Talk:Jean-Jacques Rousseau/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Catergory: Vegetarians

I have added Rousseau to this category. He is considered Vegetarian by the International Vegetarian Union and others due to his book Emile: Or, On Education which has many paragraphs with clear vegetarian thoughts such as:

The indifference of children towards meat is one proof that the taste for meat is unnatural; their preference is for vegetable foods, such as milk, pastry, fruit, etc. Beware of changing this natural taste and making children flesh-eaters, if not for their health's sake, for the sake of their character; for how can one explain away the fact that great meat-eaters are usually fiercer and more cruel than other men; this has been recognised at all times and in all places. The English are noted for their cruelty [Footnote: I am aware that the English make a boast of their humanity and of the kindly disposition of their race, which they call "good-natured people;" but in vain do they proclaim this fact; no one else says it of them.] while the Gaures are the gentlest of men. [Footnote: The Banians, who abstain from flesh even more completely than the Gaures, are almost as gentle as the Gaures themselves, but as their morality is less pure and their form ofworship less reasonable they are not such good men.] All savages are cruel, and it is not their customs that tend in this direction; their cruelty is the result of their food. They go to war as to the chase, and treat men as they would treat bears. Indeed in England butchers are not allowed to give evidence in a court of law, no more can surgeons. [Footnote: One of the English translators of my book has pointed out my mistake, and both of them have corrected it. Butchers and surgeons are allowed to give evidence in the law courts, but butchers may not serve on juries in criminal cases, though surgeons are allowed to do so.] Great criminals prepare themselves for murder by drinking blood. Homer makes his flesh-eating

Cyclops a terrible man, while his Lotus-eaters are so delightful that those who went to trade with them forgot even their own country to dwell among them.

He also quoted Plutarch's The Eating of Flesh:

"You ask me," said Plutarch, "why Pythagoras abstained from eating the flesh of beasts, but I ask you, what courage must have been needed by the first man who raised to his lips the flesh of the slain, who broke with his teeth the bones of a dying beast, who had dead bodies, corpses, placed before him and swallowed down limbs which a few moments ago were bleating, bellowing, walking, and seeing? How could his hand plunge the knife into the heart of a sentient creature, how could his eyes look on murder, how could he behold a poor helpless animal bled to death, scorched, and dismembered? how can he bear the sight of this quivering flesh? does not the very smell of it turn his stomach? is he not repelled, disgusted, horror-struck, when he has to handle the blood from these wounds, and to cleanse his fingers from the dark and viscous bloodstains?

I will not continue to quote his thoughts as I feel that these two quote are plenty. You can find the copy of the book [[1]].

On a slighly unrelated note: Does anyone know what follows the above quote of Plutarch? It would seem to be a continuation of the quote but when comparing this [2] (Find the page for "The eating of flesh" to arrive to the proper part) version of Plutarch's writing and Rousseau's transcription things get confusing after the poem. Even when keeping in mind that they are not only different versions but that one was translated from Greek to (?) French to English, and the other is a translation of Greek to (?) English, it still doesn't seem to fit.

Best Wishes, --A Sunshade Lust 05:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed

From the intro biography, I removed this:

" Never exceed your right, and they will become unlimited." this means that you should never disobey a priveledge or law,and if you obey them, you will be free and have more priveledges and less laws.

At the very least it was poorly placed. I also don't think it's wikipedia's job to explain what random quotes mean.

I also reverted the "man is born free" line to the standard (and more literal) translation (it's pretty hard to argue for a translation that includes "but" when the original French says "et" not "mais."). --86.141.246.70 23:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Religion section

I've made a stab at editing the religion section though there's much more that could be said here, obviously. Bristoleast 11:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

That man is good by nature does not conflict with original sin. At least in the Catholic view of man, (Since man is created in the image of God his nature is good only fallen.)This might contradict Luther's idea of "man being a pile a dung covered in snow." I do not know the Calvinist view on the subject. (JFH)

At http://members.aol.com/heraklit1/rousseau.htm I saw this:

Rousseau took an ambiguous stance towards Christianity. He seems to have admired the religion of the gospel as "saintly, sublime and true" as well as egalitarian, recognizing all men as brothers, children of the same God. But he vigorously condemned post-Augustine and Catholic Christianity. In his eyes it detached people from earthly concerns, and laid them open to tyranny and slavery. Rousseau claimed that the ideal state would have to have a state religion, but this would be concerned with social obligations rather than supernatural beliefs.

