Bilimler ve Sanatlar Üstüne Söylev

by Jean-Jacques Rousseau

"[...] Eski devlet adamları durmaksızın ahlaktan ve erdemden söz ederlerdi; bizimkiler sadece ticaretten ve paradan söz ediyorlar. [...] İnsanlara bilgi veren bu bilginlerin halkın mutluluğu için çalışmaları onlara yaraşan tek ödül olsun; İşte o zaman erdemin, bilimin ve iktidarın soylu bir rekabet içinde çaba harcayarak, insanların mutluluğu için bir araya gelerek neler yapabileceği görülür. Ama iktidar ve güç bir tarafa, bilgi ve bilgelik diğer tarafta ayrı ayrı kaldıkça bilginler önemli şeyleri pek az düşünürler, hükümdarlar büyük işleri pek az başarırlar ve halklar yoksulluk içinde yaşlanmaya ve mutsuz bir halde yaşamaya mahkûm olurlar."


Birinci söylevin bu iki çarpıcı pasajı Rousseau'nun temel kaygılarını yansıtmakta. Bilimler ve Sanatlar Üzerine Söylev, Rousseau'nun yapılan eleştirilere verdiği yanıtlarla bir bütünselliğe ulaşarak gerçek anlamını kazanıyor.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Politics, Classics, 18th Century, France, French Literature

80 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1750

About the author

Genevan philosopher and writer Jean Jacques Rousseau held that society usually corrupts the essentially good individual; his works include The Social Contract and Émile (both 1762).

This important figure in the history contributed to political and moral psychology and influenced later thinkers. Own firmly negative view saw the post-hoc rationalizers of self-interest, apologists for various forms of tyranny, as playing a role in the modern alienation from natural impulse of humanity to compassion. The concern to find a way of preserving human freedom in a world of increasingly dependence for the satisfaction of their needs dominates work. This concerns a material dimension and a more important psychological dimensions. Rousseau a fact that in the modern world, humans come to derive their very sense of self from the opinions as corrosive of freedom and destructive of authenticity. In maturity, he principally explores the first political route, aimed at constructing institutions that allow for the co-existence of equal sovereign citizens in a community; the second route to achieving and protecting freedom, a project for child development and education, fosters autonomy and avoids the development of the most destructive forms of self-interest. Rousseau thinks or the possible co-existence of humans in relations of equality and freedom despite his consistent and overwhelming pessimism that humanity will escape from a dystopia of alienation, oppression, and unfreedom. In addition to contributions, Rousseau acted as a composer, a music theorist, the pioneer of modern autobiography, a novelist, and a botanist. Appreciation of the wonders of nature and his stress on the importance of emotion made Rousseau an influence on and anticipator of the romantic movement. To a very large extent, the interests and concerns that mark his work also inform these other activities, and contributions of Rousseau in ostensibly other fields often serve to illuminate his commitments and arguments.

Reviews

[Petergiaquinta · Rating 3 out of 5]

Unless you've studied Rousseau in college (and I didn't), you probably aren't prepared for what he has to say in his "Discourse on the Sciences and Arts." To put it mildly, good old Jean-Jacques probably wouldn't be a fan of GoodReads, and he definitely would look askance at the tremendous amount of time I've wasted this summer reading, thinking about my reading, and posting my thoughts on GoodReads. For a man thinking and writing at the height of the Enlightenment, Rousseau has little positive to say about either of these activities.

I, on the other hand, not much interested in the ideology or morality expressed in religion, have labored for much of my life under the delusion that reading makes me a more thoughtful, more sensitive, more compassionate and ultimately a better person, enlightening my consciousness and freeing me from ignorance and bigotry, and by extension serving to make the world a better place as a whole. And I would expect that most of my friends on GoodReads would voice similar opinions. In general, the fine folks I've met on GoodReads find in literature a powerful force for expanding virtue and extending kindness and helping make our society a more just and equal place to live (well, if you discount all the mommy-porn out there...and, yeah, the creepy monster sex books, too, I guess).

