Jump to content

Talk:Jean-Jacques Rousseau/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Private property as 'conventional' and the 'beginning of true civil society'

I am by no means an expert on Rousseau being only vaguely acquainted with most of his works, however the phrase at the end of the second paragraph quoted here

"He argued that private property was conventional and the beginning of true civil society."

Seem to me to wildly misrepresent his views. Indeed in this very article the only references to private property are in the context of explaining how Rousseau saw them as a root cause for inequality. The quote at the beginning of the section 'Theory of Natural Human' seems to me to be incompatible with the sentence I am talking about: "The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody."

Rousseau saw the idea of property as a bit of a sham - in Noam Chomsky's essay 'Language and Freedom'[1] he quotes Rousseau on the idea of private property and wealth as follows:

"These are 'usurpations .. established only on a precarious and abusive right ... having been acquired only by force, force could take them away without [the rich] having grounds for complaint.' Not even property acquired by personal industry is held 'upon better titles.'"

followed by

"Rousseau argues that civil society is hardly more than a conspiracy by the rich to guarantee their plunder."

The sentence itself does not reference a source and the topic of it being "conventional" is not returned to once in the entire article.

My request therefore is that someone reformulate such a summary of his views on property such that his views are more accurately represented. As it is (and I may be alone in my interpretations here) when I read that sentence the information i feel it is imparting to me is "Ah, so Rousseau thinks the idea of private property is normal, reasonable, and a pre-requisite for any 'civil' society.' When, to the best of my knowledge (unless Chomsky is wildly deceiving in his essay, which I doubt) Rousseau's views could not be any further from that! Am I mistaken? Regardless I feel it should be explained that his views can not be summed up so simply. If I am entirely wrong then I will hold my hands up and admit it!

Certainly he sees the concept of private property as an essential part of what formed what we consider 'civil society', I am however more concerned with the implications of the way in which this sentence was phrased as I believe it may give people (referring to this wikipedia article as a source for what he thought) an inaccurate representation of his true thoughts on the idea of property, leading them to think that he was far more positive and accepting of the idea of private property than he really was. KronosAlight (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

unreferenced opinion

The principles of the American Founding Fathers and those of Rousseau are directly opposed.

The American Founding Fathers primarily believed in individual liberty (at least for fellow Americans - the problem of slavery and of indian tribes is well known, in theory the Founders believed in the liberty of these persons also, but in practice.....) based upon respect for private property - both of individuals and private organizations such as Churches.

Rousseau believed in collective (collectivist) "liberty". Even if the majority of individual persons opposed a government that followed his principles such individuals were not expressing the "General Will" they were simply expressing the inferior "will of all" out of "pride" not true "self love", the latter being expressed by the "General Will" as established by the "Lawgiver". If the Lawgiver decides that the private property of an individual or private organization (such as a Church) is against the "General Will" then the government should, according to Rousseau, take action against it. Thus the principles of Rousseau are directly opposed to the principles of the American Founding Fathers - as can be seen by reading Rousseau's the "Social Contract" and, for example, the speeches of George Washington. The American Founders were aware that their principles were directly opposed to those of Rousseau - see, for example, the comments of John Adams (and his son John Q. Adams) in his book written in reply to Thomas Paine.176.253.3.23 (talk) 12:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC) The principles of Rousseau are in direct conflict with those of the American Founding Fathers.

The American Founding Fathers primarily believed in individual liberty (at least for fellow Americans - in theory they believed in it for slaves and Indians also, but in practice...), based on respect for private property both of individuals and private organizations, such as Churches. This can be seen by reading the speeches of George Washington or the writings of the other Founders.

Rousseau believed in collective (collectivist) liberty. Even if a majority of individual persons opposed a government that followed his principles that meant, according to Rousseau, that such individuals were expressing the inferior "will of all" out of "Pride", not the true "Self Love" of the "General Will" as expressed by the "Lawgiver".

For example, if the "Lawgiver" decided that the property of an individual or a private organization (such a Church) is not in the interests of the "General Will" the government, according to Rousseau, may take action against this private property - even if the majority of individuals (supposedly deluded by "pride" from seeing their own true interests) oppose such government action. Thus the principles of Rousseau are directly opposed to the pro individual liberty (based upon respect for private property)principles of the Americans Founding Fathers - a fact of which the Founders themselves were well aware. See, for example, the comments of John Adams (and his son John Q. Adams) in his book written in reply to Thomas Paine.

