoretical science.

His dissatisfaction with the study of languages, theoretical science, and reading, which he considered as filling the mind with information that is not necessary for a person's life, is evident in his statement "I will leave in Emile's hands only the book of Robinson Crusoe, for he is a man who worked alone to save his life"... (And far from this strange book, most of Jean-Jacques' literary creations came as a result of his passion for reading... For since childhood, his father would read to him a lot from his mother's library, and the books were older than him, so his imagination and creativity were nourished) And we find in this book his call for contemplation of nature and thinking instead of reading.

The book mainly (more than three-quarters of the book) talks about the education of boys. As for girls, it only mentions them when "Emile" grows up and needs a wife. The ideal wife according to Rousseau is described in the fifth part of the book and is named "Sophie". And this sentence gives an idea about Sophie "The education of women must be in accordance with their relationship to men. For the duties of women in all ages are to please men, to be useful to them, to win their love and respect.... etc." !!!... Also "I do not like the woman to be one of the proud ones, for pride will create for her a personal glory that will make her dispense with the pride of belonging to her husband and fulfilling the duties of a mother and a rational being. This is the reason why I assert that every girl with pride should remain single throughout her life".. I will not criticize this part because it contains both the negative and the positive like the part related to "Emile", although its negativity prevailed.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau lived as an orphan, poor, restless, unsuccessful in his relationships with people, and persecuted because of his ideas until he died... Most of the innovators lived a difficult life and their values were recognized after their death, and he is no exception.

I will not give the book any stars because it is beyond the scope of evaluation for me because it was written in an era other than ours and is considered revolutionary in its content and time. In our era, it may seem strange, and I do not agree with some of what is in it, and some of it bored me and some of it pleased me. The broad lines of the educational methods were written in a very beautiful way... The book gave me a lot of pleasure... The translation was very successful... If the evaluation was based only on pleasure, I would give it five stars.

**"A Critical Review of a Book on Child Education"**

Firstly, if you are not specifically researching Rousseau or conducting comparative studies on child education, I do not recommend reading this book. The reason is that there have now been many scientific studies on child education, and we have a wealth of data on their positive and negative results. Therefore, although it has some reasonable suggestions, overall, this fictional child education book did not add much value for me. In fact, it was a book that I criticized a lot. I think it is a book that even for its own era, requires a lot of criticism.

Secondly, I wanted to summarize my evaluations under some headings. I hope it will be useful for those who want to read. Under the heading of "Unscientific Ideas", unfortunately, the author is an anti-vaccination advocate. I cannot tolerate anti-vaccination after the pandemic period we have gone through. Also, some of his ideas about nutrition are strange and extreme.

Under the heading of "Constant Generalizations about Children", the author believes that there is no delicate child. I find this very heartless. Every body's reaction to everything cannot be the same. This is a very simple logic. Even in nature, we can see that some animal cubs are born very weak or disabled. We are human beings and cannot abandon the weak like animals. The author does not do this, but he ignores a child's capabilities as an individual. Some of his thoughts were unfortunately Hitlerian. Also, his views on the pleasures, interests, and abilities of girls are so definite and pre-judgmental that they seem intolerable. Or he says that children raised in the village never fear spiders. I can refute what I have said about the author's ideas with my own life experiences, again and again.

Under the heading of "Capricious Child", except for one or two points that I will not recommend, he has actually done a good job. Showing so much tolerance to him seems very wrong to me. I believe that someone should take control and make the child realize that he is a child, and Rousseau has become the most ideal person in this regard.

Under the heading of "Attitude towards Women", I will skip two sentences. These two sentences and the explanations that follow them contain total contradictions.

Under the heading of "Way of Introducing Oneself", in the section "Moral Education of Children" in the Second Book, the author says about himself:

Dear readers! Remember that the person speaking to you is not a philosopher or a wise person. He is just a simple person, impartial, without a system, a true friend. A person who has lived very little with people, has not been much influenced by their prejudices, has no time to think about the things that can affect him when dealing with them, and is a solitary wanderer. My thoughts are based more on facts than on principles.

Under the heading of "About God and Religion", the author says:

God said! What a great word. But to whom did he say it? To people. So why didn't I hear anything? He appointed other people to tell us his words. I understand: People will tell me what God said. I would rather listen to God himself: It will neither cost me too much nor will I have protected myself against false attempts. The messengers are protecting you against false attempts by using the responsibilities and authorities they have. How is this possible? With miracles. So where are these miracles? In books. Who wrote these books? People. Who saw these miracles? People are testifying. What! Always the testimonies of people? Other people are telling me what other people said! There are people between me and God! Let's do research, comparison, and questioning together: If God had shown his greatness by keeping me out of this business, at least I would have fulfilled my duty of sanctification by worshipping with a pure and innocent heart against his divine greatness.