But here's what Rousseau has to say:

The mind has its needs, just as the body does. The latter are the foundations of society; from the former emerge the pleasures of society. While government and laws take care of the security and the well being of men in groups, the sciences, letters, and the arts, less despotic and perhaps more powerful, spread garlands of flowers over the iron chains which weigh men down, snuffing out in them the feeling of that original liberty for which they appear to have been born, and make them love their slavery by turning them into what are called civilized people. Need has raised thrones; the sciences and the arts have strengthened them. You earthly powers, cherish talents and protect those who nurture them. Civilized people, cultivate them. Happy slaves, to them you owe that refined and delicate taste you take pride in, that softness of character and that urbanity of habits which make dealings among you so sociable and easy, in a word, the appearance of all the virtues without the possession of any.

Ouch! So, according to Rousseau, for all the reading I've been doing this summer, I'm no better off than if I had stayed in bed all day. For Rousseau, all this so-called "enlightenment" is nothing more than a degradation in virtue as we strive to leave ignorance behind:

There you see how luxury, dissolution, and slavery have in every age been the punishment for the arrogant efforts we have made in order to emerge from the happy ignorance where Eternal Wisdom had placed us. The thick veil with which she had covered all her operations seemed to provide a sufficient warning to us that we were not destined for vain researches. But have we known how to profit from any of her lessons? Have we neglected any with impunity? Peoples, know once and for all that nature wished to protect you from knowledge, just as a mother snatches away a dangerous weapon from the hands of her child, that all the secrets which she keeps hidden from you are so many evils she is defending you against, and that the difficulty you experience in educating yourselves is not the least of her benefits.

Rousseau probably would equally disapprove of the amount of time I have wasted in bookstores (back when they existed in this fair land of ours) and libraries:

When the Goths ravaged Greece, all the libraries were rescued from the flames only by the opinion spread by one of them that they should let their enemies have properties so suitable for turning them away from military exercise and for keeping them amused with sedentary and idle occupations.

And remarkably, in his discourse he even comes out against the printing press: Considering the dreadful disorders which printing has already caused in Europe and judging the future by the progress which evil makes day by day, we can readily predict that sovereigns will not delay in taking as many pains to ban this terrible art from their states as they took to introduce it there.

Rousseau looks back fondly to a time before mommy-porn and monsterotica: People had not yet invented the art of immortalizing the extravagances of the human mind. But thanks to typographic characters and the way we use them, the dangerous reveries of Hobbes and Spinoza will remain for ever. Go, you celebrated writings, which the ignorance and rustic nature of our fathers would have been incapable of, go down to our descendants with those even more dangerous writings which exude the corruption of morals in our century, and together carry into the centuries to come a faithful history of the progress and the advantages of our sciences and our arts. If they read you, you will not leave them in any perplexity about the question we are dealing with today. And unless they are more foolish than we are, they will lift their hands to heaven and will say in the bitterness of their hearts, "Almighty God, You who hold the minds of men in your hands, deliver us from the enlightenment and the fatal arts of our fathers, and give us back ignorance, innocence, and poverty, the only goods which can make our happiness and which are precious in Your sight."

Whew...maybe you'd be tempted to think this is all quite ironic in a post-modern kind of funny way, but that's just because, like me, you're a happy slave luxuriating in your arrogant dissolution. Ah well, it makes me wonder how Rousseau managed to remain friends with Diderot (he of the Encyclopedia, which by definition is a mutant hybrid of the arts and sciences put into play by the terrible printing press for the purpose of systematically expanding knowledge), and what Rousseau would have to say about the hour I just wasted writing this review...

[R. Ar. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bu eser Rousseau'nun parası yokken katılmaya karar verdiği bir yarışma için yazılmış fakat olaylara farklı bir açıdan yaklaşarak bulunduğu devirde çok konuşulmuş bir eser olarak geçiyor. Hoş bence zamanını aşmış bir eserdir. Çünkü sunduğu argümanların haklılık payı var. Bildikçe/öğrendikçe daha mı "iyi" oluyoruz gerçekten? Tabi bu soruyu yanıtlamadan için önce "iyi"nin de ne olduğunu kendimize göre tanımlamamız gerekiyor. Bence şimdikinden de cahil ve fakir olsam daha mutlu olurdum diye düşünüyorum.

Aramızda bilginler yetişmeye başlayalı, iyi insanlar ortadan kayboldu.

