Rousseau was a prick.
Rousseau
guydebordisdead wrote:
This is the 3rd "help with my homework" thread in as many weeks.
not from me tho.
Its fair play if it drops like a stone, there are enough current and ex philosophy studes here that enjoy debating just for the hell of it to have been worth a shot.
If someone asked a question related to something i had done, i'd pass on my work (with the mark it got).
i haven't read rousseau, but Foucault said something in critiquing him like "the laws were born amidst fields of bodies burning towns and that violence continues to rage in the mechanisms of power" [as opposed to by mutual agreement] while critiquing the state-of-naturists like hobbes and rousseau.
as bakunin probably says 'contract' is a stupid term if you (a) never agreed to it and (b) can't opt out of it.
Tacks wrote:
Ta, JK!will any of the ppl on marxists.org have written about him, cos thats pretty good resource. Will foucauly be on there?
i dunno, but the quote is from the lecture course published in english as 'society must be defended', i can probably dig it out later and find the relevant quote if you like?
Joseph K. wrote:
Tacks wrote:
Ta, JK!will any of the ppl on marxists.org have written about him, cos thats pretty good resource. Will foucauly be on there?
i dunno, but the quote is from the lecture course published in english as 'society must be defended', i can probably dig it out later and find the relevant quote if you like?
aw that would be great! but its probs not worth ur while unless it can be used as a source; ie publisher, date etc.
I'd read the social contract?
I know he said that the people of england were not free once they gave themselves representatives.
Carole Pateman does as good job of applying some of his ideas to a modern context. Try "Participation and Democratic Theory" or "The problem of political obligation"
I highly recommend an article by Lucio Colletti entitled "Rosuseau as Critic of 'Civil Society' ", which is available in his book From Rousseau to Lenin. I never had any interest in Rousseau until I read the article, but it has convinced me to read some Rousseau when I get the chance. Colletti makes a very convincing argument that Rousseau anticipated Marx's understanding of the state.
The relevant passages from Foucault, M. (Trans. D. Macey; 2003), Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the Collège de France 1975-6, Allen Lane/Penguin, London, England.:
Michel Foucault wrote:
“It was war that presided over the birth of states; not an ideal war - the war imagined by the philosophers of the state of nature - but real wars and actual battles; the laws were born in the midst of expeditions, conquests, and burning towns; but the war continues to rage within the mechanisms of power, or at least to constitute the secret motor of institutions, laws, and order. Beneath the omissions, the illusions, and the lies of those who would have us believe in necessities of nature or the functional requirements of order, we have to rediscover war; war is the cipher of peace. It divides the entire social body, and it does so on a permanent basis; it puts all of us on one side or another. And it is not enough to rediscover this war as an explanatory principle; it has to be reactivated. We have to force it out of the silent, larval forms in which it goes on without anyone realising it, and we must pursue it until the decisive battle for which we have to prepare if we wish to be victorious. (p. 267-8)
Michel Foucault wrote:
The antihistoric character of the bourgeoisie manifests itself in two ways. First, throughout the whole of the first half of the eighteenth century, the bourgeoisie tended to be in favour of an enlightened despotism, or in other words, of a way of moderating monarchical power that was not grounded in history but in the restrictions imposed by knowledge, philosophy, technology, and administration. And then in the second half of the eighteenth century, and especially before the Revolution, the bourgeoisie tried to escape the ambient historicism by demanding a constitution which was precisely not a re-constitution and which was essentially, if not antihistorical, at least ahistorical. Hence, as you can understand, the recourse to natural right, the recourse to something like the social contract. The Rousseuianism of the bourgeoisie at the end of the eighteenth century, before and during the Revolution, was a direct response to the historicism of the other political subjects who were fighting in the field of theory and historical analysis. Being a Rousseauist, appealing to the savage and appealing to the contract, was a way of escaping an entire landscape that had been defined by the barbarian, his history, and his relationship with civilization. (p. 209)
My comments/interpretation;
- Foucault doesn’t like full stops
- The first passage seems a clear example of Foucault’s Marxism (complete with crude teleology/end of history 
) - he famously said he often quoted Marx without acknowledging him - this ‘war’ is clearly class struggle
- the ‘philosophers of the state of nature’ he explicitly names are Hobbes and Rousseau.
