Talk:Jean-Jacques Rousseau

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jean-Jacques Rousseau article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

Additional information: ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images. The following comments have been left for this page: needs inline citations plange 03:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC) (edit)

---

	France Portal Jean-Jacques Rousseau is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France and Monaco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

This article is part of WikiProject Alternative education, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to Alternative education. For guidelines see the project page and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
Core	This article is listed on this Project's core biographies page.

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Switzerland and Liechtenstein on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Philrelig article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 re: 1754 return to Geneva 2 Removed 3 Addition to Émile 4 Content worries 5 Rousseau the composer 6 Anon edit 7 Religion section 8 Removed from "Legacy" 9 Rousseau wasn't Swiss 10 L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers 11 Rousseau, precursor to anarcho-primitivism / green anarchism 12 Criticism of Rousseau (namely, in Paul Johnson's "Intellectuals") 13 Legacy Quote 14 Catergory: Vegetarians 15 link 16 Cultural depictions of Jean-Jacques Rousseau 17 should his works be listed in English or French? 18 different to jonh locke and jean jacque rousseau

[edit] re: 1754 return to Geneva

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

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

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

until I manage that, see this gutenberg bio (morley 1886) which at least describes the period. [1] (begin at reference [i.220]). Christopher Parham (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Removed

From the intro biography, I removed this:

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

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

I also reverted the "man is born free" line to the standard (and more literal) translation (it's pretty hard to argue for a translation that includes "but" when the original French says "et" not "mais."). --Mark7714 23:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addition to Émile

I added the following to the section on Émile:The education proposed in Émile has been criticized for being impractical, and the topic itself (the education of children) has led the text to be ignored by many studying Rousseau’s more “political” works. However, of particular interest to anyone interested in Rousseau’s intentions in Émile is a letter he wrote to his friend Cramer on October 13, 1764. In the letter, Rousseau answers the criticism of impracticability: “You say quite correctly that it is impossible to produce an Emile. But I cannot believe that you take the book that carries this name for a true treatise on education. It is rather a philosophical work on this principle advanced by the author in other writings that man is naturally good” (Italics in the original).

I think this is important information infmoration for anyone intertested in Rousseau's philosophy (especially those who believe he has a "system"). The quote comes from a footnote in Arthur Melzer's book "The Natural Goodness of Man" (including the reference to italics being in the original; that is, Mezler did not add the italics).--Mark7714 21:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I also deleted the part about him being a "Swiss" philosopher. As someone else said, he wasn't Swiss, but Genevan (and that's what he called himself).

[edit] Content worries

The content of this article sticks pretty close to http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/96jun/rousseau.html. Has proper permission been granted? matt 01:02 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Rousseau the composer

Needs some mention of his work as a composer, but the article is so tightly written I'm not sure where to work it in without breaking it up. Le Devin du Village was wildly popular in France, and he was pretty well known for his music at the time. Antandrus 22:38, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It would be also quite interesting who were his friends in Paris. --PhilipP 21:03, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Like Denis Diderot, but I am not so much into Biography to fix this. --PhilipP 21:05, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Antandrus, you're right: and in 1755-6, as a reaction to the immense (overwhelming) success due to his Discourses, he drew back from the mundane scene and for a while he chose to live off copying sheet music... he could'nt stand popularity. (and: he wrote some musical theory articles for the Enyclopédie, and a short Essay on the origin of languages with some Observations on Melody; and took part in the French-Italian opera controversy.)--zuben 21:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anon edit

An anon recently made some changes to the bio, particularly altering the order of some items; I've brought this back into line with my timeline of Rousseau's life, which comes from the Everyman editions of his various works. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:42, 2005 July 26 (UTC)

[edit] Religion section

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Removed from "Legacy"

I've removed the following para from "Legacy"

Political thinkers across the spectrum of politics, from Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson to Benito Mussolini and the Khmer Rouge, have claimed some influence from Rousseau to varying degrees. In particular, 19th century nationalist movements in Europe were heavily inspired by Rousseau's ideas about nations and General Will.

I don't think this should be in without substantiation and I don't think this can be had for either Jefferson or the Khmer Rouge (don't know about the others).

