I am not attracted to these issues, but they are important to consider when the subject of human beings and their long-term behavior and survival is considered.
World Population history estimates from 70,000 years ago until 2025.
A history of major war deaths shown on a logarithmic chart.
World famine 1860 to 2016 from ourworldindata.org
The greatest modern famine was occurring in China in 1959-61, under Mao’s rule, right when I was transitioning from being a US Air Force pilot into being a grad student and prospective Unitarian minister in Berkeley, California. Both of those careers fizzled out while a deadly event of nearly the magnitude of the recent World Wars and of the 1918-19 flu epidemic was occurring. I knew of this event but it was a tiny portion of the public consciousness at that time and all but unknown now. So much of that loss of life from famine was because of economic/political/war events. Thus, the 24 million of the 3rd chart is part of the 40 million of the second chart, – #3.
The premise of yesterday’s postpostulated by C G Darwin was that in normal times, that is approximately ninety percent of the time, there is a semi-starving subsistence group of humanity. That condition of constant famine always lurking he maintained hasn’t been the case since the beginning of the industrial revolution, because people discovered how to convert the energy of coal and gas buried for millions of years into food energy for humans.
The two top logarithmic charts, which go back to 3000 BCE and 400 BCE, show that growth spurt which is starting to accelerate about 1600 CE and reaching its current growth rate about 1750. The third chart only goes back to 1860, which is well after the industrial revolution was underway and it doesn’t show the thousands of years when dailynear-famine was nearly ubiquitous. The difference between the many millennia of natural near-famine and the modern hundreds of years of a condition of rare famine is illustrated in the slope of the curves. When food is plentiful, as it is now, then the population grows rapidly and the line is steep, but when food is in a natural balance with a population the line would be horizontal. The fact that the human population was doubling every thousand years meant that humans were slowly developing new ways to create more food for themselves. They were discovering ways to put formerly inedible things theretofore unused as foods onto the dinner table by new methods of preparation. Such things as various ways of cooking otherwise indigestible foods, and of course the development of agriculture and livestock domestication and improvements. But all of that took lots of human effort to till the soil, etc., until the discovery of coal and oil and the development of tools to use these newly available forms of energy.
We are living in a Golden Age of superabundance based on one-time use of limited fossil fuels. Enjoy!
I published Tao and War by Lao-tzu and Sun-tzuin 1977, which was a multi-year effort to understand why people behave as they do when it comes to wars and mass murder. I added the last line to my rendering of The Art of War which became the words quoted in the best seller The Fifth Generation: Artificial Intelligence & Japan’s Computer Challenge to the Worldby Pamela McCorduck. “Spies are the most important element in preserving the health of the people, because on them depends the ability to see and to know what is really happening and thus to act properly.”
I wasted years of my life on the hideous subject of war, because I realized, “This study of evil and war is of vital importance to the peace of the world. Its subject is the life or death of entire peoples, and of the methods required for attaining the security or ruin of nations. It must never be neglected by a sovereign or his general.” Although I have avoided participating in wars personally I have been dead center with it all my life, interacting with seemingly fine people who have. How can it be that the most civilized and kindest people I have ever known were also the most deadly?
Atrocities: The 100 Deadliest Episodes in Human Historyby Matthew White is a book that must be read by every human being, because it demonstrates just how much at risk we humans are to the behavior of other humans. The book limits the atrocities to the deadliest one hundred, and that makes a general cut-off point of about three hundred thousand deaths directly attributable to human intention. Remote famines, diseases like plagues, and flus that killed millions were not listed in the atrocities even though they were exacerbated by them. Even the Black Death of 1347, which killed one-third of all Europeans and was directly caused by Genghis Khan’s son tossing plague victims into the walled port cities in the Crimea, wasn’t counted. Obviously all of the body counts of these conflicts have an element of arbitrariness in accuracy, but in general the rank order of the atrocities is close.
Each one of the labeled atrocities has a chapter dedicated to it, and some are only two pages long, like Cromwell’s Invasion of Ireland, the Greco-Turkish War, and the Angolan Civil War. Bigger events get more pages, like WW2 with 22 pages, WW1 with 15 pages and Genghis Khan with 12 pages. There is a lot of analysis of why and how of the wars, and an apportioning of blame. When it comes to body counts it is dangerous to be a civilian anywhere near an army, and they usually have more deaths than soldiers. You have better life expectancy if you have armed comrades who want you to survive, rather than armed men who want to take everything you have, including your life.
A history of major war deaths shown on a logarithmic chart.
War is dangerous to your life and property, so choose leaders who will keep you out of war.
There are many ways to look at human history, and a typical viewpoint is to study wars. It is unquestionably one of the darker aspects of human culture, and yet we must look at it occasionally to maintain our perspective on human life. I have been reading Atrocities: The 100 Deadliest Episodes in Human History, by Matthew White, and he ranks the 100 deadliest intentional events. For each event, he includes number ranks, names of the events, their beginning and ending dates, and a number of deaths, and a descriptive essay.
There are many ways to cut the pie in this complex subject, but White describes his methods, which seem reasonable, and appears to follow his self-identified procedure. Take World War Two, for example − it is such a complex thing as to when it started, when it ended, if it ever had a definite beginning and ending, and there is some question which countries were involved. Were all of the millions of deaths in the Soviet Union from 1930 to 1950 part of the war, or were many of them external to the war and part of Stalin’s plan for communizing his country? Also, in World War One, were the millions of flu deaths, largely spread by the soldiers, to be counted as war deaths? Some clearly were and some clearly were not, but how do you separate them? How to put firm numbers on very fuzzy data is a problem for every number in the book, except page numbers.
One of my personal problems was trying to put some perspective on the weighting of the millions of deaths. White solves this problem by claiming all human lives are equal, and therefore he bases his decision points on body counts, which of course gets tricky when counting non-combat deaths such as a massive starvation of civilians uninvolved in combat. His methods are fair and reasonable, but you must be aware of the necessary biases. Definitional methods become very important, because the world population has gone from .15 billion in 500 BCE, to 7.40 billion at present. That means the body count must now be fifty times greater to have the same impact on world society as it would have had in ancient times. In an effort to make this clear I created the chart below.
A history of major war deaths shown on a logarithmic chart.
One of the considerations made obvious by this chart is that #2 rated Chinggis Khan killed approximately ten percent of all then living humanity, whereas #1 rated World War Two, killed about three percent of humanity. When looking across the chart there are about five other events which were as deadly to humanity as was WW2 — #5 The fall of the Ming Dynasty, #9 Timur the grandson of Chinggis Khan, #13 The An Lushan Rebellion, #19 The Fall of the Western Roman Empire, #14 The Xin dynasty. The numbers are greater in China because there were more people living there.
Our modern press has made Saddam Hussein to be one of the greatest monsters of all time, but we must look at the extreme lower right of each chart to see that as bad as he was, he is the least deadly on the charts, both in total numbers of victims, and in terms of impact on humanity. I did not start out to make that point, but it becomes obvious when looking at this chart.
There are lots of events listed in the 1900s, but the last fifty years has been remarkable for the lack of major wars, but the great number of smaller ones may be due to better reporting. There must have been many more small wars in the past, but without a good written record we don’t even know they happened, let alone how many people were killed.
Modern humanity is doing just fine when compared to our past.
Probaway using GPT-4 maximizing on Giorgio Agamben’s ideas.
Every culture is, first and foremost, a particular experience of time, and no new culture is possible without altering this experience. Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben’s assertion suggests that culture is intrinsically tied to society’s experiences and perception of time. As per Agamben, culture is a collective reflection of the temporal constructs and historical context that shape the collective mindset, societal norms, values, and worldviews. Therefore, the progression or evolution of culture necessitates a transformation in how this temporal framework is experienced or understood. For a new culture to emerge, there must be a fundamental shift in the societal experience of time — this could involve changes in historical consciousness, the rhythm and pace of life, or the way the future, present, and past are interconnected. Agamben thus underscores the profound relationship between time and cultural change, pushing us to rethink the dimension of temporality in cultural studies.
Therefore, the original task of a genuine revolution is never merely to ‘change the world’ but also, above all, to ‘change time.’ Giorgio Agamben’s statement posits that authentic revolutions should aim not only to transform societal structures or ‘change the world’ but, more importantly, to ‘change time’. Agamben implies that revolutions must alter the perception and experience of time—how societies remember the past, perceive the present, and anticipate the future. This could mean breaking from historical patterns, redefining what’s deemed ‘contemporary,’ or setting new trajectories for the future. Hence, a revolution’s true impact isn’t just about creating a new world order but also about reconfiguring the temporal consciousness of a society. It is about instigating profound and lasting change, altering society’s chronological narrative and relationship with time itself. It’s a reminder that temporal constructs are as significant in societal transformation as spatial or structural ones.
God did not die; he was transformed into money. In his provoking statement, Giorgio Agamben critiques modern capitalism and materialism, proposing that the transcendental value once associated with divinity has been supplanted by the worldly value of money. This implies that money has become the ultimate determinant of worth and value in our contemporary society, much as God was in earlier, more theologically driven societies. Instead of moral or spiritual virtues, wealth and economic power are the prime metrics of success and influence. Thus, Agamben suggests that God didn’t disappear but underwent a metamorphosis from a sacred, spiritual entity into a secular, economic one. This transformation encapsulates the shift from spiritual to material concerns that characterizes much of modern society. Agamben’s statement serves as a poignant critique of the commodification of life and the displacement of spiritual values by material ones.
If Bartleby is a new Messiah, he comes not, like Jesus, to redeem what was but to save what was not. In this intriguing statement, Giorgio Agamben refers to the character of Bartleby, the scrivener from Herman Melville’s story, comparing him to a ‘new Messiah.’ Bartleby is known for his enigmatic phrase, “I would prefer not to,” which can be seen as a form of passive resistance to the expectations of the capitalist society he inhabits. Agamben’s proposition implies that Bartleby, as a new Messiah, comes to save “what was not” – the unrealized, the potential, the aspects of life that have been suppressed or neglected under the prevailing order. Unlike Jesus, who came to redeem or save what already existed (the sinful world), Bartleby’s messianic role is to bring to light the alternative, the possible, the unfulfilled. It’s a call for a radical re-imagination of our societal structures and our own roles within them, revealing the potential for change and revolution inherent in seemingly insignificant acts of noncompliance.
In the eyes of authority – and maybe rightly so – nothing looks more like a terrorist than the ordinary man. Giorgio Agamben’s statement provides a sharp critique of modern society’s dynamic between authority and the individual. It suggests that authority perceives even the “ordinary man” as a potential threat or “terrorist.” This perspective stems from the inherent unpredictability of human behavior and the potential for dissent, non-compliance, or subversion that comes with it. From the standpoint of a power structure seeking to maintain control, any deviation from the norm or any act of resistance—no matter how small—can be seen as a threat to its stability. Consequently, the ‘ordinary man,’ with his capacity for independent thought and action, becomes a potential ‘terrorist’ in the eyes of authority. Agamben’s observation prompts us to reflect on the consequences of living in a society where surveillance and suspicion become commonplace, underscoring the tensions between authority, control, and individual freedom.
Life and death are not properly scientific concepts but rather political concepts, which, as such, acquire a political meaning precisely only through a decision. In his assertion, Giorgio Agamben challenges the conventional understanding of life and death as natural or biological phenomena and instead frames them as political constructs. He posits that these concepts acquire a specific political significance through decisions made within a societal and political context. This suggests that the ways we define, value, and regulate life and death are often determined by the sociopolitical frameworks and systems of power within which we operate. These decisions can range from laws around abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment to policies on healthcare, poverty, and war. Agamben’s insight compels us to examine how political structures, decisions, and ideologies shape our understanding and experience of fundamental aspects of existence, like life and death, ultimately highlighting the pervasive influence of politics on our lived experiences.
Modern totalitarianism can be defined as the establishment, by means of the state of exception, of a legal civil war that allows for the physical elimination of political adversaries and entire categories of citizens who, for some reason, cannot be integrated into the political system. Giorgio Agamben’s statement reveals a profound critique of modern totalitarianism, defining it as a state of exception that legalizes a form of civil war, facilitating the physical eradication of political opponents and groups that cannot be absorbed into the political system. The ‘state of exception’ Agamben refers to a situation where a government suspends the law or operates outside of it, often justified by perceived crises or emergencies. This condition enables the authorities to bypass legal restrictions and human rights protections, potentially leading to unchecked abuses of power. The ‘legal civil war’ refers to the conflict incited by the state itself, targeting specific sections of the population deemed to be ‘outside’ or ‘against’ the political system. Agamben’s critique underscores the danger of states where the rule of law becomes arbitrary, highlighting the dire consequences for democracy, justice, and human rights.
One day humanity will play with the law just as children play with disused objects, not to restore them to their canonical use but to free them from it for good. In this statement, Giorgio Agamben envisions a future in which humanity will interact with laws like children playing with obsolete objects – not to return them to their original function but to liberate them from it. Agamben seems to be suggesting a radical rethinking of law and its purpose. Instead of seeing the law as rigid, canonical rules that govern our lives, he imagines a scenario where people engage with the law creatively and playfully, repurposing it to serve new, potentially emancipatory ends. The image of children playing with disused objects illustrates this concept of taking something established and fixed and using it in new, unexpected ways. This perspective invites a broader exploration of how societies can evolve and reshape their systems of law and governance to better serve their changing needs and aspirations.
One of the essential characteristics of the state of exception-the provisional abolition of the distinction among legislative, executive, and judicial powers-here shows its tendency to become a lasting practice of government. In this statement, Giorgio Agamben argues that one of the critical characteristics of the “state of exception”—which is the temporary elimination of the separation among legislative, executive, and judicial branches—shows its inclination to become a permanent governing method. The “state of exception” refers to a condition where usual laws are suspended, often justified by crises or threats to the state. According to Agamben, such states risk transforming from temporary measures into enduring practices, undermining the principle of separation of powers, a cornerstone of democratic governance. This convergence of powers can lead to authoritarian tendencies and abuse of power. Therefore, Agamben’s insight is a caution against the normalization of emergency measures and the erosion of democratic checks and balances, highlighting the political and ethical risks inherent in states of exception.
One of the lessons of Auschwitz is that it is infinitely harder to grasp the mind of an ordinary person than to understand the mind of Spinoza or Dante. In this statement, Giorgio Agamben reflects on one of the complex lessons from Auschwitz, the Nazi concentration camp, suggesting that it is far more challenging to understand the mind of an ‘ordinary’ person than that of philosophical or literary luminaries like Spinoza or Dante. This reflects that so-called ‘ordinary’ individuals were complicit in the horrors of the Holocaust, either as active participants or passive bystanders. Agamben proposes that understanding this ‘ordinary’ mindset—capable of normalizing or ignoring such atrocities—is more perplexing and profound than comprehending the minds of those who have articulated complex philosophical or artistic visions. It’s a sobering reflection on the capacity for evil within ‘ordinary’ human nature and societal structures and a call to confront the uncomfortable realities of complicity and conformity in the face of extreme injustice.
Remembrance restores possibility to the past, making what happened incomplete and completing what never was. Remembrance is neither what happened nor what did not happen but their potentization; they are becoming possible again. In this statement, Giorgio Agamben articulates a unique perspective on remembrance, casting it not as a mere recollection of events but as a transformative act that imbues the past with new possibilities. According to Agamben, remembering is not just about reproducing what has happened or dwelling on what did not happen. Instead, it involves the ‘potentization’ of these events – re-opening them to the realm of possibility, rendering the complete incomplete and actualizing the unrealized. This process allows the past to become dynamic and open-ended rather than fixed and determinate. This view posits memory as a creative and powerful tool that can reshape our understanding of the past and, by extension, our perception of the present and future. It is a call to engage with history in a manner that acknowledges its complexities and uncertainties and recognizes its ongoing relevance and impact.
The camp is the space that is opened when the state of exception begins to become the rule. Giorgio Agamben’s statement elucidates a pivotal concept in his philosophy, linking the ‘state of exception‘ to the creation of the ‘camp.’ By ‘camp,’ Agamben refers to spaces where normal laws and rights are suspended, such as concentration camps, detention centers, or refugee camps. The ‘state of exception’ is when a government suspends the rule of law, often justified by crises or emergencies. Agamben argues that when such states of exception become the norm, they create ‘camps’—spaces where people are stripped of their rights and exist outside legal protections. These camps, symbolizing the extreme manifestation of the state’s power to exclude and control, serve as stark reminders of the potential for abuse when the rule of law is sidelined. Agamben’s insight underlines the need for vigilance against the erosion of human rights and the dangers of normalizing exceptional control measures.
The coming being is whatever being. In Giorgio Agamben’s philosophy, the term “coming being” or “whatever being” is a concept that encapsulates an idea of universal potentiality and commonality. The term does not point to a specific identity or defined characteristic but instead refers to any entity in its pure potential to be anything or anyone. The ‘whatever’ signifies its universal applicability and openness, as it can refer to any being in its unqualified and limitless existence. This conceptualization moves beyond restrictive identity classifications and categorical differences to embrace an inclusive understanding of being. It implies a democratic and egalitarian perspective, suggesting that each existence, each ‘whatever being,’ holds equal potential and value. The wisdom in Agamben’s idea lies in its call to recognize all beings’ inherent value and appreciate the open-ended potentiality that characterizes existence.
The friend is not another I, but an otherness immanent in selfness, a becoming other of the self. When I perceive my existence as pleasant, my perception is traversed by a concurrent perception that dislocates it and deports it towards the friend, towards the other self. Friendship is this desubjectivization at the heart of the most intimate self-perception. In this statement, Giorgio Agamben explores a nuanced understanding of friendship. He posits that a friend is not merely another ‘self,’ but represents an ‘otherness’ inherent within one’s own ‘selfness.’ This suggests that a friend’s presence disrupts our self-concept and expands it toward the other. According to Agamben, friendship is a process of ‘becoming other’ – an opportunity for self-transcendence and an expansion of our understanding and empathy. When one perceives their existence as pleasant, this experience is enriched and complicated by the simultaneous perception of the friend, the ‘other self’. Agamben thus describes friendship as a ‘desubjectivization’ that happens at the core of our most personal self-perception. It reminds us of our interconnectedness, the shared human experience, and the transformative power of relationships in shaping our sense of self and understanding of others.
The original relation of law to life is not application but Abandonment. The matchless potentiality of the nomos, its original “force of law,” is that it holds life in its ban by abandoning it. Giorgio Agamben’s statement centers around his concept of ‘abandonment,’ a key theme in his philosophical work. In Agamben’s view, the fundamental relationship between law and life is not an application but rather ‘abandonment.’ The ‘nomos’ or law, with its ‘force of law,’ asserts its power not by governing life but by excluding it, by designating it as ‘bare life’—life that can be killed but not sacrificed, life outside the legal and political order. This paradoxical situation—being simultaneously outside and inside the law—is what Agamben refers to as ‘abandonment.’ It critiques how legal and political systems can use the law to isolate and dehumanize individuals or groups, turning them into ‘bare life.’ Agamben’s insight challenges us to confront and critique how legal systems can be used as instruments of exclusion and oppression, underlining the need for a more inclusive, humane understanding of the law and its life relationship.
The profanation of the unprofitable is the political task of the coming generation. Giorgio Agamben’s assertion signifies a call for a reorientation of values within societal structures. To “profane” means to desacralize or to return something from the sacred to common or everyday use. In this context, “the unprofitable” refers to elements of society or life that don’t adhere to the dominant paradigm of profitability and productivity. Agamben proposes that the future generation’s political task will be to reclaim or ‘profane’ these unprofitable aspects, asserting their value beyond economic productivity. This could be seen as a critique of capitalist norms prioritizing profit and efficiency, often at the expense of other important societal aspects like community, creativity, or ecological sustainability. It’s a call to action to resist the commodification of all aspects of life and to recognize the value in things that may not be conventionally profitable, such as social equity, environmental conservation, or cultural preservation. The wisdom of Agamben’s idea lies in its challenge to prevailing norms and its envisioning of a more diverse, inclusive, and humane societal value system.
The Tartarus into which Bartleby, the new savior, descends is the deepest level of the Palace of Destinies, that whose sight Leibniz cannot tolerate, the world in which nothing is compossible with anything else, where “nothing exists rather than something. This statement references the character of Bartleby from Herman Melville’s story “Bartleby, the Scrivener” and the philosophy of Gottfried Leibniz. Agamben likens Bartleby’s descent into oblivion to a journey into Tartarus, a deep abyss in ancient Greek mythology, representing the incomprehensible realm of possibility where nothing is compatible or ‘compossible’ with anything else. Here, Bartleby is characterized as a ‘new savior’ for his potential to disrupt the established order through his mantra of “I would prefer not to,” embodying the potential of non-action or inaction as a form of resistance. In contrast, Leibniz envisioned a world where everything is ‘compossible’ or compatible, a universe where God has chosen the “best of all possible worlds.” Agamben’s wisdom lies in highlighting the radical possibilities of non-conformity and non-action, symbolized by Bartleby’s descent into the incompatibility of Tartarus, challenging the Leibnizian paradigm of a pre-ordained, harmonious universe. It emphasizes the potential of the individual to resist and disrupt established norms and to embody alternative possibilities.
The thought of security bears within it an essential risk. A state with security as its sole task and source of legitimacy is a fragile organism; it can always be provoked by terrorism to become more terroristic. Giorgio Agamben’s assertion critiques the focus on security in contemporary political landscapes. He argues that a state that bases its legitimacy and primary function solely on providing security is inherently at risk. This is because such a state is vulnerable to threats and can be provoked into adopting increasingly oppressive measures to maintain security. Hence, in a paradoxical twist, in striving to protect against terrorism, the state might become terroristic, employing extreme surveillance, restriction of civil liberties, or other authoritarian measures. The wisdom in Agamben’s idea is a warning about the dangers of a security-obsessed state, where the perpetual need for security can potentially undermine the very freedoms and democratic values the state should uphold. It calls for a more balanced approach to governance that emphasizes not just safety, but also freedom, justice, and other essential democratic principles.
Those who are truly contemporary are those who neither perfectly coincide with their time nor adapt to its demands…Contemporariness is that relationship with time that adheres to it through a disconnection. Giorgio Agamben’s idea about contemporariness offers a unique perspective on our relationship with time and the concept of being ‘modern’ or ‘current.’ Agamben suggests that to be truly contemporary doesn’t mean to perfectly align with or conform to the expectations of one’s time. Instead, it involves a degree of disconnection or non-conformity, which allows critical reflection, resistance, and the possibility of difference and change. This disconnection creates a vantage point from which one can critically assess and engage with the present, seeing its strengths, flaws, potentialities and limits. The wisdom in Agamben’s statement lies in its challenge to our understanding of what it means to be ‘of our time.’ It suggests that being contemporary involves more than just reflecting the dominant trends or paradigms of the moment. Instead, it requires a critical, independent stance that can resist conformism and imagine alternative futures.
To believe that will has power over potentiality, that the passage to actuality results from a decision that ends the ambiguity of potentiality (which is always potentiality to do and not to do) is the perpetual illusion of morality. Agamben’s statement critiques traditional moral thinking that places significant emphasis on the will, or conscious decision-making, as the determining factor in transitioning from potentiality (the state of being able to do something) to actuality (the realization of that ability). Agamben asserts that this belief is a “perpetual illusion of morality” because it overlooks the inherent ambiguity of potentiality, which always includes both the potential to act and the potential not to act. His idea suggests that morality isn’t solely about conscious decisions to act but also about recognizing and accepting this inherent ambiguity of potentiality. The wisdom in Agamben’s idea encourages us to consider morality more nuancedly, acknowledging the multifaceted nature of potentiality and the complex dynamics between will, action, and non-action. It suggests that moral understanding requires a deeper engagement with potentiality and its ambiguities rather than simply reducing it to a matter of will and decision-making.
What our investigation has shown is that the real problem, the central mystery of politics, is not sovereignty but government; it is not God but the angel; it is not the king but ministry; it is not the law but the police – that is to say, the governmental machine that they form and support. In this statement, Giorgio Agamben shifts the focus from the traditional, often grandiose, symbols of power such as sovereignty, God, the king, and the law to the more mundane but pervasive aspects of governance: the angel, ministry, and police, which together form the “governmental machine.” Agamben’s wisdom lies in recognizing the true sites of political power and control often reside not in the overt symbols of authority but in the mechanisms and institutions that govern everyday life. His idea urges us to critically examine these structures that hold up the state, often operating in the background, subtly shaping our lives, behaviors, and possibilities. It’s a call to deconstruct the seemingly benign systems that can enforce social norms, influence our choices, and potentially restrict our freedoms. Through this understanding, Agamben offers a more nuanced perspective on power and politics, pointing to the subtler yet profound, ways in which they manifest and influence our lives.
Here is a critical video of Giorgio Agamben’s book “Homo Sacer” by his translator Michael Millerman. millermanschool.com/p/intro
Ideas for making a graphic for Agamben.
One day humanity will play with the law just as children play with disused objects, not to restore them to their canonical use but to free them from it for good.
catbird_ai – challenge – A bookcase with toys used as bookends in a cozy home library, bathed in warm sunlight.
The ‘state of exception‘ is the creation of concentration camps where a government suspends the rule of law and puts a pretty face on criminalizing customary laws.
Steven Pinker (1954 – fl. 2023) is a Canadian-born American experimental psychologist, cognitive scientist, and linguist, now at Harvard University. The faithful are apt to react to unbelief with rage and may try to eliminate that affront to everything that makes their lives meaningful.
Steven Pinker (1954 – fl. 2023) is a Canadian-born American cognitive scientist at Harvard.
1. When you expose a man’s indefensible beliefs, you challenge his dignity, social standing, and power and make his life meaningless; therefore, expect that he will react toward you with a murderous rage.
Steven Pinker’s idea highlights the complex nature of belief systems and how they intertwine with a person’s identity and social status. According to Pinker, deeply held beliefs—especially those that may be indefensible or illogical—often serve more than just intellectual or ideological purposes. They provide a sense of dignity, standing within a social group, and even a sense of power and meaning to life. Consequently, challenging such beliefs can be perceived as a direct assault on the person’s self-worth and position, invoking a strong defensive response. Pinker warns of the potential for an extreme backlash, such as “murderous rage,” to emphasize the profound emotional stake individuals often have in their beliefs. It invites us to consider the human and psychological elements when engaging in discussions, especially about deeply held beliefs.
2. When you convince a living human being he holds an eternal essence inside with no externally visible reality, it becomes easier to steal his attention and time.
Steven Pinker’s statement reflects on the manipulative power of abstract or non-tangible ideas, particularly those related to spirituality or the metaphysical realm. By convincing someone that they possess an “eternal essence” that lacks external manifestation, one can create an endless quest for self-understanding and realization that can be manipulated. The individual’s attention and time may then be easily co-opted and directed towards exploring and nurturing this elusive essence, potentially at the cost of concrete, tangible experiences and responsibilities. Pinker’s wisdom, thus, lies in alerting us to the potential for exploitation that comes with any deeply personal concept, profoundly influential yet impossible to objectively quantify or validate. He urges skepticism towards such ideas, especially if they demand significant personal investment without clear or realistic benefits.
3. Humans understanding of how natural reality works and how to use these understandings to help all living things thrive is as good as good gets.
Steven Pinker’s statement here embodies the fundamental ideal that knowledge and understanding of natural reality—science, in its broadest sense—are paramount for the betterment of all life. In his view, the pinnacle of “good” is the application of this understanding to ensure the thriving of all living entities. Pinker places a strong emphasis on scientific literacy and its application toward compassionate, sustainable stewardship of our planet and its ecosystems. His idea suggests that intellectual pursuits are not merely for personal enlightenment but have a moral dimension: they should be used to improve life. In a world grappling with numerous environmental challenges, Pinker’s wisdom underscores the importance of scientific understanding as a tool for global good and survival.