Also - I see no evidence that most American Founding Fathers were in favor of most young people being educated at the expense of taxpayers. Whoever wrote the article on Rousseau seems to have made this up - possibly to fit their own political principles.176.253.3.23 (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


Karl Popper?

I'm only here in passing on vandal patrol, but noticed an odd, uncited sentence:

During the Cold War, Karl Popper criticized Rousseau for his association with nationalism and its attendant abuses.[citation needed] This came to be known among scholars as the "totalitarian thesis". An example is J. L. Talmon's,...

Which reads as if Popper was a principal critic of Rousseau, and appears to attribute the totalitarian thesis to him. The original text as inserted in 2009[1] puts much weaker emphasis on this:

During the Cold War, even some liberals, among them Karl Popper criticized Rousseau for his association with nationalism and its attendant abuses. This came to be known among scholars as the "totalitarian thesis" (the word "totalitarian" having been coined during the reign of Mussolini). An example is J. L. Talmon's,...

I presume the sentence eroded over time. Popper does not appear to have criticized Rousseau in these terms (I stand open to correction on this). In fact, in The Open Society and Its Enemies (Vol II), he says, of Rousseau's "General Will":

There was a great deal of romantic collectivism in this invention, but no tendency towards nationalism. But Rousseau's theories clearly contained the germ of nationalism, whose most characteristic doctrine is that the various nations must be conceived as personalities.

...and that's as strongly as he puts it. Nor does he appear to have originated the totalitarian thesis (that appears to be Talmon & Aron, [2]).

I'm not expert in this subject, so I'd hesitate to make this edit, but reading around the subject it seems that Popper is given undue emphasis here, and the "totalitarian thesis" should be more closely attributed to Talmon; so for example: "During the Cold War, Rousseau was criticized for his association with nationalism and its attendant abuses, for example in J. L. Talmon's, The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy (1952). This came to be known among scholars as the "totalitarian thesis". " Bazzargh (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Being bold, went ahead and made that change. Both the footnote attached to Talmon's book and the General Will article/references provide support for associating the thesis more directly with him than with Popper. If Popper deserves a mention in the criticism section, maybe it's for his more quotable "his romanticism...was one of the most pernicious influences in social philosophy." (The Open Society vol 1, ch 6, note 20); though this is taken from a paragraph that otherwise praises Rousseau. Bazzargh (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

The article misses out what is important - for example nothing on the "Lawgiver".

As can be seen in his work "The Social Contract" Rousseau held that the "Lawgiver" articulated the "General Will", the true interests of the people, and if most individual persons opposed this they were expressing "the will of all" which is trumped by the "General Will" articulated by the "Lawgiver", and that such resistance is motivated by false "pride" rather than true "self love". Thus, according to Rousseau, the private property rights of individuals or private organizations, such as Churches, may be trumped by the true interests of the people as articulated by the Lawgiver. This is just about the opposite of the opinion of the U.S. Framers who held that government exists to safeguard the private property rights of individuals and private organizations. But all this is ignored in the article - which instead claims, for example, that the Founding Fathers of the United States wished most people to be educated at the "public expense", an assertion for which the article presents no evidence.90.194.133.9 (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Deterioration

This article is becoming filled with trivia and far too reliant on a rather outdated source that was intended for the "dumbed-down" household market. Rousseau is much-discussed in genuine modern academic sources and we really should be using those. - Sitush (talk) 09:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The 1967 book of Will Durant (Rousseau and Revolution, the 10th volume of the Story of Civilization) which Sitush imagines was intended for the "dumbed down household market" won a Pulitzer prize for the year 1968. Apparently it is not as "dumb" a book as Sitush imagines it to be. Of course in the biographical section i have used this book as a reference in conjunction with the 2005 biography of Rousseau ("Restless Genius") by Damrosch. Secondly, common sense tells us that when unsourced edits are being replaced with similar sourced edits then the article is experiencing an improvement, not a deterioration. Of course we can argue whether some of the new sourced edits should be condensed or even removed. Soham321 (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Another point: The question of being "outdated" makes sense in science, but not always in humanities, certainly not in anything to do with philosophy or anything philosophical. And Rousseau was a philosopher. I have with me a translation of Sun Tzu's two thousand years old book The Art of War translated by Samuel Griffith. In the preface, Liddell Hart writes:

Among all the military thinkers of the past, only Clausewitz is comparable, and even he is more 'dated' than Sun Tzu, and in part antiquated, although he was writing more than two thousand years later. Sun Tzu has clearer vision, more profound insight, and eternal freshness...in the middle of the Second World War, I had several visits from the Chinese Military Attache, a pupil of Chiang Kai-Shek. He told me that my book and General Fuller's were principal textbooks in the Chinese military academies---whereupon I asked: 'What about Sun Tzu?' He replied that while Sun Tzu's book was venerated as a classic, it was considered out of date by most of the younger officers, and thus hardly worth study in the era of mechanized weapons. At this, I remarked that it was time they went back to Sun Tzu, since in that one short book was embodied almost as much about the fundamentals of strategy and tactics as I had covered in more than twenty books. In brief, Sun Tzu was the best short introduction to the study of warfare, and no less valuable for constant reference in extending study of the subject.

Soham321 (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

removal of two links from Online texts section of main article

I removed two links from the Online texts section of the main article because they were dead links. One was supposed to be a link to Emile and the other to Creed of a Savoyard Priest. Working links for these two texts can be added later. I will point out though that Creed of a Savoyard Priest is actually a section within Emile so giving a separate link to it might be superfluous. Soham321 (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers

I don't see the point in debating about that so-called ambigious sentence. French is my mother tongue and i've always interpreted this as "Man IS born free, etc..." not WAS. As part of mankind, i am free. Perfectible and vulnerable, but free. Then society makes me stronger. Therefore, it alienates me to others, and that alienation can lead to some new kinds of injustice. "L'homme EST né libre, et partout il EST dans les fers" ---> I think the emphasis is on those two events he considers to be not fundamentally contradictory. Any opinions, folks? :) --Kubrick 908 22:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

"...In the Social Contract he claims..."

Link should be to "the social contract (Rousseau)" not "social contract"

We are not talking about social contracts in a general sort, but specifically Rousseau's book

First of all, I also would never read this line as "was born free" in French, but that isn't the point. The note itself is what bugs me. Right from the first line: "Interestingly, though all scholars of note consider this to be Rousseau's epigrammatic statement, there is less than universal agreement as to its translation." Two problems: ALL scholars of note consider it to be Rousseau's epigrammatic statement? That's a pretty bold statement. Maybe some references.

Second, to state that there is "less than universal agreement" about the translation would probably call for a reference as well. The Cambridge/Gourevitch translation makes no note of it, nor does the Masters translation (if I remember correctly, I could be wrong). Those are the two "standard" translations. If a translator is not going to make a note of a debate over translation they're not doing their job (today anyway).

So I think some references should be added, or this should be cut. This seems to be a case of creating debate, rather than bringing awareness to it.--86.141.246.70 23:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention he wrote "et" instead of "mais." Which, if you were to be literal, would mean he is/could be saying "Man was born free, and everywhere he is in chains." That leads to a confusion of tenses (having "et"/"and" linking the two clauses, instead of "mais"/"but" which would compare/contrast them).

Plus, in the context of Emile, we see that he does believe "that each individual who comes into the world every day is born free" (in the context of being free from the social chains).