Could/should details pertaining to this be added? X37 08:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

should his works be listed in English or French?

Hello, I've done some work with Julie, or the New Heloise and Le Devin du Village, and I've noticed that in the main Rousseau article, his works are sometimes listed in English, sometimes in French, sometimes with both languages. It's just not consistent. Should they be all listed in English (because this is English Wikpedia) or in French with translation (because the works were written in French)? Thanks. --Kyoko 17:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

IMO, historical authenticity, please. So in French. I think this is best practice. Moreschi ^Deletion! 18:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, we don't list Jules Verne works in French (Around the World in Eighty Days, Twenty Thousand Leagues Under The Sea, etc..). This is the English Wikipedia, not the French Wikipedia. Generally, article titles are in English, and the English translation of the work is used in the body of the text. For the bibliography section you might list the English name and the French name side by side. Same with the first sentence of the article. Other than that stick with English (assuming there is a known English translation of the work). -- Stbalbach 21:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, now we have a conflict between two different standards on Wikipedia. I know that with a lot of the music-related articles, the original language is preferred, e.g. Così fan tutte and not "They (women) all do that" or "Thus do all women", etc. This contrasts with many literature articles as mentioned above. I guess my comment doesn't solve this problem, but it does highlight different views on Wikipedia. --Kyoko 02:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Doubtless Rousseau's literary works should be in English but the operas should most certainly be in French. They are commonly referred to in a popular and musicological context in French, and the article titles should be in French per WP:WPO guidelines. "Nevertheless most operas are performed in English-speaking countries under their original names (e.g. Così fan tutte and Der Freischütz) and English titles for them should not be invented." Rousseau's operas come under the same category. Moreschi ^Deletion! 08:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the title by which the work is best known in English. The titles should be in the original unless there is a generally accepted and widely used English equivalent. That means we shouldn't be making up our own English versions. In the case of opera, we have The Magic Flute alongside Così fan tutte. This applies to literary works too. See the list of novels by Emile Zola for instance. La Bête humaine is almost always given under that title in English reference books rather than "The Human Beast". Some titles remain in the original because nobody can agree on an exact equivalent, e.g. Les Misérables. A rebours by Huysmans should stay under that title because it has variously been rendered as "Against the Grain", "Against the Flow" and "Against Nature" and there is no particular reason why we should pick one of those above the others. In general, I favour keeping the original title unless the work is best known by its English name. --Folantin 09:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above and don't think there is a problem with inconsistency. Some of Rousseau's works, particularly the more popular ones, have clear and accepted English translations. The operas, and some of the works which are discussed only in the philosophy or political theory press, are used in English mainly under their French titles. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I originally asked this question because of the first paragraph in the article, which uses the French title Julie, ou la nouvelle Héloïse. I don't think this work is well known in the English-speaking world of today, though I gather that in the 1700s, it was widely read throughout Europe. So in this case, should the paragraph be changed to use the English or French spelling? Thanks. --Kyoko 19:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth the Oxford Companion to English Literature (1967 ed.) gives it as La nouvelle Héloïse as does The Reader's Encyclopaedia. I've almost always seen it given under the French title. --Folantin 19:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

re: 1754 return to Geneva

Can anyone post a source for the statement "In 1754, Rousseau returned to Geneva where he reconverted to Calvinism and regained his official Genevan citizenship. " ?

Most bio information of that sort, I believe, I added from a timeline in one of the Everyman translations. I will see if I can dig up the specific volume. However, if you have material that contradicts this feel free to remove it. As I understand it regaining his citizenship would have required him to reconvert, his sincerity in doing so can obviously be questioned.

In the future, new posts at the bottom please. Thanks, Christopher Parham (talk) 03:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

until I manage that, see this gutenberg bio (morley 1886) which at least describes the period. [3] (begin at reference [i.220]). Christopher Parham (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

fair enough. would it be nessecary to cite it in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.68.88.31 (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

If desired, feel free, although as far as I know it is uncontroversial. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As uncontroversial as his name (that is, not at all controversial).70.82.80.160 17:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation Style

The article lists sources, but there are almost no inline citations, making the references themselves useless for the verifiability of the article. --Yono 01:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh... he had no effect on Thomas Jefferson and America? That wasn't what I was taught in my government class last semester...