- the “entire landscape that had been defined by the barbarian” is the immanence of war to social relations discussed in the first quote
- by “the other political subjects who were fighting in the field of theory and historical analysis” Foucault is more referring to the nobiliary reaction than to the peasantry-proletariat, although the point of that the deployment of Rousseuism was a weapon in class war remains.
- in summary, and Foucault is very difficult to condense, he’s basically saying the idea of timeless natural rights and a mythical social contract allowed the bourgeoisie to disguise/mystify their ascent to power, obscuring the very real violence at it’s heart.
the button probably has something to add/correct, i’m not much of a Foucault scholar, despite appearances 
It's actually really fucking easy to post homework threads that provoke debate and that don't make it really obvious that it's a homework thread - I managed to get a degree while doing very little work largely through doing this on the philosophy forum I post on - which is not to criticise tax (I hasten to add) but is merely an observation.
nosos wrote:
It's actually really fucking easy to post homework threads that provoke debate and that don't make it really obvious that it's a homework thread - I managed to get a degree while doing very little work largely through doing this on the philosophy forum I post on - which is not to criticise tax (I hasten to add) but is merely an observation.
oh yeah, i know; i prefer to be upfront cos then i can ask essay specific questions later.
JK - good stuff 
mikus wrote:
I highly recommend an article by Lucio Colletti entitled "Rosuseau as Critic of 'Civil Society' ", which is available in his book From Rousseau to Lenin. I never had any interest in Rousseau until I read the article, but it has convinced me to read some Rousseau when I get the chance. Colletti makes a very convincing argument that Rousseau anticipated Marx's understanding of the state.
argh he's not on marxists.org
why 
Its my understanding that Rousseau was completely against the mythical, implicit social contract posited by Locke, and his idea is very much like that of an anarhcist, directly democratic free association. Just because two philosophers use the phrase "social contract" does not mean that they mean the same thing.
sam sanchez wrote:
Its my understanding that Rousseau was completely against the mythical, implicit social contract posited by Locke, and his idea is very much like that of an anarhcist, directly democratic free association. Just because two philosophers use the phrase "social contract" does not mean that they mean the same thing.
in a word, no.
Hmm, did him in Uni recently.
Don't know much about him as I dont do the weekly rreadings, but from what I pciked up in discussion he wants a 'mini' state in existance, with no liberal parliamentary democracy, instead there will be a team of men who will interpret the public's general will and know what is best for them. I criticised him on this point as though he wants many ineqaulities in society to be gotten rid of, he still wishes to maintain a statelet in a proto-totalitatrian form, thus still keeping the kernal of a state in place. He certainly isnt an anarchist, he wanted to revert to the 'noble savage' before the state apparatus grew, but he still didnt want a total disintergration of a state, merely one regulated by the 'watchers' who kept the public will (social contract) in place. Ciizens will be free when they follow the general will, as it is there will, and those who dont follow it will be going against what is good for them. He never outlined what constituted this general will, it seemed more like a common humanity drawing everyone into this contract, and there wasen't any mention of classes in his book the social contract.
you could knock out some stuff about the continuing appeal of Rosseauian themes of the organic community and noble savage within marxism and anarchism, especially primmitivism and the like.
Also the tendency for some marxists to see communism as some sort of "historical entity" independent of concrete proletarian forms of organising and struggle.
http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/r#a1286
Some texts there.
I read "discourse on the origins of inequality" recently for a uni class. Most of it is junk science shite but he draws some interesting conclusions; namely that the state was generated by the rich as an organized body of violence to oppress the poor. He doesn’t go into what his alternative is though. What I gleaned from his preface and “Letter to citizens of Geneva” (part of the preface) was that he endorses a pared down state legitimized via a social contract.