So once again, if someone doesn't come out in defence of this, I think it should be removed.--86.141.246.70 18:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the sentence under discussion is not only ambiguous, it is beautifully ambiguous. I mean, I do agree with the above comments, that without sourcing (both as to the opinions of scholars and the choices of translators), the claim was properly removed. But I certainly find the claim credible. I find unpersuasive the arguments offered above about the alternate translation rendering the tenses inconsistent. Why can't I say something like, "Dinosaurs were roaming the earth millions of years ago, but their bones litter the earth", or something along that line? Remember, the Citizen of Geneva wasn't just writing normal text, but he was writing, as have many philosophers, with a sense of style. I certainly wouldn't argue that the sentence should be accepted as the alternate translation, merely that the alternate is plausible, especially if we postulate that Rousseau was trying to be ambiguous. Anyway, it's a moot point, per no original research.
By the way, I gently request that people would utilize the tools we have to make our conversations easier to follow. Indentations, or asterisks, as well as always dating one's comments just make it easier to follow who says what. And I don't know what to do about figuring out what is being discussed when the edit in question is long gone. I must have spent 15 minutes going through edit revisions looking for the edit in question here. 68.218.142.136 02:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


Sorry, The correct translation is "man was born free". "Est né" is the passé composé.

Man was born free: in French 'L'homme est né libre", often translated and quoted as "Man is born free", which would be the equivalent of "l'homme naît libre". The past tense implies that natural liberty existed once; the present, that it exists for every man at birth, as in the Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789, "Men are born and remain free, and with equal rights". In I, iv, Rousseau writes, about the children of slaves: "they are born men and free," but IV. ii has "each man having been born free". --Christopher Betts, editor and translator of Rousseau's Discourse on Political Economy and Social Contract (Oxford University Press, 1994), note, p. 183.

So says Professor Betts (and also the French-English dictionary and all the grammar books). It seems to me, however, that "to be born" is one of those strange intransitive verbs that doesn't really have a present. Even in English "is born" has a feeling of the past, as in the archaic, "He is risen" (to rise is another one in that group of those verbs that take être as a past participle -- perhaps they did so in Indo-European). At any rate it doesn't strike one as wrong to translate it as "is born", even though technically it is wrong.96.246.3.28 (talk) 06:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It is even more complicated: "est né" translated in Dutch, for instance, might end up in: "is geboren", "werd geboren" or was geboren." If you translate "est né" into German, it is impossible to translate it in "war geboren" it probably would be "ist geboren (geworden), and the "geworden" is skipped, which you would translate into English "has been born." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.240.169.85 (talk) 10:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

American Revolution

I thought Rousseau didn't influence the American Revolution because he advocated straight democracy. The other stuff that the founding fathers and Rousseau happened to agree on weren't directly from himself but indirectly through other philosophers.Somethingthathasnotbeentaken (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, but it's hard to prove a negative. You have to grant that Rousseau was part of the zeitgeist.173.77.100.65 (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Considerations_on_the_Government_of_Poland
Rousseau's Considerations of the Government of Poland (1772) and Mably's proposed Constitution of Poland were important precedents for the drawing up of the U.S. Constitution. (Mably was Rousseau's pupil). Rousseau had recommended a the creation of a federal system for Poland. In this, his final work, Rousseau was much less radical than in the Social Contract. However, it is my impression that these documents do not appear to have had a direct or specific influence on the U.S. Constitution.173.77.100.65 (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
At the very least, the opening paragraph provides a logical error: "His political philosophy influenced the French Revolution and subsequently the American Revolution" - Subsequent implies later in a series of events (following in time or order; "subsequent developments" according to the Princeton dictionary), and the American Revolution (1775) occurred before the French Revolution (1789). I am going to change this.
Tancrisism (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
You are right, the meaning intended was "subsequent American constitutional convention" or something along those lines.Mballen (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
There is a factual error in the "Youth" section; at the time Rousseau met Madame de Warren, she was 28, not 29, according to Confessions. They met in 1728, and Rousseau mentions her having been "born with the century". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.160.30 (talk) 02:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Even this is not right: Françoise-Louise de Warens, également connue sous les noms de Madame de Warens ou Louise Éléonore de la Tour du Pil (née le 31 mars 16991 à Vevey et décédée le 29 juillet 17622 à Chambéry), est la tutrice et maîtresse de Jean-Jacques Rousseau (qui l'appelait Maman). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.240.169.85 (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Edmund Burke's comments

From the main article, i am deleting the following words comprising Edmund Burke's view about Rousseau's influence on the French Revolution:

Opponents of the Revolution and defenders of religion, most influentially the Irish essayist Edmund Burke, therefore placed the blame for the excesses of the French Revolution directly on the revolutionaries' misplaced (as he considered it) adulation of Rousseau. Burke's "Letter to a Member of the National Assembly", published in February 1791, was a diatribe against Rousseau, whom he considered the paramount influence on the French Revolution (his ad hominem attack did not really engage with Rousseau's political writings). Burke maintained that the excesses of the Revolution were not accidents but were designed from the beginning and were rooted in Rousseau's personal vanity, arrogance, and other moral failings. He recalled Rousseau's visit to Britain in 1766, saying: "I had good opportunities of knowing his proceedings almost from day to day and he left no doubt in my mind that he entertained no principle either to influence his heart or to guide his understanding, but vanity". Conceding his gift of eloquence, Burke deplored Rousseau's lack of the good taste and finer feelings that would have been imparted by the education of a gentleman:

Taste and elegance ... are of no mean importance in the regulation of life. A moral taste ... infinitely abates the evils of vice. Rousseau, a writer of great force and vivacity, is totally destitute of taste in any sense of the word. Your masters [i.e., the leaders of the Revolution], who are his scholars, conceive that all refinement has an aristocratic character. The last age had exhausted all its powers in giving a grace and nobleness to our mutual appetites, and in raising them into a higher class and order than seemed justly to belong to them. Through Rousseau, your masters are resolved to destroy these aristocratic prejudices.[2]

References

  1. ^ Chomsky, Noam. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/19248894-on-anarchism. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ Burke, Edmund. "A letter to a member of the National Assembly, 1791". Ourcivilisation.com. Retrieved 23 February 2009.

The reason for the deletion is as follows. First, the source being used is a website (http://ourcivilisation.com) and this cannot be considered a reliable source. The website is being operated apparently by one Philip Atkinson who says he has written the book A study of our decline. Viewing this book on google books indicates that this is a self published book. On his website, Mr Atkinson claims to be the "First Philosopher"; he claims there have been no philosophers before him in accordance with his definition of the term "First Philosopher". This raises questions about WP:FRINGE. Second, to give Burke's view about Rousseau's influence on the French Revolution one must use a secondary source, as per WP guidelines, whereas here the primary source (Burke himself) is being used and this is not permissible due to the Fallacy of quoting out of context. Soham321 (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Here I disagree with you, if Burke's opinion about Rousseau's influence on the French Revolution is from a proper source, Burke himself, then, it could and should be used. I think the "permission" of Wikipedia you refer to deals with real "false" quotations and citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Munadulap (talk • contribs) 10:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Given that the quotation in question contains omissions, I agree with the deletion suggestion at least until a more reliable contribution is made about Burke's opinion of Rousseau. Moreover, from my own past study of Burke, I do remember that there are relevant passages on this topic in Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France." Given no mention of that work by the original author of this section, that may be further reason to question the neutrality of his contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrusbell (talk • contribs) 23:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

disease?

The article states mysteriously that Rousseau was 'afflicted with a painful and humiliating disease ...', seemingly starting in his youth (the text is in the article's Appreciation And Influence section). But the rest of the article seems to omit mention of any disease, illness, or sickness. Can anyone clarify? Bo99 (talk) 02:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