Bristoleast 08:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

In the case of Jefferson, Saul Padover's biography of Jefferson mentions Rousseau's influence on his thought, as does Eric Hobsbawm in "The Age of Revolution". Hobsbawm also mentions Rousseau's influence on Paine.

Legacy section is a mess and contains bits of commentary on individual works that really belong elsewhere. This section is also being repeatedly revised by anonymous users with strong pov about Rousseau being (along with Hegel) a "theorist of the closed society" or similar. As well as being a controversial label of Popperian provenance, this description is hardly transparent to the average reader.

Bristoleast 21:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rousseau wasn't Swiss

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So I think some references should be added, or this should be cut. This seems to be a case of creating debate, rather than bringing awareness to it.--Mark7714 23:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

So once again, if someone doesn't come out in defence of this, I think it should be removed.--Mark7714 18:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the sentence under discussion is not only ambiguous, it is beautifully ambiguous. I mean, I do agree with the above comments, that without sourcing (both as to the opinions of scholars and the choices of translators), the claim was properly removed. But I certainly find the claim credible. I find unpersuasive the arguments offered above about the alternate translation rendering the tenses inconsistent. Why can't I say something like, "Dinosaurs were roaming the earth millions of years ago, but their bones litter the earth", or something along that line? Remember, the Citizen of Geneva wasn't just writing normal text, but he was writing, as have many philosophers, with a sense of style. I certainly wouldn't argue that the sentence should be accepted as the alternate translation, merely that the alternate is plausible, especially if we postulate that Rousseau was trying to be ambiguous. Anyway, it's a moot point, per no original research.

By the way, I gently request that people would utilize the tools we have to make our conversations easier to follow. Indentations, or asterisks, as well as always dating one's comments just make it easier to follow who says what. And I don't know what to do about figuring out what is being discussed when the edit in question is long gone. I must have spent 15 minutes going through edit revisions looking for the edit in question here. 68.218.142.136 02:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rousseau, precursor to anarcho-primitivism / green anarchism

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

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

[edit] Criticism of Rousseau (namely, in Paul Johnson's "Intellectuals")

There's no appreciable criticism of Rousseau in the article at present. It seems prudent to me to include a section detailing his shortcomings as well as lauding his lasting influence.

I haven't read "Intellectuals," so I may be being unfair, but I imagine it's an attack against Rousseau's philosophy based on character flaws which may or may not have existed (i.e.: how can a man who is claimed to have fathered multiple children, and abandoned them all write a treatise on education). I don't know what ad hominem attacks offer to understanding the writings and philosophy of a writer.

That being said, real criticisms (the contradictions in his writing perhaps) are always useful, but perhaps too academic if they are to be looked at thoroughly.--Mark7714 21:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legacy Quote

There is a serious problem with the quote. The article says Rousseau was against property rights. The quote says that "property right is certainly the most important right, sometimes more than liberty itself." I don't know enough about Rousseau to say, but there is a clear contradiction there.

"The article says Rousseau was against property rights." <--- I can't find such a claim. By the way, I don't believe Rousseau was against property rights: he saw them as a consequence of society, and compared them to the so-called natural rights. --Kubrick 908 11:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Jean Jacques was a famous man, he was know for being a famous writer and against child labor. His descendants still survive today.

[edit] Catergory: Vegetarians

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

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

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

He also quoted Plutarch's The Eating of Flesh:

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

I will not continue to quote his thoughts as I feel that these two quote are plenty. You can find the copy of the book [[2]].

On a slighly unrelated note: Does anyone know what follows the above quote of Plutarch? It would seem to be a continuation of the quote but when comparing this [3] (Find the page for "The eating of flesh" to arrive to the proper part) version of Plutarch's writing and Rousseau's transcription things get confusing after the poem. Even when keeping in mind that they are not only different versions but that one was translated from Greek to (?) French to English, and the other is a translation of Greek to (?) English, it still doesn't seem to fit.

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

[edit] link

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Cultural depictions of Jean-Jacques Rousseau

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

[edit] should his works be listed in English or French?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] different to jonh locke and jean jacque rousseau

what is the differens of john locke and jeanjacque rousseau —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.202.89.44 (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC).