Purnima malik i wrote this comment four months ago so I can nearly remember it. However I do remember that my objections were that it was totalitarian and utopian. But believe me you will see many of the above characteristics in the book (it includes the concept of the general will, the executive power,...)
I have contributed a Chinese (zh) translation for this TH-cam video. Your work is excellent, please approve my subtitle contribution so that more Hong Kong and Taiwan people can share your great work. Thanks a lot.
@@BullwinklJMoose probably better. Having a usless lecture explain something over and over again is meaningless....to me anyway...this helps give context to tge confusing stuff
Better to just read the actual source material and digest it on your own, rather than have some dusty professor tell you how ideas ought to be digested
@@davyroger3773 The source material is in French. But also, if I'm bored by the professor, I guarantee I'd be more bored by the old white guy who wrote it in the first place
Addresses important ideas for both the enfranchised and the disenfranchised in modern times... JJR clarifies the perils of economic inequality, which gives rise to those who feign to act according to the general will but pursue their own ends (I:ix); and validates those who would prefer to opt out of the social contract - while reminding them why the state exists in the first place, and what is gained and lost in returning to the "natural state" (I:viii).
Strong point that Rousseau wants to make political theory from psychology. Weak is that he needs a fictitious "social contract" and "state of nature" as idealistic types. As a political scientist, I never could work with the social contract as a legitimation of state power over their cititizens.
She is one of the best English-language critics I have heard of Rousseau. Often I hear the same criticisms from students who have not read Rousseau but only rousseau's critics. There would be some criticism about the end to be refined. For example, for him the election is not a democratic process but, by construction, by definition, an aristocratic one. And all of a sudden, we have a different outlook compared to what we know today. "Forcing someone to be free" is not that they go to vote, but that they confront each other's ideas on a particular subject. And together they find a solution. There are problems of scale when you have a nation like the US. But philosophically on the scale of a city it's very interesting.
He used pity where empathy would fit better; not sure if that word was prevalent then. He's got a point though, without a unifying agenda, people become competitors instead of cooperators.
Anarchists are not against rules and laws. They are against unjustified rules and laws. This does not mean that submitting yourself to rules and laws is never justified or that rules and laws are never justified. Anarchism is political philosophy and a social movement that aims to establish order that is compatible with individual freedom and flourishing.
You are correct, you do not need to be an anarchist to go against unjust laws. Anarchism is compatible with rules (some form of law). Why do you think it is not? Anarchists just want the laws to be scrutinized and justified. If they are not then they demand their abolition. In general, anarchists demand an abolition of unjustified hierarchies, coercion, domination etc... If states happen to fall within this domain, then they demand to abolish it. Anarchism aims for a decentralized society, but decentralization does not mean no government or no laws, it just means a differently structured society. There are different proposals of how this could be done, but I personally like en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participism. :)
@Solitude Anarchy means "an - without", "arkhos - ruler". The meaning of the word is without rulers, the political philosophy of anarchism is: "Anarchism is an anti-authoritarian political philosophy that advocates self-governed societies based on voluntary, cooperative institutions and the rejection of hierarchies those societies view as unjust. These institutions are often described as stateless societies, although several authors have defined them more specifically as distinct institutions based on non-hierarchical or free associations. Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary and harmful." The creators of participatory economics call it an anarchist model of an economy. It's consistent with "non-hierarchical" and "voluntary cooperative institutions" etc... Use youtube and write Michael Albert and listen to some talks of him, other than that you can read his books and go from there. I haven't really read much, but I've listened to Albert a lot and been around these ideas for some time now. They basically use a myriad of ideas in anarchist literature or experiments and patch them together.
Solitude Even in Anarchy people can build rules based on mutual consent, a union based on direct democracy, this union cannot be unjust since it’s composed equally by all citizens. As long as there is no ruler or ruling class, as there is now, it can be considered a state of anarchy.
@Cameron the seperation of powers was the idea of decentralising power and for purpose create factions within government. Read the works of the federalists, of Montesquieu, etc. The general will of Rousseau in contrast want a complete centralisation of power into the hands of government. These are not compatible. You either get the former or the latter.
Cameron without the electoral college two or three states would control the election. The electoral college makes the election more of a election of the whole. I don’t want a election controlled by some densely populated liberal cities if that’s the case then we need to divide up the states. Last time we did that we had a civil war!