See this link. General Ization Talk 18:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Extended content
Regarding this Diff page, and its Edit Summary claiming 'You can't insert the name of the malady, dysuria, into Durant's quote, because Durant didn't say it, and if you could, you'd need to provide a citation for the source of the information':
One can insert the name of the malady, dysuria, into Durant's quote in the article, though Durant didn't say the name, if one puts the insertion in square brackets. That's what square brackets mean, that the quoted author did not expressly say what's in the brackets.
And if one did make the insertion, one would not need to provide a citation for the source of the information, because it's not disputed by Durant or the Books.google source.
And if someone did dispute it, it would be productive for that someone to retain the insertion (as is or with massaging) and add the Books.google source.
Bo99 (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
As I think you saw, I added a link to the relevant Wikipedia article, and a reference to the source I cited, in an appropriate section of narrative within our article rather than within the quote. General Ization Talk 14:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Are you referring to this Diff page? (No, i had not seen that, or had not recognized it as relevant to this topic of solving the seeming mystery of the disease's name.) Bo99 (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes. General Ization Talk 14:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Thx4tht. That article text does not seem to resolve the article's mystery regarding what the disease was. That article text is talking about his Final Years, and merely mentions a vague 'urinary complaint', which might just be part of many persons' old age, and does not use the words disease, illness, sickness, etc. In contrast, the Durant quote in the article states that Rousseau had an actual disease, and implies that Rousseau had it starting in his youth and/or the main part of his life. Bo99 (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I interpret the 12 years to which Durant refers ("left to wander for twelve years among alien cities and conflicting faiths") as being the period 1765-1777, which roughly corresponds to the last 12 years of Rousseau's life and his residence in Môtiers, Ile de St.-Pierre, Strasbourg, Paris, Calais, Dover, London and Staffordshire, hence his "Later years". Note our text: "Around this time [1767], Rousseau started developing feelings of paranoia, anxiety, and of a conspiracy against him", a condition which is referenced in the 1908 citation. I agree that if a reliable source can be found to show that he suffered in his early life as a result of the congenital defect mentioned at the source I cited, it should be added to the narrative about his earlier years, but the source I cited doesn't say that that is the case, and I don't see anything in the Durant quote that clearly does. The 1908 citation merely describes what its authors concluded was a congenital defect that would have likely been, at some point, both painful (in that it caused dysuria) and humiliating (we are, after all, talking about a defective penis). Given their references to his altered mental status and to premature senility, it seems reasonable to conclude that they at least are talking about the final years of his life. General Ization Talk 15:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
That's a lot of detail and inferring about periods of Rousseau's life. Here's a perhaps shorter approach: is there any dispute that the reference in the Durant quote to a painful and humiliating disease is a reference to dysuria (without anyone thinking about a particular period of life)? Bo99 (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Only Durant could say for certain if that is what he was referring to, and unfortunately he is unavailable. Given that, I suggest we not add any novel interpretation to his quote, unless you can find some scholarly, published analysis that does so. Anything else is synthesis. General Ization Talk 16:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Of course no one is talking about doing original analysis or research. Is there any dispute that the reference in the Durant quote to a painful and humiliating disease is a reference to dysuria? Bo99 (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Please reread my reply above. Unless Durant said he was referring to dysuria (or a reliable source is found that says so), the introduction of an interpretation that dysuria is what Durant meant, even in brackets, within his quote is the synthesis of multiple sources to arrive at a conclusion not stated at any of the sources, a form of WP:OR. The specific name of the medical issue is hardly critical to an understanding of Durant's quote (and actually a distraction from his fundamental point about Rousseau). General Ization Talk 16:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The threshold question posed to you was and is: is there any dispute that the reference in the Durant quote to a painful and humiliating disease is a reference to dysuria? Would u answer the question if i presented u with Wikipedia text saying that u shd answer when a question is posed to you? Bo99 (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't mean to seem dense, and I do understand your thought process on this. The issue, however, is specific to Wikipedia. If you were writing a book on Rousseau, and wanted to express an opinion that Durant was referring to dysuria, you'd be more than justified in doing so. However, whatever we type here is in the voice of the encyclopedia, not your voice or my voice. Hence we are unable to publish inference or synthesis (about Rousseau, or about what Durant was referring to in writing about him) as if it was the encyclopedia's opinion, much less fact. So, disputed or not, we cannot insert words (even in brackets) into Durant's quote. General Ization Talk 16:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
As a more direct answer to your question: I, personally, don't dispute that it is probable that Durant was referring to dysuria. I do, however, dispute that verifiable evidence has presented that allows us to state (or even imply) that there is no reasonable doubt that Durant was referring to dysuria. Hence the introduction of the word dysuria into Durant's quote is, indeed, disputed by me, as a violation of Wikipedia's policies concerning verifiability and synthesis. General Ization Talk 17:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Is there any dispute that the reference in the Durant quote to a painful and humiliating disease is a reference, not to dysurea, but relating to the urinary system? Bo99 (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, since neither the phrase urinary system nor anything that could be regarded as a synonym for it appears in Durant's quote. General Ization Talk 17:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