4. Modern egalitarians denounce low-life people who subsist on fast food, public TV, and social media, while these upscale twits travel to distant spas for turtle soup.
Steven Pinker’s statement here critiques modern egalitarian movements’ perceived hypocrisy and elitism. He points out that while many individuals advocate for equality, they often simultaneously look down upon those they deem to be living ‘lesser’ lifestyles, such as those who consume fast food, watch public TV, or rely on social media for information and interaction. Meanwhile, these self-proclaimed egalitarians enjoy extravagant lifestyles, symbolized by indulging in delicacies like turtle soup at remote spas. The wisdom in Pinker’s idea lies in highlighting the incongruity between words and actions, calling for genuine understanding and empathy rather than tokenistic or simple forms of equality. It reminds us that true egalitarianism should not be condescending or judgmental but should respect the diverse ways people live.
5. When you give humans unlimited power to do as they please, they behave like gods, eventually creating misery for everyone.
Steven Pinker’s statement reflects on the potential dangers of unchecked power and the detrimental effects it can have on societies. He warns that when humans are granted unrestricted freedom, they may behave as if they were divine beings, imposing their wills without regard for the well-being of others, which can ultimately lead to widespread misery. Pinker’s wisdom here underscores the importance of checks and balances in any system, highlighting the potential corruption and abuse that can stem from unregulated authority. It serves as a reminder of the fundamental principle that power must be balanced with responsibility, empathy, and respect for the rights and well-being of others. It also emphasizes the potential dangers of hubris and the human tendency to misuse power when it’s unchecked.
6. Morality is based on maximizing human cooperation, so everyone can have more than they give.
Steven Pinker’s statement articulates the view that morality is fundamentally rooted in human cooperation, aiming to create a society where everyone reaps greater benefits than their contribution. This concept aligns with the game theory principle of non-zero-sum situations, where cooperation leads to outcomes beneficial for all involved parties. Pinker’s perspective emphasizes that morality is not just about following a set of rules but about cultivating an environment where collective actions result in shared prosperity. The wisdom in Pinker’s idea lies in recognizing that cooperation, not competition or isolation, forms the bedrock of moral societies. It promotes an understanding of morality that values mutual benefit and collective growth over individual gain.
7. Our minds evolved to cope with problems that no longer exist, like using our free time for storytelling and making things beautiful.
Steven Pinker’s statement refers to the concept of evolutionary mismatch, the idea that our brains and cognitive systems developed to deal with the challenges of a prehistoric environment that is very different from the one we inhabit today. He suggests that some abilities and tendencies, such as our predilection for storytelling and creating beauty, were evolutionarily advantageous in the past, perhaps for social bonding, communication, or problem-solving. However, in the modern world, with its fast pace and utilitarian demands, we often struggle to find the time and space for these activities. The wisdom in Pinker’s idea lies in recognizing the importance of these seemingly non-essential activities for our well-being and fulfillment. It serves as a reminder to balance our lives with activities that satisfy our innate human tendencies and needs, which may not be directly tied to survival in the modern world but are nonetheless critical to our overall happiness and sense of purpose.
8. Performers, or anyone else who can lead you to believe absurdities, can convince you to commit atrocities.
Steven Pinker’s statement captures the power of persuasion and the dangers of uncritical acceptance of absurdities, whether from performers, leaders, or other influential figures. The wisdom here lies in acknowledging the potent influence of charismatic individuals, who can sway the masses into believing and acting upon ideas detached from reality or fundamentally harmful through their compelling narratives or performances. This detachment from reality can lead to committing atrocities under the guise of following an accepted or endorsed narrative. Pinker’s idea is a stark reminder of the importance of critical thinking, discernment, and individual responsibility in assessing the credibility and ethical implications of the messages we consume, even from influential and seemingly trustworthy figures.
9. In hindsight, natural selection has a dual function, to adapt both genes and their resultant reproductive bodies to each of their past environments.
Steven Pinker’s statement reflects on the nuanced workings of natural selection, a cornerstone of evolutionary biology. He highlights that natural selection has two interconnected roles. First, it acts on genes, favoring those that increase the chances of survival and reproduction in a given environment. These favored genes become more prevalent over generations. Second, it molds the physical bodies (phenotypes) that result from these genes, adapting them to their specific environments. The wisdom in Pinker’s idea lies in its emphasis on the interconnectedness and reciprocal relationship between genes and the environment. It underscores that evolution is not simply a matter of ‘survival of the fittest’ in its crudest sense but a complex, dynamic process that continually shapes and is shaped by the intricate interplay between genes and their environments. It highlights that our understanding of life and its diversity can be enriched by appreciating this duality of natural selection.
10. From the universe’s perspective, every instant everywhere is perfect, but from a man’s perspective, it’s a mess.
Steven Pinker’s statement explores the contrast between the objective, cosmic view of reality and its subjective human experience. From the universe’s perspective, every moment in time and every place in space unfolds according to the fundamental laws of nature and in that sense, can be considered ‘perfect.’ However, from a human perspective, with our subjective interpretations, emotions, and individual experiences, life often appears chaotic and imperfect. The wisdom in Pinker’s idea underscores the importance of perspective in our understanding and experience of reality. It reminds us that our human view of the world, while necessary for our survival and well-being, is not the only way to interpret existence. It may also prompt introspection about how our perspectives shape our understanding and judgment of the world around us.
11. Because humans have evolved a communication ability, it isn’t essential that two people need the same language to communicate.
Steven Pinker’s statement emphasizes the power and flexibility of human communication, suggesting that the ability to communicate transcends linguistic boundaries. He points out that even when two people do not share the same language, they can still find ways to communicate through gestures, expressions, body language, or a shared system of signs and symbols. The wisdom in Pinker’s idea lies in acknowledging the adaptability and creativity inherent in human communication, a skill honed over millennia of evolution. It celebrates the universality of our ability to connect and interact, even without a common linguistic medium, reinforcing that communication is not confined to language alone but is a fundamental, deeply ingrained aspect of our human nature.
12. No two people are the same, but all dollars have the same value, so it is possible for diverse people to exchange disparate goods using dollars.
Steven Pinker’s statement underlines the universal function of money as a standard of exchange, enabling the transaction of miscellaneous goods and services among diverse individuals. While people differ in numerous ways—in their skills, resources, needs, and desires—the standardized currency value allows for a common ground to facilitate trade. Pinker’s wisdom here emphasizes the power of money as a universal equalizer, which allows vastly different individuals to interact within a shared economic system. Moreover, it illuminates how the concept of money, in its simplicity and objectivity, enables the functioning of complex economies by providing a standard unit of measure for value, irrespective of individual differences.
13. The cognitive wherewithal to understand the world and bend it to our advantage is not a trophy of Western civilization; it’s the patrimony of our species. (Rationality, page 2)
Steven Pinker’s statement emphasizes the universal human capacity for understanding and manipulating our environment, a cognitive prowess not exclusive to any specific civilization or culture but inherent to our species. He challenges the ethnocentric notion that attributes cognitive advancement to Western civilization alone, underscoring that the ability to comprehend and shape the world for our benefit has been a shared journey of all humanity. The wisdom in Pinker’s idea lies in its celebration of human cognition as a collective heritage and a reminder of our shared humanity. It reinforces the idea that advancements, discoveries, and knowledge are part of a global human enterprise, transcending cultural or geographical divisions. This perspective promotes a more inclusive understanding of human achievement and progress.
Some thoughts for creating a graphic image for Steven Pinker.
7. Our minds evolved to cope with problems that no longer exist, like using our free time for storytelling and making things beautiful.
11. Because humans have evolved a communication ability, it isn’t essential that two people need the same language to communicate.
This is an example of Steven Pinker’s statement about humans using our free time for storytelling and making things beautiful. These similar figurines span more than 30,000 years and were probably used for telling stories.
The Standing Goddess from S.W. Arabia, 2,000 BCE, is about 4,000 years old and perhaps dates back to the building of the pyramids. By that date, there was writing that we can still read, but we haven’t carried to the present anything near the continuity displayed with these figurines for the previous 31,000 years. It is possible that older ones may be found, and possibly younger ones too, which will make the mystery even more profound. Are there any living cultures that use these stylized figurines?
Why were humans so dedicated to this image, and what could it mean to them? One thing that makes sense to me is that it communicated the social stability and safe interaction between distant people because they were of the same faith community. Have any of these goddesses been found being worn by skeletons in gravesites?
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712 – 1778) — Geneva-born French philosopher of the individual’s rights. Let him know nothing because you have told him but because he has learned it himself.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712 – 1778) — Geneva-born French philosopher
Quotations Jean-Jacques Rousseau
1.. To do is to be.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s famous quote, “To do is to be,” emphasizes that our actions define who we are. According to Rousseau, a person’s identity and character are shaped by actions rather than thoughts or beliefs. In other words, our actions reflect our true selves and are essential in defining our existence. Therefore, to truly be who we are, we must actively engage in the world and demonstrate our values and beliefs through our actions.
2. What wisdom can you find greater than kindness.
Rousseau emphasized the importance of kindness as a fundamental human value that should guide our actions and decisions. Rousseau believed true wisdom is about acquiring knowledge and intelligence and cultivating empathy, compassion, and kindness toward others. He saw kindness as the ultimate expression of human goodness and believed it would inspire and transform society. To Rousseau, kindness is an individual virtue and a crucial element for building a just and harmonious community where people can live in peace and harmony.
3. Liberty may be gained but can never be recovered.
Rousseau refers to the idea that once a society or individual loses their freedom, it is nearly impossible to fully regain it. Rousseau believed that liberty was a natural right of all human beings and essential for a just society. He also understood that liberty could be taken away by those in power or through societal forces, such as oppression or injustice. He argued that when freedom is lost, it can be difficult to regain because those in power will be reluctant to relinquish it. Individuals may become accustomed to losing their freedom. Rousseau’s statement serves as a warning to those who value their liberty to actively protect and defend it, as once it is lost, it may never be fully regained.
4. To renounce freedom is to renounce one’s humanity, one’s rights as a man, and equally one’s duties.
Rousseau highlights the importance of freedom in defining our humanity and fulfilling our obligations as human beings. Rousseau believed that freedom is an inherent and essential aspect of human nature that allows us to fulfill our potential and pursue our interests and aspirations. To renounce our freedom is to deny ourselves the opportunity to live a fulfilling life and fully participate in society as free and equal individuals. He also said that freedom comes with responsibilities and obligations, and by renouncing it, we relinquish our duties and obligations as members of society. Therefore, to fully embrace our humanity and fulfill our duties as citizens, we must safeguard and defend our freedom against any threat of tyranny or oppression.
5. To renounce liberty is to renounce being a man, surrendering humanity’s rights and even its duties.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau emphasizes the significance of liberty in defining our human existence and fulfilling our obligations to society. Rousseau believed that freedom is an inherent and inalienable right of all individuals, and it is essential for human beings to exercise their autonomy and pursue their interests and goals. By surrendering our liberty, we give up our humanity, our ability to make choices, and our capacity to fulfill our duties as citizens. He saw liberty as crucial in establishing a just and fair society where individuals have equal rights and opportunities. To him, giving up liberty is detrimental to the individual and society as a whole, as it undermines the basic principles of justice and human rights. Therefore, Rousseau argued that protecting and preserving individual liberty should be a top priority for any society that values human dignity and social justice.
6. I prefer liberty with danger to peace with slavery.
Rousseau’s ultimate goal of any political system is to protect individuals’ natural rights and liberties, and any form of oppression or tyranny violates these rights. Therefore, he would rather face the dangers of living in a free society, where individuals have the right to speak, act, and express themselves freely than live in a society where these rights are suppressed. In essence, Rousseau emphasizes the importance of individual liberty and its value, even if it comes at a cost. To him, living in a society where individuals cannot exercise their freedom is not worth the price of peace, as it results in a life without dignity, self-respect, and autonomy.
7. Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.
Rousseau highlights that human beings are naturally free but are subject to various forms of oppression and societal constraints. Rousseau believed that humans are born free and equal, and society’s institutions impose limits on their freedom. He argued that social inequality, political oppression, and cultural norms often constrain individuals from fulfilling their potential and pursuing their interests freely. To Rousseau, the chains that bind humans are physical and psychological, and they can result in a loss of identity, autonomy, and dignity. The quote serves as a reminder that freedom is all individuals’ natural and inherent right. Any attempt to suppress or limit it violates their human dignity and liberty.
8. Man is born free, but today everywhere he is in chains.
Rousseau claimed that human beings are naturally free and equal, and society’s institutions impose limits on their freedom. He argued that social inequality, political oppression, and cultural norms often constrain individuals from fulfilling their potential and pursuing their interests freely. His belief was and still is that the current state of society has deviated from the natural order of things, and individuals are no longer free to live according to their inherent nature. To him, the chains that bind humans are physical and psychological, and they can result in a loss of identity, autonomy, and dignity. Therefore, Rousseau called for restructuring society to enable individuals to live freely and without oppression.
9. Freedom is the power to choose our own chains.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau recognized that individuals are subject to various forms of societal constraints, such as laws, cultural norms, and social expectations. However, he argued that these constraints are not necessarily incompatible with freedom as long as individuals can choose their own paths and determine their destinies. In other words, freedom is not about avoiding all limitations but about having the power to make our own choices and shape our lives. To Rousseau, this idea of freedom requires individuals to take responsibility for their choices and accept the consequences of their actions, including the limitations and chains they voluntarily accept. Therefore, Rousseau believed that true freedom is not just about being free from external constraints but also about making our own choices and taking ownership of our lives.
10. Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains. Those who think themselves the masters of others are indeed greater slaves than they.
When Rousseau penned the phrase, “Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains,” he was expressing his belief that humans in their natural state were free, unencumbered by societal constraints or oppression. However, the formation of societies and the rise of institutions led to the creation of hierarchies and systems of power that bind people, leaving them in metaphorical chains. By saying that those who think themselves masters are greater slaves, Rousseau highlights the irony that even those in positions of power are trapped by the very systems they control, as they, too, are limited by the expectations and pressures of their social roles. Thus, Rousseau’s statement serves as a critique of the societal structures that have robbed humans of their inherent freedom, arguing for a reevaluation of these systems in pursuit of a more just and liberated existence.