@@hesselbleeker6353 Why is it so impossible to you?? Sure, people lie a lot, but it's also rude to assume (especially aloud) that something like this, an entirely possible thing, is a lie. Rousseau has a bloodline, of course there's a direct descendant of his among us today, more than one. And they're likely aware of their famous ancestor, in which case they're also likely to look up a video of him on youtube. And if I was related to a famous person, damn sure I would tell about it :)
What are peoples thoughts on his Confessions? Its a massive book and not sure what value it has.I loved Reveries from a solitary walker though, short but brilliant.
Darwinian evolution came in the mid 19th century. There had however been many theories of how mankind had evolved. Genesis in the bible is a theory of evolution - mankind comes from two individuals made by God, who become corrupted, leave Eden, and humanity degenerated with each generation living less and less years.
@Heloise O'Byrne ideas about evolution went back to ancient times. Fun fact: "survival of the fittest" comes from Herbert Spencer, who influenced Darwin. Spencer had a theory of evolution in some ways similar to Lamarck, but it incorporated the whole universe and every stage of development: galaxies, organisms, societies, etc. Darwin quoted him at the beginning of Origin of Species
@Heloise O'Byrne Herbert Spencer is a fun guy. Studied him at Derby University. Spencer lived in Derbyshire. Though a son of a religious man, he believed that the cowpox vaccine should not be given to children. He thought it best if the "weak" died.
If 'The Sopranos' was the favorite show for Hegel, then one could make a case that 'The Andy Griffith Show ought to be Rousseau's favorite show. A parochial town in the American south and the homogeneous cast of characters sharing a common dogma. I've viewed every show you've aired. My hope is that you continue to produce episodes. This installment seem to be a very high quality production. I don't know your name or education but please keep up the good work.
As a Panarchist, I reject the entire political philosophy of this man concerning "the general will". What he deems as "rational" is not always going to be the case based on individual circumstances.
Hindsight makes a lot of philosophies shaky. A homogeneous world? Boring. I'm just happy whenever someone ends up thinking communalism is the most sensible form of societal structure.
@@yannickchayer1609 I concur with you that homogenous society is not only boring, but ultimately destructive, against base nature, and incapable of providing practical solutions to different problems. Regarding communalism, I'm somewhat skeptical given my preferences of cultural individualism, but I by no means reject the benefits of such a societal structure to work for some people in some situations.
Let go? Removed? I'd imagine if someone refuses to abide by a community's guidelines there little reason to hold that person within them and is simply better to release them to find something that works.
I think many have an overly simplistic view of Rousseau. Rousseau didn't think humans in the state of nature were virtuous. He saw the state of nature as containing self interested humans who were large peaceful. Think of apes, monkeys, etc. Rousseau criticises society (from the basic tribe to the nation state) as bringing with it jealousy, subjugation, war, etc. But, society is not all bad. Rousseau thinks that the reason that society produces is necessary for us to live a virtuous life. It is thus virtuous life (which is what philosophers since the ancient Greeks had been talking about) that Rousseau sees as the goal. That his own life was far from virtuous does not mean his ideas are bunk.
Well many thinkers were develloping sort of natural history of society at that time. Some german idealists before Charles Darwin had a theory of social evolution (Hegel for instance).
Rousseau is the first philosopher to place man in history. That civilizations are evolutionary paths. It is not God, nor nature, but history that makes civilizations.
No Rousseau had no such concept, he writes of "passage de l'état de nature à l'état civil" indicating that his idea is a social development rather than biological evolution.
So, we have general will by social contract. That means we vote for the general will. And it is amazing that if one becomes out voted in the general will (then what happens) what one has not only become a minority. But really one has made a mistake. (Someone said this and I think he is right.) Of course, this does not work for, say, how large a gas tank would a rocket need, we need experts for that, but again, how much tax should the nation put on rice import we probably need the vote of the farmers.
@@robertgould1345 i pointed out that there are two types of agreement. one is the modern scientific agreementt. the other is the brute social consensus. while with scientific agreement the minority can be right. with the consensus as we have it the majority always right. but the moral of the story is that the social consensus can override the minority of scientific knowledge. because with consensus no matter how they achieve majority a majority is a majority.
@@mitchellkato1436 You said "So we have general will by social contract. That means we vote for the general will." That is a misunderstanding of Rousseau's theory. The general will is not the same as the majority. The general will is not an agreement.
the general will of the British people is for brexit, and Parliament is denying this so we should withdraw from the social contract until brexit is delivered
The British people chose Brexit, but the politicians they didn’t elect to lead them have usurped their wishes. Democracy is failing! Squash them all in the next election!