Fizikçilerimiz, matematikçilerimiz, kimyacılarımız, astronomlarımız, şairlerimiz, müzikçilerimiz, ressamlarımız var; ama değerli yurttaşlarımız yok; yahut varsa bile onlar hor görülmekte, ıssız köylerimizde yoksul ve perişan sürünmektedirler. İşte bize ekmek, çocuklarımıza süt veren insanların düştükleri durum ve bizden gördükleri saygı budur.

Ey ruhlarımızı elinde tutan ulu Tanrı, sen bizi babalarımızın bilgilerinden ve uğursuz sanatlarından kurtar; bize bilgisizliğimizi, saflığımızı, fakirliğimizi geri ver; bizi mutlu edebilecek olan, senin de en değerli saydığın bu nimetlerdir.

[بسام عبد العزيز · Rating 5 out of 5]

عندما أجد الآخرين يكتبون تلك الجمل الساذجة عن "حب القراءة" و "أن القراءة هى أجمل ما في الكون".. و "صديقي الكتاب".. إلخ إلخ من جمل أصبحت غاية في الابتذال –أكثر ابتذالا حتى من فكرة الحب- أجدني أشعر برغبة عارمة في الضحك!

أصبحت الرغبة في أن يقول الشخص "انظروا إلي ! أنا أحب الكتب بشدة! أرجوكم الاعتراف بمدي عمقي!" رغبة طاغية لدى كل شخص .. و لا أفهم ما "الروعة" في التفاخر بالقراءة؟! في الحقيقة هذا آخر شئ أحب التفاخر به بين البشر!

و لم أكن وحدي في نظرتي تلك! فروسو يشاركني ذلك الشعور بعدم اهمية الثقافة في هذه الرسالة عن العلوم و الفنون..
و ليس فقط الكتب.. بل أن روسو يرى الثقافة بمفهومها العام.. و التقدم العلمي سببا أساسيا في تحلل المجتمعات و انهيار الدول!
فكلما ازداد المجتمع رقيا من الناحية العلمية.. و كلما ازداد المجتمع اهتماما بالفنون و الآداب.. كلما أصبحت المجتمع أكثر رخاوة و هشاشة و انحلالا!..

هل هذا كلام غريب؟؟ حسنا لننظر لماذا يري روسو هذا –وأشاركه هذا الرأي-..

أولا الكتب لا تضيف أي شئ مهم للانسان.. و حتى إن كانت تضيف شيئا مهما فضررها بشكل عام أكبر بكثير من نفعها..

"يقولون لي :إن الكتب الجيدة هى خط الدفاع الوحيد للعقول الضعيفة.. و سأرد عليهم:
أولا أن العلماء لم ينجزوا كتبا جيدة بقدر إنجازهم النماذج السيئة..
ثانيا ستكون هناك من الكتب الرديئة ما اهو أكثر بكثير من الكتب الجيدة..
ثالثا أن أفضل مرشد للشرفاء من الناس هو العقل و الضمير فالعقل السليم لا يحتاج إلى ثقافة أدبية كبيرة. أما أولئك الذين لديهم عقول خبيثة أو ضمير قاس فإن القراة لا تقدم لهم شيئا ..
و اخيرا فإن بعض الناس لا تصلح لهم إلا الكتب الدينية .. و هؤلاء وحدهم لم أدنهم"

فمبدئيا لكي تحصل على تلك "المعلومة الحيوية المهمة" التي تريديها يجب عليك الغوص في مئات الكتب و الملجدات .. لتجد الكثير مما لا يفيد.. فيضيع وقتك و جهدك في البحث عما تريد ..
و حتى عندما تجد ما يفيدك أخيرا.. ففي الأغلب ستكون قد تأثرت بالكتب الرديئة بعد هذا البحث الطويل.. بالإضافة إلى أنك ستجد نفسك لا تحتاج تلك المعلومة في حياتك العملية كثيرا.. فكل ما تحتاج إليه هو معرفة الفضيلة.. و الفضيلة نفسها يمكن معرفتها عقليا دون الحاجة للكتب..

