>Give a man a trade which suits his sex and a young man a trade which suits his age. Every sedentary and indoor profession which effeminates and softens the body neither pleases nor suits him. Never did a young boy by himself aspire to be a tailor. Art is required to bring to this woman's trade the sex for which it is not made. The needle and the sword cannot be wielded by the same hands. If I were sovereign, I would permit sewing and the needle trades only to women and to cripples reduced to occupations like theirs. Assuming eunuchs to be necessary, I find it quite mad for Orientals to make them specially. Why are they not satisfied with those made by nature, with those crowds of cowardly men whose heart it has mutilated? They would have more than enough for the need. Every weak, delicate, and fearful man is condemned by nature to a sedentary life. He is made to live with women or in their manner. Let him practice one of those trades which are fit for them; that is all very well. And if there absolutely must be true eunuchs, let men who dishonor their sex by taking jobs which do not suit it be reduced to this condition. Their choice proclaims nature's mistake. Correct its mistake one way or another. You will have only done good.
And people say this guy is a liberal?
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Sauce?
Emile, Book 3, Page 199-200
>shaming men into joining the army
sounds like a liberal to me
nothing gayer than a peasant or bourgeois joining the army in a democratic republic
Rousseau is so cool because you can read him and either become a communist or a fascist
Was this homie shitposting or was he really for forcefully castrating a chunk of the population
>this is your enlightenment, bucko
That's not what he said you moronic chimp
Liberals have hated Rousseau for a while now. Rousseau is a really interesting figure in that he's caused people from multiple sides of the political spectrum to hate his guts over polar opposite reasons. Yet none of his biggest critics seem to have actually read his work in any depth
He is ltierally me btw
>Every sedentary and indoor profession which effeminates and softens the body neither pleases nor suits him.
no wonder office workers have such low t levels with gamer back by age 30
>no wonder office workers have such low t levels with gamer back by age 30
The average office worker has a gym subscription.
And doesn't do the any good, i see these nerds in the gym from time to time, skinny fat losers that can't lift my warm-up weights as their pr.
scholars were exempt I presume?
No, he actually admitted that academics are gay frauds and he tried to distance himself from the "scholarly" scene as he grew older.
Rousseau was anti-Enlightenment. This is well known already.
Before the 1900s nobody was liberal by modern standards
The overton window has shifted a massive amount since then
Didn't know they had 4k projectors in the 18th century
I'm really glad that my work counter-shilling for Rousseau has paid off, and IQfy is now starting to appreciate him for who he was and what he actually wrote.
It boggles my mind that homies on here claim to be well-read in political philosophy and have never tackled the final boss. Rousseau is indeed based.
This article annihilates your baby-abandonerer mommy dom homosexual Rousseau, who doomed the whole world with his whining
https://newcriterion.com/issues/1998/10/rousseau-the-origins-of-liberalism
>https://newcriterion.com/issues/1998/10/rousseau-the-origins-of-liberalism
I can already tell that the article is moronic from the title. There is nothing liberal about Rousseau. Actually read him instead of regurgitating memes from the 18th century (from even bigger libtards like Voltaire), moron.
How about you read the article and see where he proves you wrong, coward. Rousseau’s entire programme is to tear down tradition
>You must read this gay Br*t
No one is reading that shit homie
Enlightenment tradition. Which is like tearing down counter-tradition lol, which is based. Rouseau's tradition goes back to nature and Sparta, which is far more based than anything that passed for tradition in 18th century salons filled with effeminate liberals and hubristic women.
Doesn’t matter. Rousseau still inherited most of the premises of the enlightenment, he just critiqued them. The same goes for people like Nietzsche. They may seem radically opposed to the enlightenment but really they just take its premises to their furthest extent. This is why Rousseau, the arch nemesis of Voltaire, is still regarded as a liberal.
>inherited the premises of the Enlightenment
Name them.
*crickets*
Aren't being liberal and adhering to liberalism two different things?
Not really. The main issue is figuring out which era of liberalism you belong to.
Oh wait, it was written by Roger Scruton KEK
this the guy you're taking cues from?
