Jean-Jaques Rousseau.

[Fidelbrand]

It seems that he is pretty less mentioned here in che-lives~

What do you think about his proposal on effective governance? ("sovereignty is inalienable , sovereignty is indivisible " )
What do you think are his main achievements and theories that convinced you most ?
or do you think he is just blathering shits (probably for some anarchists)~

a free, full online version of his famous work.... " the Social Contract" :
http://www.mondopolitico.com/library/theso...contracttoc.htm (http://www.mondopolitico.com/library/thesocialcontract/thesocialcontracttoc.htm)

FB~ ;)

[percept¡on]

Rousseau is one of my favorite political theorists, but his whole notion of ruling based on the 'general will' is shaky; especially since the 'general will' is to even the will of the majority. Its too abstract to be practical. I liked Social Contract but his Second Discourse is better IMO:


Originally posted by Rousseau
The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying "This is mine," and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. Humanity would have been spared infinite crimes, wars, homicides, murders, if only someone had ripped up the fences or filled in the ditches and said, "Do not listen to this pretender! You are eternally lost if you do not remember that the fruits of the earth are everyone's property and that the land is no-one's property!" But by that point things had changed so drastically that there was no turning back, for this idea of "property," which develops out of prior ideas, did not form spontaneously in the human mind. Men had to progress, acquiring knowledge and arts, transmitting and increasing these from generation to generation, before they reached the last stage in the natural human state. I shall endeavor, then, to explain the progress of events and discoveries from the perspective of their natural order.

It's a quick read, I recommend it:
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ENLIGHT/DISC2.HTM

[redstar2000]

My opinion is...that this thread belongs in the Philosophy forum.

So moved.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Misodoctakleidist]

I read a discouse on inequality a while ago and wasn't too impressed, most of it was pure speculation, and absurd speculation at that.

[Fidelbrand]

perception,

Thanks for the link, his logical deduction on the evolution of "property rights" is indeed interesting. ;)

redstar2000,

:D , any further opinions.. wish to hear what you have to say about him too~ :rolleyes:

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 02:18 AM
I read a discouse on inequality a while ago and wasn't too impressed, most of it was pure speculation, and absurd speculation at that.
this speculation is pretty much realized in the last 2 centuries...

"and that the privileged few should gorge themselves with superfluities, while the starving multitude are in want of the bare necessities of life."

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Its pretty good stuff, in the context of its time. I wouldnt be too interested in his work anymore, but some interesting ideas.

[Misodoctakleidist]

When i said speculation i was refering to the way he went on about how people lived "before society" for half of the book.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Ah the natural man, its clearly written for the gallery, I am pretty sure he entered it into some competition. Well he did and its been so long I cant remember what it was.

[redstar2000]

redstar2000, any further opinions.. wish to hear what you have to say about him too.

Well, I get regularly chastised in this forum for being "too Marxist", but since you asked...

The problem that the pre-Marxist philosophers who wanted to reason "from nature" faced is that almost nothing useful was known about nature then. They had the "right instinct" -- go back to the beginning and reason forward from the natural world -- but in their time very little was known or understood about primitive human societies.

For example, it's now understood that "private property" did not originate in land at all...but rather in domestic herd animals, women and children. Private property in land had to await the invention of agriculture.

Thus, it's difficult for me to avoid concluding that the pre-Marxist philosophers, while occasionally making prescient speculations, simply could not "get very far" because the foundation of knowledge of what actually happened was too primitive or even completely non-existent.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Fidelbrand]

Misodoctakleidist,

oh.. i see.

Redstar2000,

I've no problems with people being "too marxist", it's always energizing to hear a sound, logical and concrete argument from a Marxist point of view.
Yes, i agree with you that from the outset, Rousseau's alleged hypothetical construction of "primitive societies" might not be appealing and at the extreme - wrongly speculated, but his iterations on the wills and duties of citizens and governments is quite sound to me.