There are 3 basic religions in Europe: This means that there are 3 divine revelations to be examined, and the holy books that will convey these revelations to us are written in languages that modern people do not know. How many people can prove their faith there? And then there is no religion that has entered all countries. Are people who do not know the true religion damned? We can also add this to the contradiction: Even in the city where Jesus died, the people of the city did not recognize him as God. How will we recognize him, we who were born 2000 years after him and are 2000 km away from there? For this, a knowledge that must be acquired specifically will be required.

Finally, the publisher I read was KilitYayınları. Terrible! There are always printing errors, punctuation errors, and spelling errors. They have written "rı" as "n", "t" instead of "r", and there are many other similar errors. Also, I believe there are problems in the translation.

A theory on how to raise a child exists, yet it is one that cannot realistically be implemented.

This theory delves into the idea of individuality and the significance of being in harmony with nature.

When it comes to raising children, understanding their individuality is crucial. Each child is unique, with their own set of talents, interests, and personalities.

By recognizing and nurturing their individuality, we can help them develop into confident and self-assured individuals.

Furthermore, being one with nature is also of great importance. Nature provides a wealth of learning opportunities and experiences that can enhance a child's physical, mental, and emotional well-being.

Allowing children to explore and interact with nature can激发 their curiosity, creativity, and sense of wonder.

However, implementing this theory in today's modern world can be challenging.

The fast-paced lifestyle, technological advancements, and urbanization have all contributed to a disconnection from nature.

Nonetheless, it is still possible to incorporate elements of this theory into our daily lives and parenting practices.

By making a conscious effort to encourage individuality and expose children to nature, we can give them a head start in life and help them become well-rounded individuals.

Although this theory may not be a must-read, it is definitely a good one that offers valuable insights into the art of raising children.

The situation has become rather confused. The views regarding women are simply intolerable.

Has Emile actually become the kind of person he desired? At best, he has become a puppet with a muddled mind.

It seems that there is a great deal of chaos and uncertainty surrounding these issues. The way women are perceived and treated is a matter of great concern.

Emile's journey towards self-discovery and becoming the person he wants to be is filled with obstacles and doubts.

We can only wonder if he will ever truly find clarity and achieve the kind of personal growth and transformation that he hopes for.

Perhaps with time and reflection, he will be able to untangle the mess in his mind and make more informed decisions about his life and the relationships he has with others.

Until then, the confusion and turmoil will likely continue to plague him.

Alright, I may be somewhat biased as I consider Rousseau to be my chief source of inspiration. In fact, I could almost build a temple for him and assume the role of the high priestess of Rousseauism.

However, I believe it is rather cruel to simply label him as a narrow-minded sexist and thereby cut off all the other important things he had to say about crucial issues such as what is good, what virtue is, politics and governance, and how we should educate children (well, male children in his case).

Being a bigot implies having difficulties with progress. A bigot is someone who dislikes the era in which he or she lives and wishes for progress to reverse. For instance, in a society where people generally have no intolerance towards newcomers and immigrants, a bigot would be the one who rises up and proclaims, "But what about the good old times when we didn't have anyone coming in? We should adhere to our traditions and not let anyone else bring theirs along! We are fine on our own!"

Before hastily concluding that Rousseau was a bigot or a fanatic, we must carefully examine the age to which he belonged. 18th-century Europe was definitely not a place where women were highly regarded as equals to men. Even the most open-minded thinkers of that time considered women to be of lesser value. (Yes, I'm looking at you, Voltaire.) And only a few women had the courage to protest this injustice and ignorance. Women did not and could not speak out freely. All Rousseau did was to conform to the dominant state of mind of his era. We would be justified in blaming him for not being revolutionary enough when it comes to the issue of women, but we cannot simply condemn him as a bigoted sexist.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau abandoned his five children in an orphanage because he "feared education", and said that "this measure was successful, wise and legal... I saw nothing wrong in my actions at all", and then he wrote a huge book on education, which Tolstoy considered one of the great books that must be read.

How did Rousseau justify abandoning his children and sending them to an orphanage?

In his "Confessions" (page 498), he said that he was unable to raise them himself, and that it was better for them to become workers and farmers than to be adventurers and sons of the rich.

Of course, Voltaire ridiculed him a great deal. As for Victor Hugo, he said through the mouth of Anselme in "Les Misérables": "Force silence in the face of Jean-Jacques! He denied his children, but he built the people."

Here is a summary I wrote about the book "Émile, or On Education" by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, which briefly describes the first stage of a child's life in points: https://najm49.com/?p=1370