It is not the "general will" but "the will of the greatest number". The general will is abstract, that is what a people would want if they knew what was good for them. The difference between general will and "the will of all" is a bit of a difference between a mathematical sphere and a balloon
As less than half the voting population voted for Brexit, it's not the general will. It's not even the general will of those who voted, as a large chunk voted to remain. The general will is that which benefits all, not just the wishes of a slim majority. The general will is what's in the common interest. If you believe in the general will, then you'll see how calling people "remoaners" and ignoring their wishes, which is what many have done, goes against the general will.
This video explains what I hate about Rousseau: he is the origin of all the totalitarian states ever since the french revolution. He originated socialism, fascism and of course the "scientific" beaurocracy of the West. It all comes down to this omnibenevolence, of the "general will". That everyone should be subject to this metaphysical machinery which would achieve "the greater good" or any sort of utopia. He imagines society as being mechanistic, rationally planned and constructed by Reason and the general will. There a chapter titled "The law giver" in which he imagines Gods running society guiding the people for a greater good. This is the very definition of tyrrany!
He and Thoreau seem to be wallowing in a state of perpetual benevolence. Had either of them ever been poor, their philosophies may have had some real merit.
@@murrayelliott6828 yeah you're right. Poverty does affect your philosophy. It is interesting that 3 major proponents of property rights and the free market were living a middle class life: John Locke,David Hume and Adam Smith.
Murray Elliott he was poor when he was young. He lived with a woman and barely scraped up enough money to survive! He would be considered a couch hopper in this time.
He is definitely an odd and contradictory thinker in many ways. Although he is neither an anarchist or totalitarian. He is more a communitarian. But has elements of both in his thought, depending on interpretation
@@ThenNow he is also the originator of fascism because of his romanticism (hence he is dubbed the father of romanticism). I have a theory why such totalitarianism and anarchism arised from him.All of these ideologies arises from the same passions: a general benevolence for mankind, seeking the greater good of a certain people and a utopia to pursue. Fascism wants the expansion to achieve a utopia, communism want a world revolution and an absolute equality of men,... they all have the same passions and the same will (or better this general will of whom Rousseau discusses).
What then, when we arrive to a point when the people no longer have pity for others, and instead, they use your pity for them to deceive and steal from you?
A useful video. My specific criticism is of the use of the human evolution image. Rousseau had no such concept, in so far as there was 'evolution' this was, for Rousseau, a social evolution from a presumptive natural, prelapsarian state. It is our modern understanding of evolution that is at odds with the assumptions that, in different ways, Rousseau shared wit Locke and Hobbes: the so called natural state is a myth. That said, I guess Rousseau's concept could be more easily adapted to hominid evolution, because his concept of a natural state puts humans on a par with what Rousseau takes to be the natural state of other animals.
I would contend that his proposal of the paradox in man's mind of self-interest and pity is untrue. The instinct for survival is not really an instinct, but a choice to live, and from that point to pursue values that promote man's life. This is learned, as is the "instinct" for pity, which is merely the acceptance of unearned guilt. When we realize that we have no guilty share in the reality that people are different, and that luck put no burden upon anyone, then the whole agenda of altruism, leftist politics, and it's morality of sacrifice melts. It is a mistake to call Rousseau part of The Enlightenment. His ideas are anti-Enlightenment. He just happened to have been there at the time.
How can you not buy into the fundamental observation that Man is capable of pity? Look around? We humans pity everything, even inanimate objects like when the roomba gets stuck.
Fun fact. Most contracts are unsigned. Every time you purchase something from a shop you're entering a legal contract. Your participation (in this case, handing over your money to buy something) is how you consent to the contract.
"Some.view him as the intellectual root of totalitarianism" ...yea...he is. Any vaguely understands the 20th century of the Reign of Terror can point that out.
DOD YOUR FATHER WAS ALREADY DIE WHEN YOU HAS BOB SMITH BIBLE? OJOH UES SOR..MY MISERY TAPES ALL OVER THAT BIBLE NO TIME TO GET MR SHOES MAKER TO FIXING OT SIR
The Disabled Person’s Social Contract This template is a guide for disabled and non-disabled people alike to better coexist.[i] This contract should be signed and notarized. 1. Give equal time (and number of words) to both speakers and do not interrupt or talk over the disabled person. 2. Speak at relatively the same pace, tone, and volume as the disabled person (not with loud shouting or an infantilizing lisp-lullaby) 3. Be open to having everything in your interaction with the disabled person being video and or audio recorded in order to protect the disabled person 4. Focusing the conversation upon facts and matters of substance rather than personal opinions and subjective value judgments about disability. [i] Due to the historical genocide and terrorism of society against the disabled it has become necessary to draft a contract to negotiate fair-minded and ethical rules for non-disabled people to interact with the disabled.