11. An unbroken horse erects his mane, paws the ground, and starts back impetuously at the sight of the bridle; while one which is properly trained suffers patiently even whip and spur: so savage man will not bend his neck to the yoke to which civilized man submits without a murmur but prefers the most turbulent state of liberty to the most peaceful slavery. We cannot, therefore, from the servility of nations already enslaved, judge the natural disposition of mankind for or against slavery; we should go by the prodigious efforts of every free people to save itself from oppression.
Rousseau emphasizes that human beings have a natural inclination towards freedom and autonomy and will resist any attempt to impose control and domination upon them. He compares the behavior of a wild and unbroken horse, which resists the bridle and shows impetuousness, to that of a properly trained horse, which submits patiently to the bridle even under harsh conditions. Rousseau argues that human beings, particularly those in a state of nature, resist any attempt to impose control and domination upon them. They prefer a state of turbulence and freedom over peaceful but oppressive slavery. Therefore, Rousseau suggests that it is not appropriate to judge the natural disposition of mankind for or against slavery based on the servility of already enslaved nations. Instead, we should look at the prodigious efforts of every free people to save themselves from oppression, reflecting the inherent desire for freedom and autonomy within all individuals.
12. I know that the former is forever holding forth in praise of the tranquillity they enjoy in their chains and that they call a state of wretched servitude a state of peace: “miserrimam servitutem pacem appellant.” But when I observe the latter sacrificing pleasure, peace, wealth, power, and life itself for the preservation of that one treasure, which is so disdained by those who have lost it, when I see free-born animals dash their brains out against the bars of their cage, from an innate impatience of captivity.
Rousseau critiques the idea that those already enslaved or oppressed are content with their situation and even view it as a state of peace. He argues that this view is misguided and reflects a false consciousness. He claims that true peace and contentment can only be found in a state of freedom and autonomy rather than in a state of servitude and oppression. He describes how individuals deprived of their freedom are often driven by an innate desire for liberty and will make great sacrifices to regain it. Rousseau uses the example of animals in captivity, who instinctively try to break free from their cages, even if it means risking their lives. In essence, Rousseau argues that the desire for freedom is a fundamental aspect of human nature, and any attempt to suppress it will ultimately lead to discontent and unrest. Therefore, he suggests that true peace and contentment can only be achieved through preserving individual liberty and recognizing the inherent dignity and rights of all human beings.
13. When I behold numbers of naked savages that despise European pleasures, braving hunger, fire, the sword, and death, to preserve nothing but their independence, I feel that it is not for slaves to argue about liberty.
Rousseau highlights the irony of Europeans enslaved to luxury and materialism, arguing against the freedom of other cultures, such as the naked savages he describes. He observes that despite lacking the comforts and pleasures of European civilization, these indigenous peoples are willing to face extreme hardships and even death to protect their independence and way of life. Rousseau suggests that this willingness to sacrifice for freedom and autonomy is a quality that Europeans have lost, as they have become enslaved to material comforts and distractions. He implies that those who are enslaved in some way, whether it be to materialism or political oppression, lack the moral authority to argue against the value of liberty and the importance of preserving it. Therefore, Rousseau suggests that true liberty and independence can only be upheld by those willing to value it above all else, even in the face of great hardship and sacrifice.
14. Princes always are happy to see developing among their subjects the taste for agreeable arts and for superfluities that do not result in the export of money. For quite apart from the fact that with these they nourish that spiritual pettiness so appropriate for servitude, they know very well that all the needs which people give themselves are so many chains binding them.
Rousseau criticizes the practice of princes and rulers promoting the development of the arts and superfluous luxury among their subjects. He argues that this encourages a culture of materialism and superficiality, undermining the moral and spiritual values necessary for a healthy society. Rousseau suggests that rulers deliberately do this to keep their subjects distracted and complacent, as they are less likely to question their oppression if they are preoccupied with trivial pleasures. Furthermore, the more people give in to these luxuries, the more dependent they become on them, and the more they become enslaved to the desire for more. He suggests that rulers use the development of agreeable arts and superfluous luxuries to maintain control over their subjects and to prevent them from seeking true freedom and independence. Rousseau asserts that true freedom can only be achieved by rejecting materialism and superficiality and focusing instead on the moral and spiritual values essential for a healthy and just society.
15. When Alexander wished to keep the Ichthyophagi dependent on him, he forced them to abandon fishing and nourish themselves on foods common to other people. And no one has been able to subjugate the savages in America, who go around entirely naked and live only from what their hunting provides. In fact, what yoke could be imposed on men who have no need of anything?
Rousseau highlights that those who are self-sufficient and do not need external resources are difficult to subjugate or control. He gives the example of Alexander the Great, who sought to keep the Ichthyophagi, a fishing tribe, dependent on him by forcing them to abandon fishing and adopt a more traditional diet. This strategy did not work on the savages in America, who could live entirely off their hunting and gathering. Rousseau suggests that self-sufficient people who do not need external resources are difficult to subjugate or control because they are not reliant on anyone else. They are free to live their lives according to their own values and desires without being beholden to any external power. Rousseau implies that true independence and freedom can only be achieved by rejecting the dependence on external resources and embracing a self-sufficient and autonomous way of life.
16. The former breathes only peace and liberty; he desires only to live and be free from labor; even the ataraxia of the Stoic falls far short of his profound indifference to every other object.
Rousseau is describing the natural state of man, which he suggests is characterized by a desire for peace, liberty, and freedom from labor. He suggests that the natural man is not interested in material possessions or worldly pleasures but instead seeks a life of simplicity and contentment. Furthermore, he notes that this natural state of man is characterized by a profound indifference to everything other than living freely and without constraints. He contrasts this with the Stoic philosophy of ataraxia, emphasizing detachment and serenity in adversity. Rousseau suggests that even the Stoic falls short of the natural man’s indifference to external objects, which he views as a reflection of their inherent freedom and autonomy. Therefore, Rousseau suggests that true freedom and contentment can only be achieved by rejecting materialism and embracing a simple and autonomous way of life.
17. Liberty is like rich food and strong wine: the strong natures accustomed to them thrive and grow even stronger on them, but they deplete, inebriate, and destroy the weak.
Rousseau emphasizes that liberty is not for everyone and can affect different individuals differently. He suggests that just like rich food and strong wine, liberty can benefit those with strong and resilient natures, as they can thrive and grow even stronger on it. However, liberty can be overwhelming and destructive for those with weak and vulnerable natures, leading to depletion and intoxication. Rousseau highlights that liberty requires a certain level of strength and resilience to be fully embraced and that it can be dangerous for those lacking these qualities. He suggests that this reflects the inherent complexity of human nature and that different individuals require different levels of support and guidance to achieve their potential. Therefore, Rousseau emphasizes the importance of creating a just and equitable society that considers the diversity of human nature and provides the necessary support for all individuals to flourish.
18. Sovereignty, for the same reason as makes it inalienable, cannot be represented; it lies essentially in the general will, and will does not admit of representation: it is either the same or other; there is no intermediate possibility. The deputies of the people, therefore, are not and cannot be its representatives: they are merely its stewards and can carry through no definitive acts.
Rousseau argues that sovereignty, which he views as an inalienable right of the people, cannot be represented by others. He suggests that the essence of sovereignty lies in the general will, which cannot be represented by anyone else. To Rousseau, the general will represents the common good, the basis of a just and fair society. Therefore, he suggests that any attempt to represent the general will would lose its true essence and be incompatible with the principles of sovereignty. Instead, he suggests that the deputies of the people, who are elected to carry out the will of the people, are merely stewards and cannot carry out any definitive acts without the people’s consent. In other words, the power ultimately lies with the people, who are the true sovereigns and cannot delegate their power to others. Therefore, Rousseau emphasizes the importance of direct democracy and the active participation of the people in the political process, as this is the only way to ensure that sovereignty remains in the hands of the people and that the common good is preserved.
19. Every law the people have not ratified in person is null and void — is, in fact, not a law.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau argues that sovereignty, which he views as an inalienable right of the people, cannot be represented by others. He suggests that the essence of sovereignty lies in the general will, which cannot be represented by anyone else. To Rousseau, the general will represents the common good, the basis of a just and fair society. Therefore, he suggests that any attempt to represent the general will would lose its true essence and be incompatible with the principles of sovereignty. Instead, he suggests that the people’s deputies, elected to carry out the will of the people, are merely stewards and cannot carry out any definitive acts without the people’s consent. In other words, the power ultimately lies with the people, who are the true sovereigns and cannot delegate their power to others. Therefore, Rousseau emphasizes the importance of direct democracy and the active participation of the people in the political process, as this is the only way to ensure that sovereignty remains in the hands of the people and that the common good is preserved.
20. The people of England regard itself as free, but it is grossly mistaken; it is free only during the election of members of parliament. As soon as they are elected, slavery overtakes it, and it is nothing. Using the short moments of liberty, it enjoys shows it deserves to lose them.
Rousseau criticizes the system of representative democracy in England, which he suggests is a false form of freedom. He argues that while the people of England believe themselves to be free, in reality, they are only free during the election of members of parliament. Once these representatives are elected, the people are no longer in control and are subject to their decisions, which may not reflect their will. Therefore, Rousseau suggests that the people of England are enslaved to their elected representatives, who are not true representatives of the general will. He suggests that the short moments of liberty enjoyed by the people show that they do not deserve true freedom, as they are unwilling or able to take the necessary action to secure it. In essence, Rousseau suggests that representative democracy, while it may appear to be a form of freedom, is, in fact, a false form of freedom that ultimately leads to slavery and oppression.
21. I have never thought, for my part, that man’s freedom consists in his being able to do whatever he wills but that he should not, by any human power, be forced to do what is against his will.
Rousseau highlights his view on the nature of human freedom. He suggests that freedom is not merely the ability to do whatever one wants but rather the absence of coercion or external force that would compel an individual to act against their will. To Rousseau, true freedom requires acting by one’s values and desires without being subject to external pressures or influence. Therefore, he suggests that any attempt to force an individual to act against their will is a violation of their freedom and a threat to their dignity and autonomy of the individual. In essence, Rousseau suggests that human freedom requires the recognition of the inherent dignity and rights of all individuals and the protection of these rights from any form of coercion or external pressure.
22. What, then, is the government? An intermediary body established between the subjects and the sovereign for their mutual communication, a body charged with the execution of the laws and the maintenance of freedom, both civil and political.
Rousseau provides his definition of government. Government is an intermediary body between the sovereign, the people, and the subjects. This intermediary body aims to facilitate communication between the two and execute the laws necessary for maintaining civil and political freedom. To Rousseau, the government is not a separate entity that exists for its own sake but rather a tool used to ensure the people’s well-being and preserve their freedom. Therefore, he emphasizes the importance of ensuring that the government is accountable to the people and acts in their best interests. He also suggests that the government must be limited in its power to ensure it does not become oppressive or abusive. Ultimately, Rousseau’s definition of government reflects his belief in the importance of direct democracy and the active participation of the people in the political process, as this is the only way to ensure that the government serves the people rather than the other way around.
23. Whenever the last trumpet shall sound, I will present myself before the sovereign judge with this book in my hand and loudly proclaim, thus have I acted; these were my thoughts; such was I.
Rousseau expresses his belief in the importance of personal accountability and integrity. He suggests that at the end of his life, he will present himself before the sovereign judge with his book, which contains his thoughts and actions throughout his life. In doing so, he will loudly proclaim that he acted according to his principles and was true to himself. This is the ultimate goal of human existence: to live a life that is true to one’s principles and beliefs and to be accountable for one’s actions. He suggests this is the only way to achieve inner peace and satisfaction and positively impact the world. Therefore, Rousseau emphasizes the importance of personal integrity and the need to live a life consistent with one’s beliefs and values, regardless of external pressures or influences.
24. I have related what was laudable or wicked with equal freedom and veracity. I have concealed no crimes and added no virtues, and if I have sometimes introduced superfluous ornament, it was merely to occupy a void occasioned by a defect of memory:
Jean-Jacques Rousseau emphasizes his commitment to honesty and transparency in his writing. He suggests that he has related both laudable and wicked actions with equal freedom and veracity and has not concealed any crimes or added any virtues that were not present. He acknowledges that he may have occasionally added superfluous ornamentation to his writing but suggests that this was only to fill a void caused by a memory defect. His commitment to honesty and transparency is essential for writing that is truly meaningful and impactful. He suggests that writing based on falsehoods or exaggerations cannot be trusted and will ultimately fail to positively impact the world. He emphasizes the importance of personal integrity and honesty in writing and life as a necessary foundation for a just and equitable society.
25. I may have supposed that certain, which I only knew to be probable, but have never asserted as truth, a conscious falsehood.
Rousseau expressed his commitment to intellectual honesty and caution in presenting his beliefs. He acknowledges that he may have held some ideas as certain when they were only probable, but he never deliberately propagated falsehoods. This statement demonstrates Rousseau’s humility, self-awareness, and dedication to the pursuit of truth in his philosophical work. He encourages critical thinking and inquiry while admitting the limitations of human knowledge and understanding, making it clear that the quest for truth should be an ongoing and evolving process.
26. Such as I was, I have declared myself; sometimes vile and despicable, at others, virtuous, generous and sublime; even as thou hast read my inmost soul:
Rousseau emphasizes the complexity of human nature and his own self-awareness. He candidly admits that he, like all people, possesses both admirable and flawed qualities. By presenting himself with such honesty and vulnerability, Rousseau invites readers to examine their own souls and acknowledge the contradictions inherent in human nature. This introspective approach seeks to foster a deeper understanding of oneself and others, encouraging empathy and compassion and recognizing that we all share a similar range of emotions, strengths, and weaknesses.
27. Power eternal! Assemble round thy throne an innumerable throng of my fellow mortals; let them listen to my confessions, blush at my depravity, and tremble at my sufferings.