P.S. i 'm taking a course on Rousseau next year, so just gathering some info. on this fella~ haha...

[dark fairy]

he's ok...

[apathy maybe]

I don't think this really belongs in philosophy. I think it belongs in Theory (along with discussions of Locke).

Rousseau was one of these enlightened people who others have taken ideas from and made their own. He was basically a leftist (though these terms were not around at this time).

Really I don't know enough about him (except to say that I like many of his ideas), to really discuss him (though I should 'cause he is one of the people we are looking at in Government at the movement).

I need to go away and read some more stuff.

[percept¡on]

Rousseau is the fountainhead from which leftist theory sprang.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 06:52 PM
Its pretty good stuff, in the context of its time. I wouldnt be too interested in his work anymore, but some interesting ideas.
This pretty much sums it up for me too. Relevant then, irrelevant now expecially regarding the course on which the world is travelling regarding politics and government.

Though I will say of all the social contract theorists he was my favorite....FUCK LOCKE...

[Pete]

I highly question your conclusion Perception. Leftism has always been around. You can see the philosophy stirring when you read some of the older biblical books. It is evident in Hobbes, and even in Augustine. I haven't read much Aristotle, but some of what Plato wrote could be seen as a reaction to 'leftism.' It is wholly impossible to point to one person as the 'fountainhead' of anything in Western Civilization, or any civilization for that matter.




What do you think about his proposal on effective governance? ("sovereignty is inalienable , sovereignty is indivisible " )


See the Leviathan of Thomas Hobbes. Although Rousseau has criticized Hobbes many a times (just look in the second discourse) if this is quotation is not misquoted (I am not suggesting it is) then it is showing the Rousseau did not totally dislike Hobbes.

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 11:13 PM
See the Leviathan of Thomas Hobbes. Although Rousseau has criticized Hobbes many a times (just look in the second discourse) if this is quotation is not misquoted (I am not suggesting it is) then it is showing the Rousseau did not totally dislike Hobbes.
Rousseau believed that the general will of the people was sovereign. Hobbes believed that the people trade the right to an opinion on the subject of politics for the right to live in the security of an authoritarian state.

I have never heard a leftist reference Hobbes. Are there others like you? Do you guys have like an arcane little cult where you sit around and try to think of ways that a treatise on the exquisite pleasures of authority and subordination to another's mastery can somehow be considered in sync with leftism?

:wacko:

Are you a Stalinist?

[Pete]

*laughs*

How many leftists do you know that actually read what Hobbes was saying and tried to 'objectify' it from the material realities it was written during?

Hobbes said that individuals will their right to everything to the 'sovriegn', which can be a monarchy aristocracy or democracy with hobbes preferring the monarchy, in exchange for no longer being afraid of violent death at the hands of another. The authoritarian arguement is a product of the civil war he just lived through. Any government, whether it be unspoken codes of conduct through the firmest military dictatorship, is authoritarian, but one can always resist death if the government tries to force it on you.

Hobbes was not a leftist, but he wrote earlier than Rousseau, who wasn't a leftist, and presented an earlier 'fountainhead' that was based on even earlier 'fountainheads.

And no, I am not a Stalinist.

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 06:24 PM
How many leftists do you know that actually read what Hobbes was saying and tried to 'objectify' it from the material realities it was written during?
Touche.

But while you are entitled to your own interpretation, be careful not to project ideas into Hobbes' thought which are not his own.

In my own opinion you can have either authority or liberty characterize a society, regardless the governmental structure, and Hobbes is clearly in favor of authority as the lynchpin of a good government; it is my impression that leftism (if we can generalize) rests upon liberty in its most absolute attainable sense.

[Fidelbrand]

My favorite passage from him is his " Whether the general will is infallible" in The Social Contract.

[apathy maybe]

The real problem with Rousseau is his thought that women are naturally wifes, and home -lookerafters. If he treated men and women equally well, I guess I wouldn't have too much of a problem with him.