If the article's mysterious claim that Rousseau had a painful and humiliating disease does not refer to the urinary system, what might that claim conceivably refer to? Bo99 (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I clearly don't know what else Durant might have been referring to, but there are certainly other diseases that are painful and some that are at least potentially humiliating. (Crohn's disease? Chronic and severe flatulence? Severe hemorrhoids?) The absence of a specific, known alternative is not the same as the absence of reasonable doubt. Even if I thought he could be referring to nothing else, my thinking that would not permit me to express my thought as if it was a fact in the encyclopedia. General Ization Talk 17:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Do u insist on trying to censor the following?: one could solve the article's mysterious, un-encyclopedic claim that Rousseau had a painful and humiliating disease by stating anywhere that Rousseau appears to have suffered from an illness relating to the urinary system, with a 'source needed' tag. Bo99 (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
It's already there, with a source. And it isn't the article's (i.e., Wikipedia editors') claim you're describing as mysterious and unencyclopedic, but Durant's. Durant wasn't writing in Wikipedia, so wasn't required to cite independent sources within or adjacent to the text we quoted (he may well have cited them elsewhere, as he was a fine historian) or to avoid any ambiguity (as we are here). General Ization Talk 18:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
If the article is rejecting the cited source's claim about a humiliating disease, then the source should not be in the article. But the article is not rejecting the source's claim.
The other cited source uses the word 'disease' (near bottom of page). Is there any objection to changing the article's 'urinary complaint' to 'urinary disease'? Bo99 (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't have (and have never expressed) any objection to adjusting our language (that is, the language outside of quotes) to better agree with our sources. "Urinary disease" in this case is reasonably synonymous with "urinary complaint", especially given the diagnosis suggested in the 1908 citation. I have never said that the article was "rejecting the source's claim"; only that we cannot publish claims not made by our sources, whether they be about what ailed Rousseau or whether Durant meant something he did not write. General Ization Talk 18:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Then pls make the edit. I have to run for now. Bo99 (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Thx4 having made that edit. Still, the article has a childlike element, violating the basic writing rule of prioritization: loads of text, and then finally: 'Oh, and he had a painful and humiliating disease. The End.' So, do u have any objection to the addition, into some appropriate spot, of something like: 'At some point in Rousseau's infancy, youth, adulthood, or old age, he developed a painful and humiliating urinary disease.' The supporting source would be the 1908 Bruce Alexander source that is currently footnote 71. Bo99 (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
It seems odd to me to enumerate all the stages of his life and then suggest that some time, somewhere, he developed an illness (or perhaps more accurately began to suffer from what the 1908 citation suggests, based on analysis of his reported symptoms by others 125+ years later, was a congenital defect). Since this is clearly important to you, I think it would make far more sense for you to spend the time looking for a better source for details. Damrosch (2005), cited in the same section as the 1908 citation, seems to have more to say about Rousseau's health issues. I think I've pretty much spelled out all of the relevant policies above. General Ization Talk 23:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Omit needless words, especially regarding any Wikipedia rule, policy, essay, or style page. No such words u have spent your subjective opinion on have been elucidating. Answer questions posed to you, especially yes/no question like the one u did not answer just above. You don't dispute the noted childlike element of the article u have been active on. Start to care about that. I'll work within the limitation u suffer from: Do u have any objection to the addition, into some appropriate spot in the Biography, of something like: 'At some point in Rousseau's life he developed a painful and humiliating urinary disease.' Bo99 (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I answered your question very clearly: you asked if I had an objection, and I offered one, with a suggestion to remedy it to boot. You should avoid the seeming arrogance of telling other editors here what they should and should not do, except in the context of Wikipedia policies, or what you think they do or do not, or should or should not, care about. It will not serve you well if you do this here. General Ization Talk 00:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Omit needless words. Do u have any objection, supported by a cited Wikipedia guideline, to the addition, into some appropriate spot in the Biography, of something like: 'At some point in Rousseau's life he developed a painful and humiliating urinary disease.' Bo99 (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)\
Yes. General Ization Talk 00:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
What's the support? Bo99 (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, already explained, won't do again. General Ization Talk 00:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
If u had cited any support on the relevant point, it wd serve your image and self-image to point to it. Bo99 (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Both my image and self-image are fine, thank you. I think we're done here. General Ization Talk 01:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Don't hide text. Care not just about your image and self-image. You don't dispute the noted childlike element of the article u have been active on. Bo99 (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