Where does your mind have to be at that taking a picture with dark-skinned children invalidates a writer? I suppose a true redpilled warrior would never allow themselves to be in the same room as a non white person unless it was to screech slurs at them.
Yes lol. Is that even a question or are you a bugman?
It's not just any room, moron. It's from a school in London, which became an ethnic English minority city within his lifetime. Scruton is a "conservative" with a strong aesthetic inclination, but he's happy as he stands among the results of the kind of thinking he promoted. It destroyed his country and replaced its people, ironically ensuring that his ideas die with him. The picture is representative of a tragically flawed age which I hope we can put into our past before we've reached the point of no return.
Does being a conservative mean being incapable of basic empathy? I don't understand what the frick you're even talking about. They're children, moron.
Does being liberal mean being completely moronic and disingenuous? You knew the point I was making, and you chose to ignore and instead make a cheap attack on my morals. Whether they're children doesn't negate the fact that they're a sign of a complete demographic wipeout of England.
Do you think Scruton is to blame for all those kids being there? Why do you think he shouldn't act pleasant and kind while he's with them? Nothing you say makes any sense. His conservatism isn't being called into question with that photo.
Are you autistic? Nobody is saying that he should have scalped the kids with a machete or something. It's just a picture that's representative of his thinking, his career, and the societal forces he helped to shape.
i have a weird relationship with scruton. i disagree with him on so many things, yet i can't help but really like him and i continue to read his work
He's basically a curmudgeon and a shill for a certain way of looking at the world, a way he doesn't fully understand nor does he defend with any deft or grace whatsoever. He's barely a notch above Boris Johnson, unironically.
Rousseau falls neither on the left nor right side of politics. The way he describes Emile and describes his method of teaching Emile is somewhere in between. Emile is like an early version of Nietzsche's overman. The only thing Rousseau failed to do that Nietzsche successfully did was account for the necessity of evil in life and individuation.
>The only thing Rousseau failed to do that Nietzsche successfully did was account for the necessity of evil in life and individuation.
I think he does account for this, but in a much more inplicit way in a bunch of places. Consider the opening of the Social Contract:
"Man was born free, and everywhere he is in chains...How did this change occur? I do not know. *What can make it legitimate? I believe I can answer this question.*"
Works like the Confessions, Reveries, and Dialogues also circle around this, with respect to his sufferings making him who he is. That he had to be circumspect underlines what a difference the century between Rousseau and Nietzsche made, since Rousseau could be exiled from numerous places and harassed, while Nietzsche could publish openly and move as he pleased.
>>...indoor profession which effeminates and softens the body neither pleases nor suits him. Never did a young boy by himself aspire to be a tailor. Art is required to bring to this woman's trade the sex for which it is not made. The needle and the sword cannot be wielded by the same hands. If I were sovereign, I would permit sewing and the needle trades only to women and to cripples reduced to occupations like theirs. Assuming eunuchs to be necessary, I find it quite mad for Orientals to make them specially. Why are they not satisfied with those made by nature, with those crowds of cowardly men whose heart it has mutilated? They would have more than enough for the need. Every weak, delicate, and fearful man is condemned by nature to a sedentary life. He is made to live with women or in their manner. Let him practice one of those trades which are fit for them; that is all very well. And if there absolutely must be true eunuchs, let men who dishonor their sex by taking jobs which do not suit it be reduced to this condition. Their choice proclaims nature's mistake. Correct its mistake one way or another. You will have only done good.
>
>And people say this guy is a liberal?
Wow, that's crazy. Let's see what else this heckin' redpilled guy has to say.
> BOOK I
>
>God makes all things good; man meddles with them and they become evil. He forces one soil to yield the products of another, one tree to bear another’s fruit. He confuses and confounds time, place, and natural conditions. He mutilates his dog, his horse, and his slave. He destroys and defaces all things; he loves all that is deformed and monstrous; he will have nothing as nature made it, not even man himself, who must learn his paces like a saddle-horse, and be shaped to his master’s taste like the trees in his garden. Yet things would be worse without this education, and mankind cannot be made by halves. Under existing conditions a man left to himself from birth would be more of a monster than the rest. Prejudice, authority, necessity, example, all the social conditions into which we are plunged, would stifle nature in him and put nothing in her place. She would be like a sapling chance sown in the midst of the highway, bent hither and thither and soon crushed by the passers-by.