		The Resilient Barnstar
		I hereby bestow this Barnstar of Resilience upon Jean-Jacques Rousseau, for lasting 48 hours without IP vandalism from some high school. Cheers, JJ!  But|seriously|folks  08:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation?

I noticed while working on a paper for world history that there was a possible copyright violation in this article.

Under the Legacy section, paragraph #2 is exactly the same as a paragraph from: [4].

I think this has been brought up before, but instead of "sticking very close to" this article, it's exactly the same in this instance.

I didn't exactly have time to check the rest of the article, but I agree that it either should be rewritten or the author (Robin Chew) needs to be contacted.

--GorillaWarfare ^talk 17:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the paragraphs in the legacy section that were obviously cut-and-pasted from the source (which is non-free), basically paragraphs 2-4. They are there in the history if someone wants to rewrite them.--DO11.10 (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone defaced the page

Someone defaced the page about 1/4 of the way down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.97.68.74 (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Location of birth in infobox

The location of Rousseau's birth in the infobox currently reads "Geneva, Switzerland". However, because Geneva was, at the time of his birth, an independent republic, shouldn't this simply be Geneva? --Credema (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"Composer of the Enlightenment"?

Try critic of the Enlightenment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.130.212 (talk) 04:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"The Social Contract"

Does "The social world is all screwed up" sound like it could be reworded better? 24.24.249.255 (talk) 05:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Summary way to long

Headline says it all - the "summary" on this article is way to long and needs to be shortened. Not to mention there are a few nonsensical sentences (e.g. beginning of second paragraph) within the summary. Triindiglo (talk) 01:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Something's missing, I think.

Read the beginning of the second paragraph. Does that read a bit funny to you? Zazaban (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Rousseau wasn't Swiss

The article says Rousseau was Swiss. He wasn't. Geneva was an independent republic at the time Rousseau was born and did not form part of Switzerland until the 19th century.

Several people here claim that Rousseau was French which is not true (although he loved France). Since ca. 1536 the City of Geneva was an independent city but nevertheless part of the Swiss Federation. Everyone can check that easily. It was only for a short time (1798-1813) annexed by French troops.(89.138.20.161 (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC))

Molly Maureen Nelson, where can her information be found?

There was just a short statement about his marriage. It seems difficult to verify up.

210.245.52.158 (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please, please please, Jean Jacques Rousseau was not a swiss philosopher but a French one as Geneva was part of France until 1815. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.157.217 (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Several people here claim that Rousseau was French which is not true (although he loved France). Since ca. 1536 the City of Geneva was an independent city but nevertheless part of the Swiss Federation. Everyone can check that easily. It was only for a short time (1798-1813) annexed by French troops.(89.138.20.161 (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC))

Rousseau, precursor to anarcho-primitivism / green anarchism

I think this should be discussed, as there is clearly a similarity in thinking

• Find some authors that identify this similarity and add some information; however substantial differences in thinking are clear, Rousseau was certainly not an anarchist and didn't advocate a return to primitivism, or believe such a return was possible. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of fact Roussseau advocated a European union, as had Colbert, the Protestant minister of Henry IV. The summary of Rousseau's beliefs about the natural man and his ideas of education are travesties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mballen (talk • contribs) 18:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Philosophy

Contrary to what is written in the article, Rousseau's denial of original sin and his supposed belief in the goodness of man is arguably much the same as that of conventional religion:

Note:

Rousseau’s denial of original sin is not an assertion that man is innately good. In the Second Discourse, Rousseau maintains, in opposition to Shaftesbury’s benevolist tradition, that man’s desires are selfish and thus opposed to society. Man is no less “an ingenious machine” [Rousseau is alluding to La Mettrie’s mechanistic physiology] than a beast, the only difference resting in his capacity to resist desire: “Nature commands every animal, and the beast obeys. Man feels the same impetus, but he realizes that he is free to acquiesce or resist; and it is above all in the consciousness of this freedom that the spirituality of is soul is shown” --Donald R. Wehrs M, "Desire and Duty in La Nouvelle Héloïse" (Modern Language Studies, 18: 2 [Spring, 1988]), p. 82.