French or Swiss

Google: "Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a French" 5170 hits, "Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a Swiss" 10 hits.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

At the French wiki they define him as a "Francophone Genevan", I think that is a fine and accurate solution here also. I have made the change.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Jean-Jacques Rousseau/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

needs inline citations plange 03:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 03:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 19:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of 'Personal Life' Section

I just deleted the entire 'Personal Life' section. This section contained the following words:

Rousseau was said to be married to Thérèse Levasseur, a seamstress who was at the same time his longtime partner. Rousseau took Thérèse and her mother in to live with him. They had five children and all of them were handed over to orphanages. Nigel Rodgers and Mel Thompson's book Philosophers Behaving Badly has found all of them died due to their ill treatment at the orphanage, which was very common at the time.[1]

The reason for my deletion is that Therese has been mentioned earlier in Rousseau's WP page. It has also been mentioned earlier in Rousseau's WP page that the children were given away to an orphanage. There is nothing new in this section which has not been covered earlier except for only one detail: the claim that all of Rousseau's children died in the orphanage due to ill treatment. Two points. First, this detail of Rousseau's children dying in the orphanage is not mentioned in the standard biographies of Rousseau like that of Maurice Cranston, or the famous 10th volume of the Story of Civilization Series 'Rousseau and Revolution' of Will Durant (which won the Pulitzer Prize), or in the latest biography of Rousseau by Leo Damrasch. Second, the solitary source that is being given for this piece of information (the book 'Philosophers behaving badly') has been dismissed as a gossipy work having no historical value. Please see for example: http://ci.nii.ac.jp/els/110004436790.pdf?id=ART0007260794&type=pdf&lang=en&host=cinii&order_no=&ppv_type=0&lang_sw=&no=1440967456&cp= (do a control-F on 'Philosophers behaving badly') As the review article by Michael Herriman says:

Some of the scandal in the book is unattributed, some of it is hedged by "reputedly" and "apparently" and some of it implied...The authors's interest in their subjects' sexual activities is either prurient or disingenuous. Are they writing for the sensationalist tabloid press's masses?...If you wish to read the book you may find it on the rack before a supermarket checkout.

References

  1. ^ Rogers, N; Thompson, M (2004), Philosophers Behaving Badly, London: Peter Owen.


The above unsigned and undated intervention had the effect of mangling the narrative. When "Therese" first appears in the current version of the article, an ordinary reader will have no way of knowing who she is, since she is nowhere introduced.--108.36.159.94 (talk) 05:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

"Huguenot city"

Besançon Hugues (b. 1487 - d. 1532) was a member of the Grand Council of Geneva

Yes, and French Huguenots derive their name from him.

Geneva is in Switzerland and has been called variously Protestant Rome, Calvinist/Reformed faith capital. But Huguenot city? This is the first time I see such designation, as "Huguenot" is not used outside France or French Protestant diaspora that was created when Huguenots were forced out of the country.Ernio48 (talk) 06:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Reading this article one would not have any idea that Rousseau largely opposed the whole enlightenment project, and that he is considered an anti-enlightenment philosopher. Romanticism was his philosophy, and it directly contradicts the basic foundations of enlightenment. In fact this is probably the most important thing to know about Rousseau, yet it is missing from his page. Amazing! This is a egregious omission, and contributes to many misunderstandings I see about what enlightenment values were. I hope those active on this page will keep this in mind for future improvements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Beronte (talk • contribs) 22:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

An editor tried to add a source to one of the paragraphs in the Stages of human development section, which is for a Google Books listing of Western Thinker's in Political Science by Dr. Shrikant Yelegaonkar. The citation link they provided is in Indonesian and/or Taiwanese, so it's really unclear what's being shown, but if you look at it in English, you can see our article and the book share quite a bit of text, including the same section heading. I'm not sure if the book, which was published in 2015, copied from Wikipedia, or our article copied from the book. Please, if someone who has more knowledge on this topic can look into it, I'd appreciate it. tubedogg (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jean-Jacques_Rousseau/Archive_3&oldid=1136838427"