Rousseau invokes the image of eternal power, gathering people to witness his confessions and expressing the profound impact of his revelations and their lessons for humanity. By asking others to “blush at my depravity and tremble at my sufferings,” he underscores the vulnerability and courage it takes to expose one’s imperfections and struggles. In doing so, Rousseau challenges readers to confront their moral shortcomings and recognize the shared human experience of suffering. His confessions serve as a mirror for the human condition, inspiring introspection, empathy, an awareness of the complexities of human nature, and the potential for growth and redemption.
28. Let each in his turn expose with equal sincerity the failings, the wanderings of his heart, and, if he dares, avers, I was better than that man.
Rousseau dares to aver, I was better than that man.” He challenged his readers to self-reflect and embrace radical honesty about their imperfections. By encouraging others to confront their own moral failings and shortcomings, Rousseau sought to promote a deeper understanding of the complexities and contradictions inherent in human nature. His call for sincerity and vulnerability creates a space for empathy and compassion, where individuals can recognize the shared human experience and avoid the pitfalls of self-righteousness and judgment. In essence, Rousseau asks readers to examine their hearts before they dare to claim moral superiority over others.
29. The more I study the works of men in their institutions, the more clearly I see that, in their efforts after independence, they become slaves, and their freedom is wasted in vain attempts to ensure its continuance.
Rousseau asserts that as individuals and societies strive to establish and maintain autonomy, they inadvertently create complex systems and structures that impose restrictions and limitations on their actions. Consequently, the mechanisms intended to secure freedom constrain it, highlighting the paradoxical nature of human attempts to achieve independence within social constructs. Rousseau’s observation serves as a critique of these institutions and calls for a reexamination of the means and methods employed to safeguard liberty and a reconsideration of the inherent trade-offs between individual freedom and collective governance.
30. That they may not be carried away by the flood of things, they form all sorts of attachments; then, as soon as they wish to move forward, they are surprised to find that everything drags them back.
Rousseau reflected on the tendency to seek stability and security by forming connections to people, objects, and ideas. However, these attachments can become obstacles to personal growth and progress, as they often create resistance to change and limit individual freedom. In highlighting this paradox, Rousseau exposes the complexities of human nature and the challenges we face in navigating the delicate balance between the desire for stability and the need for growth and evolution. His observation encourages introspection and self-awareness in assessing the impact of our attachments on our lives and our capacity for adaptation and progress.
31. To set oneself free, we must do nothing and only continue to desire freedom.
Rousseau emphasizes the importance of maintaining a strong and persistent desire for freedom as a means to achieve it. He claims that the key to liberation lies within the individual’s mindset and determination rather than focusing on external actions and efforts. By continually desiring and valuing freedom, one is more likely to recognize and resist the forces that constrain it, whether they stem from societal structures or one’s own attachments and habits. In this way, Rousseau highlights the power of internal resolve and the human spirit in pursuing personal autonomy and emancipation.
32. There is no subjection so perfect as that which keeps the appearance of freedom.
Rousseau pointed out the deceptive nature of certain forms of oppression masquerading as liberty. This subjugation is particularly insidious because it allows those in power to maintain control while giving the illusion of autonomy to those being controlled. By presenting the appearance of freedom, it becomes harder for individuals to recognize and challenge their oppression, as they may believe they are acting out of their own free will. Rousseau’s statement serves as a warning to be vigilant in discerning genuine freedom from false liberty, urging individuals to scrutinize the systems and institutions that govern their lives and to resist complacency in the face of subtle forms of domination.
33. Every man having been born free and master of himself, no one else may under any pretext whatever subject him without his consent. To assert that the son of a slave is born a slave is to assert that he is not born a man.
Rousseau emphasizes the innate freedom and sovereignty of every individual, arguing that no one should be subjected to the control of another without their consent. By stating that a person born into slavery is not considered to be truly born as a human being, he highlights the dehumanizing effect of such a condition. Rousseau challenges the notion that one’s birth circumstances should determine their status or worth, asserting that every person, regardless of their origins, has the fundamental right to be treated with dignity and respect. His words serve as a powerful critique of the institution of slavery and an appeal to recognize the inherent humanity and rights of all people, promoting a more just and equitable society.
34. Civilization is a hopeless race to discover remedies for the evils it produces.
Rousseau was expressing his skepticism about the progress brought about by civilization. He believed that while advances in society and technology might solve certain problems, they simultaneously introduce new challenges and unintended consequences. This creates a perpetual cycle where humanity seeks solutions to the issues it has inadvertently created through its own progress. His observation highlights the complex nature of civilization and human development, suggesting that pursuing progress might not always lead to unequivocal improvements in the human condition. It is essential to critically examine the true impact of our advancements.
35. The truth brings no man a fortune.
Rousseau highlighted that pursuing and speaking the truth is not always a path to material success or social acceptance. Individuals who challenge prevailing beliefs or expose inconvenient truths often face opposition, ridicule, or even persecution. This observation underscores the courage and integrity required to prioritize truth-telling over personal gain or societal approval. Rousseau’s statement serves as a reminder of the importance of intellectual honesty and the need for individuals to uphold the pursuit of truth, even in the face of potential personal sacrifice or hardship.
36. All my misfortunes come from having thought too well of my fellows.
Rousseau highlights the potential dangers of naiveté and the disappointment that can result from placing too much faith in the virtue of others. His statement serves as a cautionary tale, encouraging individuals to balance their belief in human goodness with a realistic understanding of the complexities and contradictions within human nature. In doing so, he invites readers to adopt a more nuanced and discerning approach to their relationships and interactions with others, guarding against the pitfalls of excessive trust or idealism.
37. Ordinary readers, forgive my paradoxes: one must make them when one reflects; whatever you say, I would rather be a man of paradoxes than prejudices.
Rousseau acknowledges that his ideas may seem unconventional or contradictory, but he defends their importance due to deep reflection and critical thinking. He argues that embracing paradoxes is preferable to adhering to unexamined prejudices, which often stem from blind acceptance of societal norms or conventional wisdom. By advocating for exploring paradoxical ideas, Rousseau encourages open-mindedness, intellectual curiosity, and the questioning of established beliefs, emphasizing the value of challenging assumptions and engaging in rigorous philosophical inquiry.
38. The world of reality has limits; the world of imagination is boundless.
Rousseau emphasizes the contrast between the constraints of the physical world and the limitless possibilities offered by the realm of human imagination. Reality is bound by the laws of nature, time, and space, while imagination is unrestricted, allowing for exploring ideas, dreams, and visions that transcend those boundaries. This distinction highlights the unique creative potential of the human mind and its ability to envision new possibilities, solutions, and innovations. Rousseau’s statement serves as a reminder of the power of imagination as a driving force for personal growth, societal progress, and the enrichment of human experience.
39. In truth, laws are always useful to those with possessions and harmful to those who have nothing, from which it follows that the social state is advantageous to men only when all possess something and none has too much.
Rousseau asserts that laws tend to protect the interests of the wealthy and powerful while often disadvantaging those who lack resources or influence. Consequently, he argues that a truly just and beneficial social state can only be achieved when resources and opportunities are distributed more equitably, ensuring that everyone has a stake in society and no individual or group possesses an excessive share of power or wealth. His statement calls for greater social justice, fairness, and a more balanced distribution of resources to create a society that benefits all its members.
40. There is nothing better than the encouragement of a good friend.
Rousseau wrote a good friend’s support and encouragement can inspire confidence, provide emotional strength, and help one overcome challenges or hardships. This statement emphasizes the importance of nurturing meaningful connections and cultivating relationships that uplift and motivate. Rousseau’s sentiment serves as a reminder of the essential role of interpersonal relationships in human well-being and personal growth, urging individuals to appreciate the significance of true friendship and its capacity to enrich our lives.
41. The noblest work in education is to make a reasoning man; we expect to train a young child by making him reason! This begins at the end, making an instrument of a result. If children understood how to reason, they would not need to be educated.
Rousseau argues that the ultimate goal of education is to develop a reasoning adult, but this process should not start by expecting children to reason like adults. Rather, education should be tailored to the child’s developmental stage, recognizing that their cognitive abilities and understanding will evolve over time. Rousseau affirms the importance of age-appropriate educational methods that nurture the natural development of a child’s reasoning capabilities instead of prematurely forcing them to think like adults. This perspective emphasizes the need for a more holistic and progressive approach to education, one that respects the innate capacities and unique developmental trajectories of each individual child.
42. Teach your scholar to observe the phenomena of nature; you will soon rouse his curiosity, but if you would have it grow, do not be in too great a hurry to satisfy this curiosity. Put the problems before him and let him solve them himself.
Rousseau advocates for allowing students to actively engage with their environment, ask questions, and explore problems independently rather than simply providing ready-made answers. By doing so, students develop critical thinking skills, creativity, and a deeper understanding of the subject matter. Rousseau’s perspective underscores the value of cultivating a sense of curiosity and a love for learning in students, as well as the significance of nurturing their ability to think for themselves and actively engage with the world in a meaningful and hands-on manner.
43. Let him know nothing because you have told him but because he has learned it himself.
Rousseau emphasized the importance of self-directed learning and experiential education. Rather than passively receiving knowledge from an authority figure, Rousseau believed that individuals should actively engage with the learning process, discovering and understanding concepts through their own experiences and efforts. This approach fosters a deeper comprehension of the subject matter and encourages critical thinking, problem-solving, and intellectual independence. His statement highlights the value of empowering learners to take ownership of their education and to develop the skills and resilience necessary to navigate the world on their own terms.
44. Let him not be taught science; let him discover it. If you substitute authority for a reason, he will cease to reason and be a mere plaything of other people’s thoughts.
Rousseau advocated an educational approach that values independent thinking and discovery above reliance on authority. By encouraging learners to actively engage with the subject matter and develop their understanding through their own exploration and reasoning, they are less likely to blindly accept information based on the authority of others. Rousseau’s perspective underscores the importance of fostering intellectual autonomy and critical thinking skills, which empowers individuals to evaluate and discern knowledge for themselves rather than becoming passive recipients of other people’s ideas and beliefs.
45. We should not teach children the sciences; but give them a taste.
Rousseau emphasizes the importance of sparking children’s natural curiosity and interest in learning rather than imposing a rigid or formal curriculum. He believes that exposing children to various subjects and experiences can inspire a genuine love for learning and discovery. This approach encourages children to explore their interests and passions, allowing them to develop their unique talents and abilities. Rousseau’s perspective highlights the value of nurturing a child’s innate curiosity and fostering a lifelong passion for learning rather than simply focusing on acquiring specific knowledge or skills through conventional education methods.
46. Among the many shortcuts to science, we badly need someone to teach us the art of learning with difficulty.
Rousseau avered that in an era where quick fixes and shortcuts are often sought, true understanding and mastery often require patience, persistence, and the willingness to grapple with complex concepts. Individuals develop resilience, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills essential for genuine intellectual growth by learning to embrace difficulty. Rousseau’s statement highlights the significance of cultivating a mindset that values effort and perseverance in pursuing knowledge rather than simply seeking easy solutions or superficial understanding.
47. Hold childhood in reverence, and do not be in any hurry to judge it for good or ill. Leave exceptional cases to show themselves and let their qualities be tested and confirmed before adopting special methods. Give nature time to work before you take over her business, lest you interfere with her dealings.
Rousseau emphasized the importance of respecting the natural development of children and allowing their unique qualities to emerge at their own pace. He advises against rushing to judge a child’s potential or imposing rigid educational methods and instead urges patience and observation. Rousseau’s statement underscores the significance of honoring the individuality of each child and allowing them the time and space to grow, learn, and flourish naturally without premature intervention or unrealistic expectations.
48. You assert that you know the value of time and are afraid to waste it. You fail to perceive that it is a greater waste of time to use it ill than to do nothing and that a child ill-taught is further from virtue than a child who has learned nothing.
Rousseau challenges the notion that being constantly occupied with activities is the best use of time, especially regarding education. He argues that engaging in misguided or harmful activities is worse than doing nothing. Specifically, he emphasizes the importance of proper education for children, stating that an ill-taught child is further from virtue than a child who hasn’t been taught anything. It reminds us that the quality of our actions and how we spend our time is more significant than merely being busy. It underscores the importance of thoughtful and effective education in fostering virtue and growth in children.
49. You are afraid to see him spending his early years doing nothing. What! Is it nothing to be happy, nothing to run and jump all day? He will never be so busy again all his life long. Plato, in his Republic, considered so stern, teaches the children only through festivals, games, songs, and amusements. It seems as if he had accomplished his purpose when he taught them to be happy;
Rousseau emphasizes allowing children to enjoy their early years, engage in play, and experience happiness. He challenges the notion that children must always be involved in structured educational activities, arguing that happiness and unstructured play have inherent value. Rousseau refers to Plato’s approach to education in his Republic, which incorporates festivals, games, songs, and amusements, suggesting that teaching children to be happy is a worthwhile goal in itself. He highlights that childhood is a unique and fleeting period of life and that nurturing happiness and encouraging play can be essential to a child’s overall development and well-being.
50. Seneca, speaking of the Roman lads in the olden days, says, “They were always on their feet; they were never taught anything which kept them sitting.” Were they any the worse for it in manhood? Do not be afraid, therefore, of this so-called idleness.
Rousseau questions whether this lack of structured, seated education negatively impacted their adulthood, implying that it did not. Rousseau uses this example to encourage a more relaxed approach to childhood education and to alleviate concerns about “idleness.” He highlights the importance of physical activity, exploration, and experiential learning in children’s development and emphasizes that different approaches to education can still lead to successful and well-rounded adults.
51. What would you think of a man who refused to sleep lest he should waste part of his life? You would say, “He is mad; he is not enjoying his life; he is robbing himself of part of it; to avoid sleep, he is hastening his death.” Remember that these two cases are alike and that childhood is the sleep of reason.
Rousseau suggests that one should not avoid sleep for fear of wasting life, and one should not deprive children of the joys and experiences of childhood to hasten their growth. Rousseau argues that, like sleep, childhood serves a crucial purpose in preparing individuals for a healthy and fulfilling adult life, and it should be valued and respected as such.