For Rousseau the state is founded on repudiating the moi particulier to attain moral freedom; the purpose of a wise Legislator and Tutor is to make the hard choice of ethical self-subordination as hearable as possible. --Donald R. Wehrs M, "Desire and Duty in La Nouvelle Héloïse" (Modern Language Studies, 18: 2 [Spring, 1988]), p. 87.

Mballen (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Rousseau and Anthropology

Neither Rousseau nor any other European had access to accurate information about non-Europeans in the 1750s. Rousseau recognized and deplored that fact. He felt that contemporary travelers' accounts were superficial -- either written solely for money or that the writers were mostly writing about themselves. But he would not let this deter him from speculating about man's basic nature in order to diagnose and propose a remedy for the ills of his time:

"

All of Africa and its numerous inhabitants, as distinctive in character as in color, are still to be examined; the whole earth is covered by nations of which we know only the names -- yet we dabble in judging the human race! Let us suppose a Montesquieu, Buffon, Diderot, Duclos, d'Alembert, Condillac or men of that stamp traveling in order to inform their compatriots, observing and describing, as they know how: Turkey, Egypt, Barbary ... Morocco, Guinea, the land of the Bantus, the interior of Africa and its eastern coasts, the Malabars, Moguk, the banks of the Ganges, the kingdom of Siam ... China ... and especially Japan; not forgetting the Patagonias .. Tucuman, Paraguay, .. Brazil; finally the Caribbean Islands, Florida and all the savage countries: this [is the] most important voyage of all and one that must be undertaken with the greatest care. Let us suppose that these new Hercules, back from these memorable expeditions, then, at leisure wrote the natural, moral, and political history of what they had seen; we ourselves would see a new world come from their pens and we would thus learn to know our own." --Rousseau, Ouvres completes III, 213-214 (quoted Mario Einaudi, p. 117)

Rousseau even anticipated foundation-sponsored research, recommending that a wealthy philanthropist underwrite such a ten-year journey "by a man of genius."

From Mario Einaudi's Early Rousseau (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967):

Rousseau's work, and especially the Discourse on Inequality, is now seen as a major study of the evolution of mankind. Bertrand de Jouvenel gives Rousseau the place he deserves: "Rousseau is the first great exponent of evolution. His was the first attempt to depict systematically the historic progress of human society. He comes a full century before Engels and all the others who were to make the evolution of human society a popular theme. ...."

For these reasons, Claude Levi Strauss has recognized Rousseau as an anthropologist among philosophers: "Rousseau our master, Rousseau our brother, toward whom we have shown so much ingratitude ..."

Unlike Diderot [Rousseau] never glorified the state of nature but was the only one to use it as a tool "to show us how to get out of the contradictions where we are still lost in the wake of his enemies.' In describing what we today call the neolithic age, he had come close to identifying the 'unshakable bases of human society."

Rousseau, the student of evolution, the anthropologist, can also give a new accent to the age-old polemics about wealth and poverty, the rich and the poor, property, luxury, and conspicuous consumption. He appears as a pathbreaker for later socialist thought, with this difference, however, that his conclusion is not that everything hangs from economics, but that everything hangs from politics.

Mballen (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC).

Cultural depictions of Jean-Jacques Rousseau

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where to put this but I just found a description of Rousseau's philosophy in Jacques Barzun's From Dawn to Decadence. Barzun is a conservative, but, unlike many, who blame Rousseau for modern developments they oppose, he reads Rousseau carefully and correctly and he describes very well the myths and mistakes that have arisen in depictions of Rousseau's philosophy, including the accusations that he advocated a "return to nature":

Rousseau did inveigh against the characteristics of high civilization, but he did not preach a return to the savage state. He thought it in many ways unattractive—lacking morality, acting by instinct without thought and at one stage without language, and living from hand to mouth. What is preferable, when society and property have become established and the inequality of talent is revealed, is that ability should be rewarded for the advantage of the community. That state, Rousseau says, is the happiest and most lasting in the history of mankind. But he says nothing about returning to it . . .. He does say that when in time wealth and rank no longer correspond to merit, the disparity becomes an injustice and leads to instability . . . . .