>
>Tender, anxious mother, [Footnote: The earliest education is most important and it undoubtedly is woman’s work. If the author of nature had meant to assign it to men he would have given them milk to feed the child. Address your treatises on education to the women, for not only are they able to watch over it more closely than men, not only is their influence always predominant in education, its success concerns them more nearly, for most widows are at the mercy of their children, who show them very plainly whether their education was good or bad. The laws, always more concerned about property than about people, since their object is not virtue but peace, the laws give too little authority to the mother.
The passage about God is him shitting on liberal society for warping nature to suit their unnatural ideals, while the passage about the mother being vital during the early years is correct and why mothers should be at home with young children rather than working at an office all day.
>This education comes to us from nature, from men, or from things.
What kind of things is he talking about? Or does that become obvious later on?
Its been a while since I read the Emile but I believe he is talking about how material goods or technologies can ”teach” people different learned behaviors. Basically, people act differently after being introduced to creature comforts and tech
Explain why a non-moron would have a problem with those correct statements?
>Explain why a non-moron would have a problem with those correct statements?
Most of it is fine, but
>the laws give too little authority to the mother.
Is definitely not true today. Perhaps it was true in France when he wrote it, and silly of me to mock him for his words in reference to today's climate, but they do irk me. No real problem with the rest of what he says.
>Prejudice, authority, necessity, example, all the social conditions into which we are plunged, would stifle nature in him and put nothing in her place
thats like Pan needing to be controlled by Cupid or he gets too unruly
"
The smaller social group, firmly united in itself and dwelling apart from others, tends to withdraw itself from the larger society. Every patriot hates foreigners; they are only men, and nothing to him.[Footnote: Thus the wars of republics are more cruel than those of monarchies. But if the wars of kings are less cruel, their peace is terrible; better be their foe than their subject.] This defect is inevitable, but of little importance. The great thing is to be kind to our neighbours. Among strangers the Spartan was selfish, grasping, and unjust, but unselfishness, justice, and harmony ruled his home life. Distrust those cosmopolitans who search out remote duties in their books and neglect those that lie nearest. Such philosophers will love the Tartars to avoid loving their neighbour.
"
Redpill me on monarchies vs republics, frens. Is this true?
>" The public institute does not and cannot exist, for there is neither country nor patriot. The very words should be struck out of our language. The reason does not concern us at present, so that though I know it I refrain from stating it. "
What did Rousseau mean by this?
A better translation:
>Public instruction no longer exists and can no longer exist, because where there is no fatherland, there can no longer be citizens. These two words, fatherland and citizen, should be effaced from modern languages. I know well the reason why this is so, but I do not want to tell it. It has nothing to do with my subject.
Which translation should I read from. I'm reading from the first one I found on Gutenberg.
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/5427/pg5427-images.html
The Allan Bloom translation is the best. Translating "patrie" and "citoyen" with "country" and "patriot" puts a strange alien slant on what he says.
I don't think it's a "who", but rather that in his estimation, the politics of his time haven't been conducive to making fatherlands, which for him means a community with a strong sense of unity (his contrast would usually be with a country, "pays", which is primarily geography with shared language under single rule, but with variation from community to community. Think the difference between the Roman empire and Sparta, and if you're peeking at Emile, the quoted passage is right after he uses examples of Sparta positively).
Still,
>I know well the reason why this is so, but I do not want to tell it. It has nothing to do with my subject.
Who was he talking about?
>Every weak, delicate, and fearful man is condemned by nature to a sedentary life.
Isn't this guy a philosopher?
He's doing what we moderns call "overcompensating". Basically the same thing as when a lifeless incel posts gigachad pictures.
So he's an ironic philosopher entertaining people of similar worth?
He's not wrong. Tell me how this doesn't exist in today's "liberal" society. Physically weaker men tend to go for office jobs and avoid the military. Why do you think modern militaries physically condition recruits?
>Why do you think modern militaries physically condition recruits?
Because of the improvements in health and strength sciences and how that effects soldiers.