Im not signing it. You are attempting to make the disabled’s problems mine. That is up to me, not up to you. You are also labelling and making individual’s part of a made up group called “disabled”. I’m “abled” in your view yet I am not. Just treat people decently and shove forced caring up where the sun don’t shine. In nature only do we find humans
![เปิดบ้าน โคตรสวย ป๋องกพล รู้จักตั้งนาน เพิ่งรู้ว่ารวย!!! l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tmgCF_2HfYI/mqdefault.jpg)
This video actually inspires me to read Rousseau.
This video made me hate Rousseau more! (I actually read him)
@@karl5722 why?
Purnima malik i wrote this comment four months ago so I can nearly remember it. However I do remember that my objections were that it was totalitarian and utopian. But believe me you will see many of the above characteristics in the book (it includes the concept of the general will, the executive power,...)
@@karl5722 hey watch this one to understand Rousseau much more:
th-cam.com/video/76Q4obmYJ7c/w-d-xo.html
Wait til you here how he treated his children.
I have contributed a Chinese (zh) translation for this TH-cam video.
Your work is excellent, please approve my subtitle contribution so that more Hong Kong and Taiwan people can share your great work. Thanks a lot.
Good luck. You will get cencored!
You are pumping out really really informative and very well edited videos - as a student taking his first philosophy courses, thank you so much!!
Watch this one: th-cam.com/video/76Q4obmYJ7c/w-d-xo.html
What are you doing now?
Bruh, I sat through like four lectures on rousseau and understood none of it. This 8 minutes on quickspeed has just taught me way more.
If you could take the lecture before again, how do you think you would take it in now that you've seen this?
@@BullwinklJMoose probably better. Having a usless lecture explain something over and over again is meaningless....to me anyway...this helps give context to tge confusing stuff
Better to just read the actual source material and digest it on your own, rather than have some dusty professor tell you how ideas ought to be digested
@@davyroger3773 The source material is in French. But also, if I'm bored by the professor, I guarantee I'd be more bored by the old white guy who wrote it in the first place
@@skate4463 he did start with bruh
Funny how something that could not be understood in months can easily be understood and summarized in minutes
POV: You had to watch this for school work.
literally...
yep
yes
Comment a tu deviner ? (Yes, even in France we are seeing this video)
@@NicOLas-dz6hz de ouf mdrrr ca rend fou
I read Book I and was lost, this will help a lot with my next few read throughs. I appreciate the effort you made. Thank you.
thank you! studying hard for my exam tomorrow. this helped!
Me right now. Wish me luck
killianmck7 I have a 700-word reflection on Social Contract and here I am, watching this video.
me too :)
@@sirbedivere5670 Could you perhaps help me out? I have the same assignment.
How did you go?
Addresses important ideas for both the enfranchised and the disenfranchised in modern times... JJR clarifies the perils of economic inequality, which gives rise to those who feign to act according to the general will but pursue their own ends (I:ix); and validates those who would prefer to opt out of the social contract - while reminding them why the state exists in the first place, and what is gained and lost in returning to the "natural state" (I:viii).
This was extremely well summarized, and I love the appropriate selections from the book. Well done!
Thank you for this. This is very useful for my upcoming book.
Been reading this work for about a week. My second time through now. I've missed a great deal. Thanks for the video
Not enough videos on Rousseau and The Social Contract. Thank you
Strong point that Rousseau wants to make political theory from psychology. Weak is that he needs a fictitious "social contract" and "state of nature" as idealistic types. As a political scientist, I never could work with the social contract as a legitimation of state power over their cititizens.
She is one of the best English-language critics I have heard of Rousseau. Often I hear the same criticisms from students who have not read Rousseau but only rousseau's critics.
There would be some criticism about the end to be refined. For example, for him the election is not a democratic process but, by construction, by definition, an aristocratic one. And all of a sudden, we have a different outlook compared to what we know today. "Forcing someone to be free" is not that they go to vote, but that they confront each other's ideas on a particular subject. And together they find a solution.
There are problems of scale when you have a nation like the US. But philosophically on the scale of a city it's very interesting.
The problem of this theory is when there are to many people. It took too much time to decide.
@@NicOLas-dz6hz it's done very well in Switzerland.
Yeah but in France for exemple, we can't put everibody in the same team. There is too many political differences.