52. Those whose nature is destined to make her disciples do not need teachers. Bacon, Descartes, Newton — these tutors of the human race did not need tutors themselves, and what guides could have led them to those places where their vast genius carried them?
Rousseau pioneer in their respective fields, suggesting that their inherent genius allowed them to surpass the limitations of traditional education and reach groundbreaking discoveries. Rousseau’s point is that, for some individuals, their natural intellectual capacity and curiosity can drive them to achieve greatness without the constraints of conventional learning systems.
53. Ordinary teachers could only have limited their understanding by confining it to their narrow capabilities.
Rousseau thought that routine educational systems and teachers tend to have limited scope, knowledge, or understanding compared to the expansive intellect of these exceptional individuals. By trying to confine their learning to what ordinary teachers know, their potential might be restricted rather than nurtured. In essence, Rousseau suggests that for some gifted minds, the constraints of traditional education may limit their growth, stifling their creativity and innovation rather than helping them realize their full potential.
54. With the first obstacles, they learned to exert themselves and tried to traverse the immense space they moved through.
Rousseau emphasizes that some are driven to exert themselves and overcome these barriers. Instead of being discouraged by limitations, their curiosity and determination propel them to explore the vast expanse of knowledge and understanding beyond conventional boundaries. Rousseau’s point is that these extraordinary minds possess a unique ability to adapt, persevere, and thrive in adversity, using challenges as opportunities for growth and advancing human knowledge and progress.
55. If it is necessary to permit some men to devote themselves to the study of the sciences and the arts, that should be only for those who feel in themselves the power to walk alone in those men’s footsteps and to move beyond them. It is the task of this small number of people to raise monuments to the glory of the human mind.
Rousseau suggests that the pursuit of sciences and arts should be primarily reserved for those who possess exceptional intellectual abilities and the capacity to not only follow in the footsteps of great thinkers but also surpass them. These individuals have the potential to make significant advancements in their respective fields and contribute to human knowledge and progress. By focusing their efforts on their areas of expertise, they can raise monuments to the glory of the human mind, symbolizing the accomplishments and advancements that result from their dedication and talent. In essence, Rousseau encourages the nurturing of extraordinary minds to push the boundaries of human understanding and achievement.
56. Mandeville is aware that, with all their mores, men would never have been monsters if nature had not given them pity to aid their reason. Still, he has not seen that from this quality alone flow all the social virtues that he wants to deny in men.
Rousseau discusses the concept of pity as an essential quality that helps prevent humans from becoming monstrous. He refers to Mandeville’s recognition of pity’s importance in conjunction with reason, as it acts as a moral compass guiding human behavior. Rousseau argues that Mandeville fails to acknowledge that pity is the source of social virtues that he claims do not exist in humans. In essence, Rousseau believes pity plays a fundamental role in fostering empathy, compassion, and other social virtues, preventing humans from succumbing to their baser instincts and contributing to developing a morally responsible society.
57. In fact, what are generosity, mercy, and humanity, if not pity, applied to the weak, the guilty, or the human species in general. Benevolence and even friendship are, properly understood, the products of a constant pity fixed on a particular object; for is desiring that someone not suffer anything but desiring that he be happy?
Rousseau argues that these virtues are manifestations of pity applied to specific groups, such as the weak, the guilty, or humanity. Rousseau extends this idea to benevolence and friendship, suggesting they are rooted in a constant pity directed towards a particular individual. He highlights that the desire for others to be free from suffering is intrinsically linked to the desire for their happiness. In this way, Rousseau emphasizes the importance of compassion and empathy as the foundation for various moral and social virtues that bind people together and promote well-being.
58. I have entered upon a performance without example, whose accomplishment will have no imitator. I mean to present my fellow mortals with a man in all the integrity of nature, and this man shall be myself.
When directed towards the weak, the guilty, or humanity in general, Rousseau argues that pity manifests itself as these virtues, reflecting compassion and empathy for others. Benevolence and friendship, too, are born from a sustained sense of pity focused on a specific individual. Rousseau highlights that the core of these virtues lies in the desire for others to be free from suffering, which ultimately translates to the pursuit of happiness. Thus, he emphasizes the importance of pity in shaping moral values and fostering positive human relationships.
59. The social pact, far from destroying natural equality, substitutes, on the contrary, moral and lawful equality for whatever physical inequality that nature may have imposed on mankind; so that however unequal in strength and intelligence, men become equal by covenant and by right.
Rousseau explains that the social contract, or pact, establishes moral and lawful equality among individuals, counterbalancing the natural physical inequalities in strength or intelligence. By entering into this social contract, people agree to abide by rules and norms that ensure a level playing field for everyone, regardless of their natural abilities. As a result, individuals become equal in the eyes of the law and society, making the social pact an essential instrument for creating fairness, justice, and equal opportunities for all community members.
60. God (Nature, in my view) 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 himself, who must learn his paces like a saddle horse and be shaped to his master’s taste like the trees in his garden.
Rousseau suggests that everything created by God (or Nature) is inherently good, but human intervention often distorts and corrupts these creations. Humans manipulate the environment, force unnatural growth or production, and impose artificial constraints on both animals and fellow humans. They impose their preferences and desires onto the natural world, often resulting in deformity and destruction. Rousseau laments humanity’s disconnection from nature and the pursuit of artificial constructs, ultimately arguing that this interference disrupts the inherent goodness and balance of the natural world.
61. Absolute silence leads to sadness. It is the image of death.
Rousseau compares silence to the image of death, representing stillness, emptiness, and a lack of vibrancy or vitality. He suggests that silence can create isolation and disconnection, contributing to desolation and sorrow. Thus, he underscores the importance of sound, communication, and social interaction in fostering a sense of liveliness, connection, and emotional well-being.
62. My illusions about the world caused me to think that to benefit from my reading, I ought to possess all the knowledge the book presupposed. I was very far from imagining that the author often did not possess it himself but had extracted it from other books as and when he needed it.
Rousseau reflects on his early misconceptions and later realizes that authors often do not possess comprehensive knowledge of every subject they write about. Instead, they gather information from various sources as needed. This realization highlights that the learning process is iterative and that readers and authors continuously build their knowledge by engaging with different sources and perspectives rather than being all-knowing from the outset.
63. This foolish conviction forced me to stop every moment and to rush incessantly from one book to another; sometimes, before coming to the tenth page of the one I was trying to read, I should, by this extravagant method, have had to run through whole libraries. Nevertheless, I stuck to it so persistently that I wasted infinite time, and my head became so confused that I could hardly see or take in anything.
Rousseau describes his misguided approach to learning, which led him to constantly switch between books and attempt to consume vast amounts of information disorganizedly. As a result, he wasted a significant amount of time, and his mind became overwhelmed and unable to process the information effectively. Rousseau’s experience serves as a cautionary tale about the pitfalls of an overly exhaustive and unfocused approach to learning, emphasizing the importance of a more structured and systematic method to effectively absorb and retain knowledge.
64. In musing from morning until night without order or coherence and following everything the caprice of a moment.
Rousseau describes a pattern of thinking that is unstructured, disorganized, and dictated by the whims of the moment. He highlights a state of mind where thoughts wander aimlessly from one subject to another, driven by impulse rather than purposeful direction. Rousseau’s observation serves as a reminder of the importance of focused thinking and structured learning. By giving attention to a more organized and coherent approach to learning and contemplation, individuals can achieve deeper understanding and more effectively retain and apply the knowledge they acquire.
65. No evildoer could not be made suitable for something.
Rousseau contends that even evildoers can be redirected towards a positive purpose or guided to contribute meaningfully to society. This statement reflects Rousseau’s optimistic view of human nature, emphasizing the possibility of transformation and the inherent capacity for goodness in every person. It underscores the importance of providing opportunities for rehabilitation and personal growth rather than merely condemning or punishing those who have strayed from the right path.
66. I ask myself, “Who are you to measure infinite power?
Rousseau questions the audacity of humans attempting to comprehend or measure the infinite power of a higher being, such as God or the forces of nature. He highlights the limitations of human understanding and the inherent arrogance in assuming that we can fully grasp the extent of such omnipotent forces. His statement serves as a reminder of the importance of humility and the recognition that there are aspects of existence beyond the scope of human comprehension. It encourages individuals to acknowledge and respect the vastness and complexity of the universe rather than presuming to have complete knowledge or understanding of all its intricacies.
67. Every artist wants to be applauded.
Rousseau observes that regardless of their discipline, artists seek recognition and validation for their work. He acknowledges the human desire for praise and appreciation, especially regarding creative expression. Artists invest time, effort, and emotion into their craft, and the applause they receive affirms their talent and the impact their work has on others. Rousseau’s statement emphasizes the importance of encouragement and support in fostering artistic growth and nurturing the creative spirit, as it validates the artist’s efforts and contributes to their motivation and inspiration to continue creating.
68. To live is not to breathe but to act.
Rousseau asserts that the essence of life goes beyond mere biological existence or the act of breathing. Instead, he emphasizes that life is defined by our actions, the choices we make, and the impact we have on the world around us. To truly live, one must engage with life actively, pursue goals, and contribute to society or personal growth. His statement encourages individuals to take charge of their lives, seek purpose, and embrace experiences that foster growth and enrich their existence rather than merely existing passively.
69. It is to use our organs, senses, faculties, and all the parts of ourselves that give us the sentiment of our existence.
Rousseau emphasized the importance of living a life rooted in our natural instincts and abilities. By engaging with our senses and faculties, we develop a deeper connection to ourselves and the world around us. Rousseau believed that when we fully engage with our inherent qualities, we can achieve a sense of wholeness and authenticity. This sentiment of existence helps us understand our place in the world and nurtures our capacity for personal growth and self-realization, which is essential for living a fulfilling and meaningful life.
70. The man who has lived the most is not he who has counted the most years but he who has most felt life.
Rousseau emphasized the value of truly experiencing life rather than merely living through time. According to Rousseau, a fulfilling life is not measured by the number of years one has lived but by the depth and quality of the experiences that make up those years. To truly live, individuals should immerse themselves in their emotions, passions, and experiences, fully embracing life’s joys and sorrows. This authentic engagement with life allows a person to attain a profound sense of fulfillment and understanding, transcending the mere passage of time.
71. I know my heart and have studied mankind; I am not made like anyone I have been acquainted with, perhaps like no one in existence; if not better, I at least claim originality,
Rousseau was asserting his self-awareness and emphasizing the unique nature of his individuality. Rousseau recognized that he had a distinct perspective and understanding of humanity, which set him apart from others. By acknowledging this, he embraced his originality and his differences from those around him. In doing so, Rousseau encouraged others to recognize and celebrate their individuality rather than conforming to societal norms or expectations. This idea reflects Rousseau’s broader philosophy that happiness and fulfillment are found in being true to oneself and honoring one’s unique qualities and experiences.
72. The only moral lesson suited for a child–the most important lesson for every time of life–is this: ‘Never hurt anybody.
Rousseau wrote to teach children not to inflict harm upon others; they learn to respect the feelings and well-being of those around them. This lesson, according to Rousseau, is not only foundational for children but also remains relevant throughout one’s entire life. He believed a society built on this basic moral principle would foster cooperation, understanding, and harmony among its members, ultimately leading to a more just and compassionate world.
73. What good would it be to possess the whole universe if one were its only survivor?
Rousseau thought that material wealth or power is meaningless if completely isolated from others. The value of those possessions and accomplishments is significantly diminished without the ability to share our experiences, emotions, and achievements with others. This sentiment reflects his belief in the innate social nature of human beings, emphasizing that our sense of fulfillment and happiness is intrinsically linked to our connections with others and our place within a community.
74. A child who passes through many hands can never be well brought up. At every change, he makes a secret comparison, which continually tends to lessen his respect for those who control him and their authority over him.
Rousseau emphasized the importance of consistency and stability in a child’s upbringing. As a child is exposed to different caregivers or authority figures, they may begin to compare and contrast their experiences, which can lead to a diminished respect for authority in general. He believed that a stable and consistent environment, with a limited number of caregivers, fosters a sense of trust and respect in children. This, in turn, allows them to develop a healthy understanding of authority and guidance, which is crucial for their personal growth and social development.
75. If once he thinks there are grown-up people with no more sense than children, the authority of age is destroyed, and his education is ruined.
Rousseau believed that maintaining the authority of age was crucial for a child’s proper education and development. When a child perceives that grown-up people have no more sense than children, they may start to question and challenge the authority of their elders. This undermines the foundational respect children should have for the wisdom and experience of adults, which is necessary for their guidance and learning. When the authority of age is destroyed, it becomes difficult for the child to absorb the lessons and values imparted to them, ultimately jeopardizing their overall education and social development.
76. Once you teach people to say what they do not understand, it is easy enough to get them to say anything you like.
Rousseau was warning against the dangers of encouraging superficial knowledge or blind obedience. By teaching individuals to parrot ideas or concepts they do not truly grasp, they become susceptible to manipulation and indoctrination. Without a deep understanding of the information they are presenting, people are more likely to accept and propagate ideas that may be harmful or misguided. He emphasizes the importance of fostering critical thinking, genuine comprehension, and independent thought, as these qualities enable individuals to resist manipulation and contribute meaningfully to intellectual and societal discourse.
77. …there is no real advance in human reason, for what we gain in one direction we lose in another; for all minds start from the same point, and as the time spent in learning what others have thought is so much time lost in learning to think for ourselves, we have more acquired knowledge and less vigor of the mind. Our minds, like our arms, are accustomed to using tools for everything and doing nothing for themselves.
Rousseau highlights the trade-off between acquiring knowledge and developing one’s critical thinking abilities. While it is important to learn from others, he believed that an overemphasis on accumulating external knowledge could hinder our capacity to think independently and creatively. In his view, true intellectual progress requires a balance between understanding the ideas of others and cultivating our own mental vigor through independent thought and exploration. By relying too heavily on the “tools” provided by others, we risk stifling our own intellectual growth and potential.
78. Man’s first law is to watch over his own preservation; his first care he owes to himself; and as soon as he reaches the age of reason, he becomes the only judge of the best means to preserve himself; he becomes his own master.