Taken together, these first two essays [arts and sciences and origins of inequality] form a negative critique of things as they are. The later, positive recommendations show that the society to be reconstituted is a revised form of the middle stage . . . the model man is the independent farmer, free of superiors and self-governing. This was cause enough for the philosophes hatred of their former friend. Rousseau’s unforgivable crime was the rejection of the graces and luxuries of civilized existence. Voltaire had sung “The superfluous, that most necessary thing.” Jacques Barzun, From Dawn to Decadence, p. 384

Voltaire, one of Rousseau's earliest opponents, admired the aristocratic life and was notoriously opposed to the education of the children of servants. (Though ironically, the end of his Candide Voltaire himself recommends a simple country life of the middle station similar to that admired by Rousseau.) Barun suggests that one reason for the opposition of the other philosophes to Rousseau was that every work he wrote, on every topic, immediately became a best seller.

Barzun also agrees with those who identify Rousseau's "general will" with the "common good" , i.e., the "general welfare" in our constitution. So that scholar who is quoted in the entry here as thinking that Jefferson was not very influenced by Rousseau's thought may not be entirely correct. Rousseau's recommendations for the constitutions of Poland and Corsica are among the those reproduced on the University of Chicago's website of documents that influence the U.S. Constitution.

I am thinking that the "Theory of the Natural Man" is not an adequate heading and the quote chosen (about property) is misleading -- through an implication that he favored abolishing property, which he did not. It was his style to state things in a forceful way, using paradox. Here is Barzun again:

The best known of the political works, The Social Contract . . . in which occurs, near the beginning, the over-quoted sentence about men born free and everywhere in chains. The journalist mind assumes that the words can only mean "Break the chains." But Rousseau's next sentence, left unquoted, says, "I will now endeavor to show how they [the chains] are legitimate." Farther on we come upon the savage once more and learn that although he is free of some faults, he is not a moral being--not immoral, amoral. So he cannot be the material for building a society and running a government. So much for the charge of wanting us "to walk on all fours." (Barzun, pl 384-85)96.250.29.234 (talk) 04:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)March 02, 2009

link

Hi, I would like to add an external link to the World of Biography entry

• probably the most famous portal of biography to this article. Does anybody have any objections?

The site does not seem to offer much beyond what is already in the article (or at Wikiquote). So I would tend to say no, don't add it. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

please do not add this to the article, and please read the incident report before giving the go-ahead. This is spam and not link-worthy under WP:EL; the articles contain many distortions, lack citations, and contain nothing that wouldn't fit directly in the wiki article. a link to worldofbiography has been placed on over 70 talk pages by User:Jameswatt. thanks. --He:ah? 20:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This article needs serious work by a thoughtful & deep reader of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. This does not even begin to capture the impact Rousseau had in his century, let alone through all those who have followed in his footsteps. Rousseau's work was the basis and the inspiration for thinkers and writers as varied as Kant, Marx, Tolstoi and Freud. His autobiography revolutionized the biography, created the 'disadvantaged' as a class, and irretrievably changed the manner by which we moderns reason over our worlds.

The article definitely needs three further detailed sections. One is needed on music to cover both Rousseau's theoretical contribution and his compositions. A second is needed to cover fictional works, especially Julie. And a third should deal with his near invention of the genre of autobiography, covering the Confessions, the Dialogues and the Reveries. Bristoleast

I agree, I think the section entitled The Theory of the Natural Man should be retitled The Two Discourses and the anthropological implications of the discourses should be highlighted. Then, instead of Political Thought, the next section should be called The Social Contract, and it should be emphasized that this was seen as part of a larger unfinished work that Rousseau projected which would include modern national politics. This would be the place to emphasize, as scholars of Rousseau now do, the continuity and coherence of his thought. It should also be mentioned that Rousseau supported federalism and proposed the creation of a European union (after the idea of Henri IV's minister Sully), that would prevent future wars.

There should also be a section on Rousseau and anthropology and Rousseau and ethnomusicology, perhaps, since he wrote a Chanson negre and a Chinese melody, used by Hindemith in the twentieth century. Also Mme de Stael, who was Swiss, remarked that when she heard Rousseau's music, it always evoked for her her native Switzerland. This shows that Rousseau recognized and tried to reproduce the particular national characteristics of different musics well in advance of the nineteenth century, when this became more common.

Also Rousseau was a keen botanist, interested in the sexual reproduction of plants, and himself authored a Botanical Dictionary.

Perhaps also, the section about writers hostile to Rousseau (who I gather includes, from the Cold War period, Karl Popper, author of The Open Society and Its Enemies, ) could expanded and modified with care to preserve an objective tone.96.250.24.250 (talk) 05:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)