He used pity where empathy would fit better; not sure if that word was prevalent then.
He's got a point though, without a unifying agenda, people become competitors instead of cooperators.
Anarchists are not against rules and laws. They are against unjustified rules and laws. This does not mean that submitting yourself to rules and laws is never justified or that rules and laws are never justified.
Anarchism is political philosophy and a social movement that aims to establish order that is compatible with individual freedom and flourishing.
You are correct, you do not need to be an anarchist to go against unjust laws.
Anarchism is compatible with rules (some form of law). Why do you think it is not? Anarchists just want the laws to be scrutinized and justified. If they are not then they demand their abolition.
In general, anarchists demand an abolition of unjustified hierarchies, coercion, domination etc...
If states happen to fall within this domain, then they demand to abolish it.
Anarchism aims for a decentralized society, but decentralization does not mean no government or no laws, it just means a differently structured society. There are different proposals of how this could be done, but I personally like en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participism.
:)
@Solitude
Anarchy means "an - without", "arkhos - ruler". The meaning of the word is without rulers, the political philosophy of anarchism is: "Anarchism is an anti-authoritarian political philosophy that advocates self-governed societies based on voluntary, cooperative institutions and the rejection of hierarchies those societies view as unjust. These institutions are often described as stateless societies, although several authors have defined them more specifically as distinct institutions based on non-hierarchical or free associations. Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary and harmful."
The creators of participatory economics call it an anarchist model of an economy. It's consistent with "non-hierarchical" and "voluntary cooperative institutions" etc...
Use youtube and write Michael Albert and listen to some talks of him, other than that you can read his books and go from there. I haven't really read much, but I've listened to Albert a lot and been around these ideas for some time now. They basically use a myriad of ideas in anarchist literature or experiments and patch them together.
Solitude Even in Anarchy people can build rules based on mutual consent, a union based on direct democracy, this union cannot be unjust since it’s composed equally by all citizens. As long as there is no ruler or ruling class, as there is now, it can be considered a state of anarchy.
@Cameron the seperation of powers was the idea of decentralising power and for purpose create factions within government. Read the works of the federalists, of Montesquieu, etc. The general will of Rousseau in contrast want a complete centralisation of power into the hands of government. These are not compatible. You either get the former or the latter.
Cameron without the electoral college two or three states would control the election. The electoral college makes the election more of a election of the whole. I don’t want a election controlled by some densely populated liberal cities if that’s the case then we need to divide up the states. Last time we did that we had a civil war!
Can you make a video on John Locke? And Thomas Hobbes
You’re studying them too ?
ug, these political philosophers. political scientists?
This is one of my long lost relatives in our family tree!! 😂 We're direct descendants... So strange to be watching this!
Concussion 🤔🤗😘😍😘🤗☺️😙😉😉😂😄😎😂😎😅🥰😘🤔🤗🙂😋😎
fuckin commie
Richard Rousseau I doubt your family is connected to Rousseau
yeah of course hahah fake af
show us your family tree. why would anyone believe someone who's telling people they're ancestors
@@hesselbleeker6353 Why is it so impossible to you?? Sure, people lie a lot, but it's also rude to assume (especially aloud) that something like this, an entirely possible thing, is a lie. Rousseau has a bloodline, of course there's a direct descendant of his among us today, more than one. And they're likely aware of their famous ancestor, in which case they're also likely to look up a video of him on youtube. And if I was related to a famous person, damn sure I would tell about it :)
Thank you helped me for my exam
There has never been a group of people living in a pure state of nature without any culture.
Rousseau had on many cases deliberately explained that the state of nature is not historical, but an abstract and generalisation.
It's hypothetical.
@@wugabriel3465 fjggj?knklm 😍🤗🙂😍😎😊😂😊🤤🤐😑😶🙄😫😣😛😫😫🙄🙄😣😛😌😕
6+(+-
We are at vvggf
But people can live separately in a pure state of nature without culture
What are peoples thoughts on his Confessions? Its a massive book and not sure what value it has.I loved Reveries from a solitary walker though, short but brilliant.
0:59 wasn't the theory of evolution discovered in mid-nineteenth century?
Darwinian evolution came in the mid 19th century. There had however been many theories of how mankind had evolved. Genesis in the bible is a theory of evolution - mankind comes from two individuals made by God, who become corrupted, leave Eden, and humanity degenerated with each generation living less and less years.
@Heloise O'Byrne ideas about evolution went back to ancient times.