Rousseau, from the moment a person reaches the age of reason, they are responsible for their own well-being and decision-making. Through their personal experiences and understanding, he believed that individuals are best suited to make choices that will benefit their own lives. This notion underscores Rousseau’s broader philosophy of individual autonomy, self-determination, and the intrinsic value of personal agency in shaping one’s destiny.
79. Teach him to live rather than to avoid death: life is not breath, but action, the use of our senses, our mind, our faculties, every part of ourselves which makes us conscious of our being. Life consists less in the length of days than in the keen sense of living.
Rousseau wrote life consists less in the length of days than in the keen sense of living. He emphasizes the importance of fully engaging in life and experiencing its richness rather than merely trying to prolong one’s existence. To Rousseau, life is about action, using our senses, and fully exercising our mental and physical faculties. Through these experiences, we become conscious of our existence and derive meaning and purpose.
80. More than half of my life is past; I have left only the time I need to turn the rest of it to account and effacing my errors with my virtues.
Rousseau expressed a sense of urgency and determination to make the most of the remaining years of his life. Recognizing that a significant portion of his life had already passed, Rousseau was resolved to use the time he had left to pursue personal growth, learn from his mistakes, and cultivate his virtues. This statement reflects the importance of self-improvement and redemption and the belief that it is never too late to change and strive for a more authentic, fulfilling existence. Rousseau’s sentiment encourages individuals to take charge of their lives, actively work on their shortcomings, and seek to make a positive impact through their actions and character.
81. However great a man’s natural talent may be, the act of writing cannot be learned all at once.
Rousseau emphasized that writing requires time, practice, and dedication, even for those with innate talent. Writing, as a complex and nuanced form of expression, cannot be mastered instantly. Rousseau’s statement underscores the importance of persistence, patience, and continuous effort in refining one’s writing abilities. By acknowledging that writing is a craft that must be honed over time, he encourages individuals to engage in learning with humility and determination, recognizing that improvement comes through consistent practice and the gradual accumulation of experience.
82. My love for imaginary objects and my facility in lending myself to them ended by disillusioning me with everything around me and determined that love of solitude I have retained since then.
Rousseau expressed how his affinity for fantasy and imagination caused a disconnection from the real world, ultimately leading him to seek solace in solitude. By immersing himself in the realm of imagination, Rousseau found the reality around him less satisfying and fulfilling, creating a sense of disillusionment. This disconnection fostered a preference for solitude, where he could continue to explore his imaginative world without the constraints or disappointments of everyday life. This statement reflects Rousseau’s deep engagement with his inner life and the role of imagination as both an escape and a source of personal fulfillment.
83. If men needed speech to learn to think, they still needed to know how to think to discover the art of speaking.
Rousseau highlights the intricate and reciprocal relationship between thought and language. While language is essential for developing and refining our ability to think, the process of thinking enables us to create and use language effectively. Rousseau emphasizes the importance of cultivating cognitive and linguistic skills, as they are interconnected and mutually reinforcing. By recognizing the complexity of this relationship, Rousseau underscores the significance of nurturing both aspects in the pursuit of effective communication, intellectual growth, and a deep understanding of the world around us.
84. The real world has limits; the imaginary world is infinite. Unable to enlarge the one, let us restrict the other, for it is from the difference between the two alone that are born all the pains which make us truly unhappy.
Rousseau emphasized balancing our engagement with reality and our imaginative pursuits. He acknowledged that the real world has inherent limitations, while the imaginary world offers boundless possibilities. However, allowing our imagination to run unchecked can create a vast chasm between our expectations and reality, leading to dissatisfaction and unhappiness. He suggests that, rather than attempting to change the unalterable constraints of the real world, we should temper our imagination to better align our desires and expectations with what is realistically achievable. This balance is crucial for avoiding the discontent arising from the disparity between our imagined ideals and the actual circumstances of our lives.
85. Our wisdom is slavish prejudice. Our customs consist of control, constraint, and compulsion.
Rousseau wrote the so-called wisdom of society is frequently rooted in prejudiced beliefs, which perpetuate conformity and submissiveness. He argued that customs often regulate and control individuals, constraining their behavior and beliefs. His statement highlights the importance of questioning established norms and traditions and the need to resist the pressures of conformity to cultivate true autonomy and personal growth. By challenging the restrictive nature of societal customs, Rousseau sought to promote the development of authentic, free-thinking individuals who could pursue their own paths and contribute meaningfully to the betterment of society.
86. A civilized man is born and dies as a slave.
Rousseau’s view, the social structures, norms, and expectations of a civilized society impose numerous limitations on personal autonomy, effectively enslaving individuals to these conventions from birth until death. This statement reflects Rousseau’s belief that humans in their natural state, free from the artificial constraints of civilization, enjoy a greater degree of liberty and authenticity.
87. I don’t know how this lively and dumb scene would have ended or how long I might have remained immovable in this ridiculous and delightful situation had we not been interrupted.
Rousseau described a moment of uncertainty, humor, and enjoyment that was disrupted by an external interruption. This statement captures a sense of playfulness and highlights the unpredictable nature of human experiences. He also emphasizes the fleeting and ephemeral quality of such moments, which often end abruptly or unexpectedly. By recalling the pleasure he found in this absurd and amusing situation, Rousseau invites readers to reflect on the simple joys of life, even during uncertain or peculiar circumstances.
88. The savage man, for want of wisdom and reason, always responds recklessly to the first promptings of human feeling.
Rousseau thought the “savage man” lacked the social conditioning and intellectual development that moderate emotional reactions in a civilized society. As a result, their actions are driven primarily by raw emotions and instincts, without the constraints and deliberation that typically characterize civilized behavior. This statement highlights his exploration of the fundamental differences between humans in their natural state and those shaped by societal influences and the ongoing debate surrounding the balance between instinct and reason in human nature.
89. The ever-recurring law of necessity soon teaches a man to do what he does not like to avert evils that he would dislike still more… this foresight, well or ill-used, is the source of all the wisdom or the wretchedness of mankind.
Rousseau emphasized the role of necessity in shaping human decision-making and the importance of foresight in determining our overall well-being. He suggests that driven by necessity, individuals often endure lesser discomforts to avoid greater suffering. However, the ability to anticipate and weigh potential outcomes can lead to either wisdom or misery, depending on how effectively it is employed. Rousseau’s statement highlights the significance of prudent decision-making and the careful consideration of future consequences, as these skills can profoundly influence our happiness and well-being.
90. How could I become wicked when I had nothing but examples of gentleness before my eyes and none around me but the best people in the world?
Rousseau emphasized the influence of one’s environment and the people within it on the development of moral character. He believed that individuals are deeply shaped by the examples and behaviors they observe in those around them. In this statement, he suggests that being surrounded by kind, gentle, and morally upstanding individuals can foster the development of similar virtues in oneself. By highlighting the importance of positive role models and a nurturing environment, Rousseau underscores the impact of social and relational factors on cultivating personal morality and ethical behavior.
91. Hatred, as well as love, renders its votaries credulous.
Rousseau considered love and hatred powerful emotions that can lead individuals to overlook rationality and be more easily swayed by their feelings. This statement highlights the need for self-awareness and critical thinking in the face of emotional influence and the importance of recognizing how emotions can impact our perceptions and beliefs. By understanding the potential biases introduced by love and hatred, individuals can strive for a more balanced and objective evaluation of the world around them.
92. Europe had fallen back into the barbarity of the first ages. People from this part of the world, so enlightened today, lived a few centuries ago in a state worse than ignorance. Some sort of learned jargon, much more despicable than ignorance, had usurped the name of knowledge and set up an almost invincible obstacle in the way of its return. A revolution was necessary to bring men back to common sense, and it finally came from a quarter where one would least expect it. The stupid Muslim, the eternal blight on learning, brought about its rebirth among us.
Rousseau viewed modern Europe as a regression to a more primitive state. In this context, he ironically refers to Muslims, often seen as enemies of learning by Europeans, as the catalyst for the revival of knowledge in Europe. Rousseau was alluding to the role of Islamic scholars in preserving and transmitting the works of ancient Greek and Roman philosophers during the European Dark Ages, which contributed to the eventual emergence of the Renaissance. This statement challenges the prevailing negative perceptions of Muslims at the time. It emphasizes the interconnectedness of human knowledge, suggesting that the intellectual progress of one culture can have profound and unexpected impacts on others.
93. Since men cannot create new forces but merely combine and control those which already exist, the only way in which they can preserve themselves is by uniting their separate powers in a combination strong enough to overcome any resistance, uniting them so that their powers are directed by a single motive and act in concert.
Rousseau asserts that human beings, being unable to create new forces, must collaborate to survive and thrive in the face of challenges. By pooling their capabilities and resources, they can create a unified force with greater strength and resilience than anyone could muster alone. Rousseau emphasizes the importance of aligning individual motives and directing collective power towards a common goal, allowing for harmonious cooperation and overcoming obstacles. This idea is a central theme in his political philosophy, underpinning his concept of the social contract, where individuals relinquish some personal autonomy in exchange for the benefits of an organized society.
94. All our wisdom consists of servile prejudices. All our practices are only subjection, impediment, and constraint. Civil man is born, lives, and dies in slavery. At his birth, he is sewed in swaddling clothes; at his death, he is nailed in a coffin. So long as he keeps his human shape, he is enchained by our institutions.
Rousseau argues that conventional wisdom is often rooted in blind obedience to societal norms rather than true understanding or independent thought. Rousseau posits that civil society, with its rules and structures, ultimately confines individuals, likening them to slaves subjected to servitude. He uses vivid imagery of swaddling clothes and coffins to emphasize the ever-present nature of these constraints throughout a person’s life. By highlighting the oppressive aspects of societal norms and institutions, Rousseau underscores his belief in the importance of personal freedom and the intrinsic value of the individual’s natural state.
95. I open the books on Rights and on ethics; I listen to the professors and jurists; and, my mind full of their seductive doctrines, I admire the peace and justice established by the civil order; I bless the wisdom of our political institutions and, knowing myself a citizen, cease to lament I am a man. Thoroughly instructed about my duties and happiness, I close the book, step out of the lecture room, and look around me. I see wretched nations groaning beneath a yoke of iron. I see mankind ground down by a handful of oppressors; I see a famished mob, worn down by sufferings and famine, while the rich drink the blood and tears of their victims at their ease. I see on every side the strong-armed with the terrible powers of the Law against the weak.
Rousseau acknowledges that the theories and doctrines presented in academia paint a picture of peace, justice, and happiness, which momentarily soothe his concerns about the human condition. However, once he enters the real world, he is confronted with the stark contrast between society’s theoretical and actual state. Rousseau observes oppression, inequality, and exploitation, with the powerful using institutions designed to protect justice and equality to subjugate and prey upon the weak. This critique underscores Rousseau’s skepticism toward the effectiveness of established political systems and his belief in addressing their inherent flaws and injustices.
96. And all this is done quietly and without resistance. It is the peace of Ulysses and his comrades, imprisoned in the Cyclops’ cave and waiting their turn to be devoured. We must groan and be silent. Let us forever draw a veil of oversight so terrible. I lift my eyes and look to the horizon. I see fire and flame, the fields laid waste, the towns put to sack. Monsters! Where are you dragging the hapless wretches? I hear a hideous noise. What a tumult and what cries! I draw near; before me lies a scene of the murder, ten thousand slaughtered, the dead piled in heaps, the dying trampled under foot by horses, on every side the image of death and the throes of death. And that is the fruit of your peaceful institutions! Indignation and pity rise from the very bottom of my heart. Yes, heartless philosopher! Come and read us your book on a field of battle!
Rousseau compares the situation to the story of Ulysses and his comrades, trapped in the Cyclops’ cave, awaiting their own doom. Rousseau points out that people accept their dire circumstances without resistance, as if they have no choice. He then vividly describes scenes of war and destruction, questioning the true efficacy of peaceful institutions that maintain order and stability. With a tone of indignation and pity, Rousseau challenges the philosophers who preach peace and harmony to confront the brutal realities of human conflict and examine how their theories hold up in the face of such atrocities. This passage reflects Rousseau’s critique of the disconnect between theoretical ideals and real-world suffering and his call for a more honest and empathetic examination of the human condition.
97. Though it may be the peculiar happiness of Socrates and other geniuses of his stamp, to reason themselves into virtue, the human species would long ago have ceased to exist had it depended entirely for its preservation on the reasonings of the individuals that compose it.
Rousseau acknowledges that exceptional individuals like Socrates may have been able to reason their way into a virtuous behavior. Still, he emphasizes that this is not the norm for most people. He contends that if the survival of the human species had relied solely on each person’s capacity for rational deliberation, it would have perished long ago. Rousseau’s statement underscores the importance of recognizing the limitations of human reason and the need for other factors, such as emotions, instincts, and social connections, to help guide individuals toward virtue and ensure the continuation of the species. This perspective reflects Rousseau’s broader belief in the significance of understanding human nature holistically and accounting for the complex interplay between reason, emotion, and social influences when considering human behavior and morality.
98. Girls should learn that so much finery is only put on to hide defects and that the triumph of beauty is to shine by itself.
Rousseau addresses the societal pressures on women to conform to beauty standards through adornments and finery. He suggests that such embellishments often conceal perceived flaws or imperfections, implying that true beauty lies in one’s natural appearance. Rousseau argues that the ultimate victory for beauty is when it can stand on its own without the need for artificial enhancements. His statement reflects his broader beliefs about the importance of embracing one’s natural state and rejecting the superficial trappings of society, which can distort genuine human qualities and values. This perspective aligns with Rousseau’s overarching philosophy, emphasizing the need to return to a more authentic and uncorrupted understanding of human nature.
99. What do these statues signify, these paintings, these buildings? You mad people, what have you done? You, masters of nations, have you turned yourself into the slaves of the frivolous men you conquered? Are you now governed by rhetoricians? Were you soaking Greece and Asia with your blood to enrich architects, painters, sculptors, and comic actors? Are the spoils of Carthage trophies for a flute player? Romans, hurry up and tear down these amphitheaters, break up these marbles, burn these paintings, chase out these slaves who are subjugating you, whose fatal arts corrupt you. … What, then, did Cineas see that was so majestic?