He also has an odd repulsion and fetish for indigenous peoples, in that he deems them "savage" but, feels they live under the best of societies. Montaigne noble savagism I guess.
Catch 22 wrote:
he draws some interesting conclusions; namely that the state was generated by the rich as an organized body of violence to oppress the poor.
it seems the early liberals were at least honest - Adam Smith explicitly said as much too - something that can't be said for ideologues like Milton Friedman who claimed their heritage.
Quote:
there will be a team of men who will interpret the public's general will and know what is best for them
I don't know if thats strictly-speaking true. He suggests several ways of organizing iirc depending on what the geography is like etc. I think he does say that some kind of direct democracy (though he doesn't use these words) is suitable in small states. I didn't pay much attention though, so don't quote me.
Catch 22 wrote:
I read "discourse on the origins of inequality" recently for a uni class. Most of it is junk science shite but he draws some interesting conclusions; namely that the state was generated by the rich as an organized body of violence to oppress the poor. He doesn’t go into what his alternative is though. What I gleaned from his preface and “Letter to citizens of Geneva” (part of the preface) was that he endorses a pared down state legitimized via a social contract.He also has an odd repulsion and fetish for indigenous peoples, in that he deems them "savage" but, feels they live under the best of societies. Montaigne noble savagism I guess.
i think he made up most of the stuff that he attributes to his 'noble savage' (don't think he ever actually used that phrase though), just to back up his romantic fetish of pre-society in the first place, or at least it was more of a thought expirement than grounded in science.
for example, the stuff about people not being ill back then (to the extent that they are these days) and modernity bringing upon us a whole heap of new diseases was based purely on some accounts of some old skeletons from ages ago that never showd any signs of diseases we have today. he kinda misses the point though that back then people who got ill ended up dying pretty quickly before any diseases got a chance to leave an imprint on the skelton
the point he makes about the origin of the state is pretty decent though, and at least he, unlike hobbes, strips it bare and says it how it is in terms of an institution to protect property (although i suppose locke says the same, although seeing that in a positive light rather than a negative one)
although he seemed to be wanking all over primmo life in discourse on inequality, in the social contract, he looses all the romanticism of it and his account of it there is like a mirror image of it in the discourse, and civic society and the social contract is the only way to go. guess the difference is was that in the discourse he was comparing priommo life and the state/civic society as it actually existed, where in the social contract he was contrasting primmo life with civic society as it should be, so compared to that he slates primmo society, which is the complete opposite view of what he said about it in the discourse
his social contract always seemed vague as fuck to me, seems to rely on some blind faith that somehow the general will will come naturally and override people's personal desires, and the whole focing people to be free shite is a bit ominous
lem wrote:
Quote:
there will be a team of men who will interpret the public's general will and know what is best for themI don't know if thats strictly-speaking true. He suggests several ways of organizing iirc depending on what the geography is like etc. I think he does say that some kind of direct democracy (though he doesn't use these words) is suitable in small states. I didn't pay much attention though, so don't quote me.
i thought it was quite the reverse of a team of men interpreting the general will (a team of people may implement/execute it, but not decide it), this is why he was so much against representaive democracy, it had to be direct, so for him everyone who was part of the society/social contract would constitute the legislature and somehow, mystically, they would all eventually end up with the general will, through complete involvement (explicit or implicit) of everyone, guess back then prior to urbanisation & modernity, it was slightly more possible of being achieved
hey everybody,
I'm writng an essay on rousseau; just wondered if anyobody had any good sources, or indeed, a point they like to make about his thought. The title is:
"Critically assess the relationship between the concepts of liberty
and representation in Rousseau’s Social Contract."
which seems quite specific, but its a ong essay so i'll emd up talking bollocks about anything rousseau related.
All you philosophy students would be most most welcome
Yes i'm currently working my way through the libcom refs, Bakunin's piece is looking good.