Fun fact: "survival of the fittest" comes from Herbert Spencer, who influenced Darwin. Spencer had a theory of evolution in some ways similar to Lamarck, but it incorporated the whole universe and every stage of development: galaxies, organisms, societies, etc. Darwin quoted him at the beginning of Origin of Species
@Heloise O'Byrne Herbert Spencer is a fun guy. Studied him at Derby University. Spencer lived in Derbyshire.
Though a son of a religious man, he believed that the cowpox vaccine should not be given to children. He thought it best if the "weak" died.
Watching for interest. Nice job
Same
excellent video on a great philosopher
I'm just here preparing for an oral recitation tomorrow .
I appreciate this channel. Thanks for all your videos!
If 'The Sopranos' was the favorite show for Hegel, then one could make a case that 'The Andy Griffith Show ought to be Rousseau's favorite show. A parochial town in the American south and the homogeneous cast of characters sharing a common dogma. I've viewed every show you've aired. My hope is that you continue to produce episodes. This installment seem to be a very high quality production. I don't know your name or education but please keep up the good work.
thank you, this vid was very enlightening (excuse the pun).on a subject that is very hard to grasp!
Great summarisation!
"Man is free but in everywhere in chains"
Born free
White men. Not anyone else
Good stuff ....keep making videos!
Why do I feel like I'm being lectured by Severus Snape lmao
I would like to see another video on Rousseau if possible.
As a Panarchist, I reject the entire political philosophy of this man concerning "the general will". What he deems as "rational" is not always going to be the case based on individual circumstances.
Hindsight makes a lot of philosophies shaky. A homogeneous world? Boring.
I'm just happy whenever someone ends up thinking communalism is the most sensible form of societal structure.
@@yannickchayer1609 I concur with you that homogenous society is not only boring, but ultimately destructive, against base nature, and incapable of providing practical solutions to different problems.
Regarding communalism, I'm somewhat skeptical given my preferences of cultural individualism, but I by no means reject the benefits of such a societal structure to work for some people in some situations.
As a man on his toilet, I can confirm
@@pantaloonsxD lol we're all experts when we're doing mostly nothing 😅
thank you so much!
what does it mean when he says forced to be freed?
Let go? Removed? I'd imagine if someone refuses to abide by a community's guidelines there little reason to hold that person within them and is simply better to release them to find something that works.
@@ajshdhenskaka Definitely not, seems to be a negative approach at least until the contrary is established
Here is the real education..very good presentation..explains alot..😂
wow best explanation 👌
How can I contribute an Azerbaijani translation of this video? It is well scripted and beautifully explained
Amazing video
Excellent.
Great video thank you
All good man, glad I can help
So I'd completely misunderstood Rousseau's points while in school
Watched all of it twice 8:14
All hail the father of Romanticism!!!!!
Literally just watching this for a test
Watched this for a research presentation
I think many have an overly simplistic view of Rousseau. Rousseau didn't think humans in the state of nature were virtuous. He saw the state of nature as containing self interested humans who were large peaceful. Think of apes, monkeys, etc.
Rousseau criticises society (from the basic tribe to the nation state) as bringing with it jealousy, subjugation, war, etc.
But, society is not all bad. Rousseau thinks that the reason that society produces is necessary for us to live a virtuous life. It is thus virtuous life (which is what philosophers since the ancient Greeks had been talking about) that Rousseau sees as the goal. That his own life was far from virtuous does not mean his ideas are bunk.
Well for example chimpanzees are not exactly peaceful...they wage war on neighboring tribes and brutally rip their foes limb from limb
@@davyroger3773 I'm talking about what Rousseau thought.
TURN UP THE VOLUME
Rousseau referred to the "course evolution?" A hundred years before The Origin of Species, by Darwin?)
Lamp-Stand hold up?!
Well many thinkers were develloping sort of natural history of society at that time. Some german idealists before Charles Darwin had a theory of social evolution (Hegel for instance).
Darwin didn't invent evolution
Rousseau is the first philosopher to place man in history. That civilizations are evolutionary paths. It is not God, nor nature, but history that makes civilizations.
No Rousseau had no such concept, he writes of "passage de l'état de nature à l'état civil" indicating that his idea is a social development rather than biological evolution.
Sir Iam Nepali thnk you for vedio
a beautiful foundation for the rule and the ruled, social contract a basis for understanding the formation of the state.
So, we have general will by social contract. That means we vote for the general will. And it is amazing that if one becomes out voted in the general will (then what happens) what one has not only become a minority. But really one has made a mistake. (Someone said this and I think he is right.) Of course, this does not work for, say, how large a gas tank would a rocket need, we need experts for that, but again, how much tax should the nation put on rice import we probably need the vote of the farmers.
I think Rousseau's idea of the general will is different from the idea of majority rule through something like basic Athenian-style democracy.
@@robertgould1345
@@mitchellkato1436 .
@@robertgould1345 i pointed out that there are two types of agreement. one is the modern scientific agreementt. the other is the brute social consensus. while with scientific agreement the minority can be right. with the consensus as we have it the majority always right. but the moral of the story is that the social consensus can override the minority of scientific knowledge. because with consensus no matter how they achieve majority a majority is a majority.
@@mitchellkato1436 You said "So we have general will by social contract. That means we vote for the general will." That is a misunderstanding of Rousseau's theory. The general will is not the same as the majority. The general will is not an agreement.
the general will of the British people is for brexit, and Parliament is denying this so we should withdraw from the social contract until brexit is delivered
The British people chose Brexit, but the politicians they didn’t elect to lead them have usurped their wishes. Democracy is failing! Squash them all in the next election!
The Last Spartan
Your pseudonym is sobracist and Horrible...
It is not the "general will" but "the will of the greatest number". The general will is abstract, that is what a people would want if they knew what was good for them. The difference between general will and "the will of all" is a bit of a difference between a mathematical sphere and a balloon
As less than half the voting population voted for Brexit, it's not the general will. It's not even the general will of those who voted, as a large chunk voted to remain. The general will is that which benefits all, not just the wishes of a slim majority. The general will is what's in the common interest. If you believe in the general will, then you'll see how calling people "remoaners" and ignoring their wishes, which is what many have done, goes against the general will.
Brexit is a good argument for not allowing the people any power at all
Read The Dawn of Everything for a less rosy view of Rousseau.
Social contaract is larger approach
Why does the narrator emphasize every third word?
I'm really inspire by this vdo....
5:38 morals are defined by a community? Yikes 😬 I can think of a few examples as to why that’s a failed hypothesis.
Pov: you’re watching this for modern world history
This video explains what I hate about Rousseau: he is the origin of all the totalitarian states ever since the french revolution. He originated socialism, fascism and of course the "scientific" beaurocracy of the West. It all comes down to this omnibenevolence, of the "general will". That everyone should be subject to this metaphysical machinery which would achieve "the greater good" or any sort of utopia. He imagines society as being mechanistic, rationally planned and constructed by Reason and the general will. There a chapter titled "The law giver" in which he imagines Gods running society guiding the people for a greater good. This is the very definition of tyrrany!
He and Thoreau seem to be wallowing in a state of perpetual benevolence. Had either of them ever been poor, their philosophies may have had some real merit.
@@murrayelliott6828 yeah you're right. Poverty does affect your philosophy. It is interesting that 3 major proponents of property rights and the free market were living a middle class life: John Locke,David Hume and Adam Smith.
Murray Elliott he was poor when he was young. He lived with a woman and barely scraped up enough money to survive! He would be considered a couch hopper in this time.
He was a total hypocrite. For thee but not for me.
Monarchies are the answer, they aren't utopianistic
Social contract doesn't work if you change jurisdiction
its abit confusing to see a root connected to both anarchy and totalitarism
He is definitely an odd and contradictory thinker in many ways. Although he is neither an anarchist or totalitarian. He is more a communitarian. But has elements of both in his thought, depending on interpretation
Welcome to the rhizome
@@ThenNow he is also the originator of fascism because of his romanticism (hence he is dubbed the father of romanticism). I have a theory why such totalitarianism and anarchism arised from him.All of these ideologies arises from the same passions: a general benevolence for mankind, seeking the greater good of a certain people and a utopia to pursue. Fascism wants the expansion to achieve a utopia, communism want a world revolution and an absolute equality of men,... they all have the same passions and the same will (or better this general will of whom Rousseau discusses).
Karl basically, yes
Why is it confusing though?
What then, when we arrive to a point when the people no longer have pity for others, and instead, they use your pity for them to deceive and steal from you?
superb
Surely "Man" is conceived free (or not), and is everywhere in the womb?
Man is a spook. Now proceed on that basis.
@@End-Result On what basis?
A useful video. My specific criticism is of the use of the human evolution image. Rousseau had no such concept, in so far as there was 'evolution' this was, for Rousseau, a social evolution from a presumptive natural, prelapsarian state.
It is our modern understanding of evolution that is at odds with the assumptions that, in different ways, Rousseau shared wit Locke and Hobbes: the so called natural state is a myth. That said, I guess Rousseau's concept could be more easily adapted to hominid evolution, because his concept of a natural state puts humans on a par with what Rousseau takes to be the natural state of other animals.
I would contend that his proposal of the paradox in man's mind of self-interest and pity is untrue. The instinct for survival is not really an instinct, but a choice to live, and from that point to pursue values that promote man's life. This is learned, as is the "instinct" for pity, which is merely the acceptance of unearned guilt. When we realize that we have no guilty share in the reality that people are different, and that luck put no burden upon anyone, then the whole agenda of altruism, leftist politics, and it's morality of sacrifice melts.
It is a mistake to call Rousseau part of The Enlightenment. His ideas are anti-Enlightenment. He just happened to have been there at the time.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
@@adrien5834 Sorry if I pissed on your rug.
@@matthewstroud4294 You didn't. Have you ever played a team sport?
why does this literally sound like Tom Harlock???
Dunno.
How can you not buy into the fundamental observation that Man is capable of pity? Look around? We humans pity everything, even inanimate objects like when the roomba gets stuck.
Rousseau, however cool was ok with slavery and colonialism. So much for being social and obligated by contract.
Could Rousseau be the governor of Utopia?
Don’t be fools, he’s talking about spilling blood.
Social contract? I never signed shit!
Fun fact. Most contracts are unsigned. Every time you purchase something from a shop you're entering a legal contract. Your participation (in this case, handing over your money to buy something) is how you consent to the contract.
@@robertgould1345 akjuali
@@Ggeorgiev89 kintangapo
"Some.view him as the intellectual root of totalitarianism"
...yea...he is.
Any vaguely understands the 20th century of the Reign of Terror can point that out.
the ending sounded like L.A ngl
like it
talk so unreasonably slow and i have to do this for hw bro hurry up😭
lol so many TH-camrs rn are trying to do asmr lectures and it sounds like you’re too close to me 😂
naive about human nature?
Too trusting
DOD YOUR FATHER WAS ALREADY DIE WHEN YOU HAS BOB SMITH BIBLE? OJOH UES SOR..MY MISERY TAPES ALL OVER THAT BIBLE NO TIME TO GET MR SHOES MAKER TO FIXING OT SIR
i fucking hate the fact that i have to watch this
"Man is born free" - do you seriously believe it? JJR is not particularly strong in logic, you know.
I still don’t understand
Are you trying to rip of the thumb nails of "School of LIfe"???
MR ROUSSEAU,YOU FALLING A BIBLE AFTER A BIG BIG RAIN SIR AND I FIND IT VERY VERY DAMAGING SOR AND MANIFESTATION / MR BOB SMITH SIR
Ale half two fink about eat. Shore ease convinced...
evolution? what?
Nice video but fucking hell your font choice makes my eyes bleed
haha 69 dislikes
u talk so slow! but good video :)
thhhhaaaannnkkkkkyyyyooooouuuu
@@ThenNow hahahahaha
Amour propre exists in lobsters. Its nota product of social forces.
The key to engaging an audience is active engagement and not sound like a f****ing robot.
if u listened, u would have found his explanation great
Engaged me just fine.
I like his delivery.
I hate the way he spoke.
I have to watch this for a stupid test desatan is making us take. I hate that man
please read more upbeat or more interestingly, I'm falling asleep!
Its a big bullshit. I didnt sign a contract, did you?
Look Napoleon no one likes you. Back to exile with you
Kindly work on your audio quality. Specially the volume and tempo.
What's up with the snarky tone bro?
The Disabled Person’s Social Contract
This template is a guide for disabled and non-disabled people alike to better coexist.[i] This contract should be signed and notarized.
1. Give equal time (and number of words) to both speakers and do not interrupt or talk over the disabled person.
2. Speak at relatively the same pace, tone, and volume as the disabled person (not with loud shouting or an infantilizing lisp-lullaby)
3. Be open to having everything in your interaction with the disabled person being video and or audio recorded in order to protect the disabled person
4. Focusing the conversation upon facts and matters of substance rather than personal opinions and subjective value judgments about disability.
[i] Due to the historical genocide and terrorism of society against the disabled it has become necessary to draft a contract to negotiate fair-minded and ethical rules for non-disabled people to interact with the disabled.
Im not signing it. You are attempting to make the disabled’s problems mine. That is up to me, not up to you. You are also labelling and making individual’s part of a made up group called “disabled”. I’m “abled” in your view yet I am not. Just treat people decently and shove forced caring up where the sun don’t shine. In nature only do we find humans