Rousseau critiques the misplaced priorities and values of powerful societies that become enslaved by the superficial allure of art, architecture, and other forms of material culture. He questions the rationale behind conquering nations and spilling blood only to indulge in frivolous pursuits and elevate the status of artists and performers. Rousseau calls on the Romans to reject these superficial trappings, which he sees as corrupting and enslaving, and to return to their true essence as a strong and virtuous society. He concludes by questioning what Cineas, a Greek statesman and philosopher, found majestic in such a society consumed by materialistic desires. This critique reflects Rousseau’s broader philosophy that emphasizes the need for a more authentic and uncorrupted understanding of human nature, free from the distractions and detrimental influences of materialism and superficial pursuits.
100. O citizens! He saw a spectacle that your riches or your arts could never produce. This most beautiful sight has ever appeared under heaven, an assembly of two hundred virtuous men worthy of commanding in Rome and governing the earth.
Rousseau asserts that true greatness and beauty lie not in material possessions or artistic achievements but in the collective virtue of a society’s citizens. He praises the sight of a gathering of virtuous individuals, describing it as the most magnificent spectacle one could ever witness. Rousseau suggests that such an assembly of morally upright people, capable of leading Rome and governing the world, holds more value than any display of wealth or artistic accomplishment. This perspective is consistent with his broader philosophy that emphasizes embracing one’s natural state, fostering virtue, and focusing on developing moral character rather than indulging in superficial pursuits or seeking material wealth.
101. In order not to find myself in contradiction with myself, I should be allowed enough time to explain myself.
Rousseau reflects on his awareness of the complexity and nuance of his thoughts and the necessity for clear communication to ensure accurate understanding. His admission also reveals his commitment to intellectual honesty and coherence as he strives to prevent any misconceptions or misinterpretations of his ideas by allowing himself the necessary space and time to expound upon them fully. This approach underscores his value of thoughtful discourse and the pursuit of truth, integral to his broader philosophical outlook.
102. Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong.
Rousseau suggests that when people cannot defend their position using reason or evidence, they often turn to derogatory remarks to undermine their opponents. His observation underscores the importance of engaging in respectful and intellectually honest discourse, focusing on the merits of discussing the ideas rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks. This perspective aligns with his broader philosophical beliefs, emphasizing the pursuit of truth and the value of rational and informed debate in fostering understanding and progress.
103. Whoever blushes is already guilty; true innocence is ashamed of nothing.
Rousseau asserts that genuinely innocent people have nothing to be ashamed of and will not exhibit signs of guilt. This statement emphasizes Rousseau’s belief in the importance of authenticity and sincerity in human behavior and the notion that true innocence is marked by a sense of transparency and openness. The quote also reflects his broader philosophical ideas about the value of embracing one’s natural state and the significance of understanding human nature in its purest form.
104. Religious persecutors are not believers; they are rascals.
Rousseau asserts that true religious faith should promote tolerance, understanding, and respect for others, rather than fostering division and hatred. By labeling religious persecutors as “rascals,” Rousseau condemns their actions and discredits their claims to piety. His statement reflects his broader philosophical beliefs about the importance of compassion, empathy, and social harmony and his criticism of the misuse of religion as a tool for manipulation and control.
105. Take from the philosopher the pleasure of being heard, and his desire for knowledge ceases.
Rousseau suggests that if this pleasure were removed, the philosopher’s pursuit of knowledge would diminish or cease altogether. This statement highlights the role of external validation and the human need for acknowledgment in pursuing intellectual endeavors. Rousseau’s observation serves as a critique of the potentially self-serving nature of intellectual pursuits and a reminder to remain aware of one’s true motives when seeking knowledge. This perspective aligns with his broader philosophical ideas, emphasizing the importance of authenticity and sincerity in personal and intellectual matters.
106. To endure is the first thing a child should learn and that he will most need to know.
Rousseau emphasizes that the ability to endure hardships and overcome adversity is a fundamental life skill individuals will require. By highlighting the significance of this lesson, Rousseau underscores the necessity for cultivating mental and emotional strength in children, which will enable them to face life’s challenges with courage and determination. This perspective is consistent with his broader educational philosophy, which advocates for a holistic approach to personal development that prepares individuals for the complexities and uncertainties of the world they will encounter as adults.
107. No true believer could be intolerant or a persecutor. If I were a magistrate and the law carried the death penalty against atheists, I would begin by sending to the stake whoever denounced another.
Rousseau emphasizes that true religious conviction should foster understanding, compassion, and tolerance rather than promoting hatred or division. By stating that, if he were a magistrate, he would punish those who denounced others for their beliefs, Rousseau highlights his commitment to protecting religious freedom and condemning persecution. His statement reflects his broader philosophical stance that emphasizes the importance of empathy, social harmony, and respect for individual beliefs and liberties while rejecting intolerance and oppression.
108. I undertake the same project as Montaigne, but with an aim contrary to his own: he wrote his Essays only for others, and I write my reveries only for myself.
Rousseau contrasts his intentions with those of Montaigne, who wrote his Essays primarily for the benefit of others, sharing his thoughts and observations with the public; Rousseau asserts that his purpose in writing his reveries is entirely personal. He intends to engage in self-reflection and introspection, exploring his thoughts and emotions for his own understanding and growth. This statement highlights Rousseau’s emphasis on the importance of self-discovery and personal authenticity, as well as the value of examining one’s inner life without the influence or judgment of others. This perspective aligns with his broader philosophical ideas, which encourage individuals to embrace their natural state and seek a deeper understanding of their own human nature.
43. Let him know nothing because you have told him but because he has learned it himself.
A child discovers something never seen by another human being.
3 1/4 years ago, on August 6, 2019, I posted that World population was in line for a crash. The driving factor for the crash was that world population was very large and doubling so fast that there would be an overshoot of the ability to feed living people. There is a list of 11 reasons the food supply will be difficult to maintain, even at year 1 CE population levels. At that time, there were approximately 0.2 billion people, and now there are 8 billion, which is sixteen times as many people. Even in Classic Roman times, the population was pushing the ability of farmers to supply enough food, and there was a balance of people and available food. People without food simply died. The problem for modern times is that we are feeding our huge population with food created by a high-tech society based on fossil fuels. The Green Revolution will provide us with a temporary alternative if it can be fully implemented in a generation, but only with the absolute cooperation of every independent political and economic entity in the world and there needs to be population stabilization, but both of those human activities are unlikely. My generation created four times as much food, and we are planning for that trend to continue for a while longer.
I guess I haven’t been my usual chipper self since reading The Uninhabitable Earth – Life After Warming by David Wallace-Wells and then large doses of The Next Million Years by Charles Galton Darwin. Both of these books are an analysis of the existential relationship of the human species and obvious problems that will soon confront us with oblivion. Both are logical assessments of the future and both state clearly that a shortage of food is the limiting factor, as Thomas Malthus’s theorythat population expands to its food supply stated more than two hundred years ago. Wallace-Wells states it as approaching because of climate warming ruining crop production. But that serious problems are already upon us and will during the life expectancy of children now living become unendurable. Darwin, writing in 1952, wasn’t that grim, but stated that a margin of starving people was the natural human state. Strangely, Darwin didn’t discuss atomic warfare, even though he was a major player in the Manhattan project to create the first atomic bombs.
World Population history estimates from 70,000 years ago until 2025.
I made this World Population History Smoothed five years ago and the slope hasn’t changed appreciably. It is wonderful that our planet is now feeding so many people, but the return to the natural condition that Darwin says is the natural state of man will come within the next doubling of population. The problem with that projection is that the world population doubled in fifty years from 1925 to 1975, and is on course to double again in fifty years from 1975 to 2025 because the birth rate is about the same as it was, but with a much larger population. If the pollution-created warming continues, and much of that warming is already inevitable, the food supply will fall. When that happens, there will be incredible efforts to save one’s, own national group. And some of those national groups have atomic weapons.
If Doomsday repeats itself, there will be repeated drops.
The destruction of food creation happens in several ways in this scenario: 1. destruction of existing food supplies located in cities, along with the people in those cities; 2. destruction of the distribution of food chains to bring food from supply depots to the people; 3. heavy overcast from dust in the air preventing the crops already in the fields from maturing; 4. lack of distribution of seed for next year’s crops; 5. lack of fuel for transportation to bring seeds and fertilizers to the areas where they can be used; 6. lack of fuel to operate the farm equipment which is needed to plant, plow, cultivate and harvest the crops; 7. infestations of insects which, without insecticides, will eat what few crops are available; 8. lack of skilled farmers to operate the equipment; 9. lack of knowledge of where and how to distribute what crops are available because of lack of infrastructure; 10. continuing hostilities and threat of new hostilities and problems of local organized and unorganized hostilities; 11. and the unknown unknowns and the unknowable unknowns, which will probably bring on the worst problems.
The use of even a few of those weapons will not only kill many people but will greatly disrupt the agriculture needed to create any food at all, and the world population might drop back to “Biblical levels.” That sounds impossible, but consider how difficult it will be to create food when fields can’t be used because there is no fuel to plow and harvest and no fuel to get what is created to where you live. Our food supply is nearly impossible to create without the use of fossil fuels. On top of which, try raising your own food with overcast skies and no seed stock, and nothing but human labor to do the work.
A history of major war deaths is shown on a logarithmic chart.
World famine 1860 to 2016 from ourworldindata.org
If you are reading this, be thankful that of the billions of years the universe existed, you got to live and participate in the good times for a while.
Then after the BIG EVENT, (BE) the living people will eat the existing food before a new crop can be created and harvested. Because of the problems listed above, creating fresh food will be very difficult, and the population will drop well below the 1 CE level of 0.2 billion. The event will be so prominent that the calendar may be revised to Before Big Event (BBE) and After Big Event (ABE).
Steven Pinker (1954 – ) is a Canadian-born American experimental psychologist, cognitive scientist, linguist, now at Harvard University. The faithful are apt to react to unbelief with rage and may try to eliminate that affront to everything that makes their lives meaningful.
Steven Pinker
Probaway Maximizing on Steven Pinker
1. When you expose a man’s indefensible beliefs you challenge his dignity, social standing, and power, and make his life meaningless; therefore, expect that he will react toward you with a murderous rage.
2. When you convince a living human being he holds an eternal essence inside with no externally visible reality, it becomes easier to steal his attention and time.
3. Humans understanding how natural reality works and how to use these understandings to help all living things thrive is as good as good gets.
4. Modern egalitarians denounce low-life people who subsist on fast food, public TV, and social media while these upscale twits travel to distant spas for turtle soup.
5. When you give humans unlimited power to do as they please, they behave like gods and eventually create misery for everyone.
6. Morality is based on maximizing cooperation between humans, so each person can have more than they give.
7. Our minds evolved to cope with problems that no longer exist, like using our free time for storytelling and making things beautiful.
8. Performers, or anyone else who can lead you to believe absurdities, can convince you to commit atrocities.
9. In hindsight, natural selection has a dual function, to adapt both genes and their resultant reproductive bodies to each of their past environments.
10. From the universe’s perspective, every instant everywhere is perfect, but from a man’s perspective, it’s a mess.
11. Because humans have evolved a communication ability, it isn’t essential that two people need the same language to communicate.
12. No two people are the same, but all dollars have the same value, so it is possible for diverse people to exchange disparate goods using dollars.
COMMENTS
Since one cannot defend a belief based on faith by persuading skeptics it is true, the faithful are apt to react to unbelief with rage, and may try to eliminate that affront to everything that makes their lives meaningful. When a society is dominated by a single belief system an individual may not raise his voice in opposition without risking ostracism and death. Therefore, it is essential to maintain a multiplicity of different and opposing sub-groups to maintain basic freedom of speech. This will result in endless sub-lethal conflict, but it will maintain the health of the greater society.
The doctrine of the sacredness of the soul sounds vaguely uplifting, but in fact, is highly malignant. It discounts life on earth as just a temporary phase that people pass through, indeed, an infinitesimal fraction of their existence…the gradual replacement of lives for souls as the locus of moral value was helped along by the ascendancy of skepticism and reason.In my decades of living in Berkeley, California I never heard anyone, except some Scientologists, talk seriously about believing in permanent souls, but here in Bend, Oregon it is not an uncommon statement. I agree with Pinker that it is a malignant belief, because it cuts a person off from relating directly with the reality they physically live within, and they suffer a lesser level of happiness in this physical world.
Morality, then, is not a set of arbitrary regulations dictated by a vengeful deity and written down in a book; nor is it the custom of a particular culture or tribe. It is a consequence of the interchangeability of perspectives and the opportunity the world provides for positive-sum games. The classic religious stories have an appalling amount of ugly violence, and people who subject themselves to reading an abundance of these stories can’t help but integrate them into their living habits. Those horrible stories embedded in their subconscious can’t help but generate fear and thus a shutting down of flexibility of thought, and thus these stories promote an inflexible relationship with their world.
in 1977, which was a multi-year effort to understand why people behave as they do when it comes to wars and mass murder. I added the last line to my rendering of The Art of War which became the words quoted in the best seller 
by Pamela McCorduck. “Spies are the most important element in preserving the health of the people, because on them depends the ability to see and to know what is really happening and thus to act properly.”
by Matthew White is a book that must be read by every human being, because it demonstrates just how much at risk we humans are to the behavior of other humans. The book limits the atrocities to the deadliest one hundred, and that makes a general cut-off point of about three hundred thousand deaths directly attributable to human intention. Remote famines, diseases like plagues, and flus that killed millions were not listed in the atrocities even though they were exacerbated by them. Even the Black Death of 1347, which killed one-third of all Europeans and was directly caused by Genghis Khan’s son tossing plague victims into the walled port cities in the Crimea, wasn’t counted. Obviously all of the body counts of these conflicts have an element of arbitrariness in accuracy, but in general the rank order of the atrocities is close.
Probaway - Life Hacks 