"نحن لم نعد نسأل الآن عن الرجل إن كان يمتلك الفضيلة بل إن كان يمتلك الموهبة. لم نعد نسأل إن كان الكتاب تافعا بل إن كان مكتوبا بعناية. و التبجيل يذهب الآن للعقول الجميلة .. أما الفضيلة فتظل بلا تقدير"
و هنا روسو يدين بشدة القارئ و الكاتب على السواء..
فالنسبة للقارئ.. فقد أصبح لا يهتم بما يطرحه الكاتب من "فكر" .. لا يهتم بالمثل العليا التي يدعو إليها الكتاب.. لكن يهتم أكثر بشكل الكتاب و أسلوبه الشيق! .. ( لمن يسأل : لا .. أحمد مراد وأحمد خالد توفيق لم يكونا متواجدين أيام روسو!) ..
أما بالنسبة للكاتب فلماذا يتعب نفسه و يجهد عقله في محاولة الارتقاء بأخلاقيات القارئ؟! كل ما يريده الكاتب هو الانتشار.. البيع.. المال.. الشهرة.. الإعجاب.. و لهذا فالكتب السيئة ستظل أكثر بكثير من الكتب الجيدة!

لكن ما هو تعريف روسو لكلمة كتاب جيد؟
"إن الكتابات الكافرة التي وضعها أمثال دياجورا و لانسيب ماتت بموتهم إذ لم نكن قد ابتدعنا بعد فن تخليد شذوذ العقل البشري و لكن بفضل الطباعة فإن الأحلام الخطيرة لسبينوزا و هوبز و أمثالهما ستخلد إلى الأبد"!

كتاب جيد عند روسو هو أي كتاب يدعو للفضائل.. أي كتاب يغرس الشجاعة أو الكرم أو حب الوطن أو أي فضيلة أخرى بين الناس.. و من هذا المنطلق فإن كتب سبينوزا التي تضع الطبيعة محل الإله .. و كتب هوبز التي تحتقر الإنسان و ترى فيه ذئب يريد افتراس الذئب الذي بجواره.. كتب مثل تلك في نظر روسو كتب لا تستحق ان تنشر.. و الأهم انها لا "يجب" أن تنشر لما تثيره من أفكار مادية و سلطوية..
نلاحظ ان روسو هنا أدان فلاسفة "عظام" و لم يكن يتحدث عن كتاب "صغار".. و هذه نقطة مهمة.. فإذا كان روسو يري أن سبينوزا و هوبز مع كل معرفتهم بل حتى مع فكرهم الذي لا يمكنك إلا أن تحترمه حتى لو اختلفت معه بل و رفضته تماما .. مع كل هذا فهم مجموعة من المفسدين في نظر روسو فما بالنا بمن يكتب كتبا و هو لا يمتلك أدنى قدر من الفكر؟!!

لكن هذا بخصوص الكتب .. ماذا عن الفنون إذن.. إنها مفيدة بالتأكيد.. فنحن نحب الرسم.. و نستمتع بالموسيقي.. أليس كذلك؟
"إن الآداب والفنون الجميلة تميع الأجساد و الأرواح.. و أعمال المكاتب تجعل الرجال مرتخين و تضعف امزجتهم. و عندما يفقد الجسد قوته فإن الروح لا يمكنها الاحتفاظ بقوتها ..
لقد ولدت الدراسة الآلة و الآلة ترهق العقل و تحطم القوة و تميع الشجاعة.. و هو ما يبين أن الآلة لم يتم صنعها للإنسان الحقيقي..
وبهذه الطريقة نصبح جبناء و مائعين و غير قادرين على الصمود أمام المتاعب و النزوات..
و الكل يعرف كم أن سكان المدن جبناء أمام الأعمال الحربية ..
ونحن لا نجهل سمعة أهل الآداب فيما يتعلق بالإقدام"

لا.. الفنون ليست بتلك الفائدة العملاقة.. المتعة التي تسببها الفنون لها مضارها التي لا يمكن التخلص منها.. الانغماس في الفنون سيؤدي في النهاية إلى ميوعة الجسد و ضعف الروح..
تخيل رساما أو موسيقيا نطالبه بحمل السلاح في يوم ما للدفاع عن بلده.. هل تظنه سيكون قادرا على هذا؟!
تخيل تامر حسني يتحدث عن شرف الوطن.. او تخيل سما المصري تتحدث عن القضية الفلسطينية.. هل تظن أن أحدا سيصدقهم؟!!

كذلك تظل الفنون أيضا منبعا لهدم الفضائل.. الحركات السيريالية مثلا و التكعيبية تعتبر أن الشعور الانساني هو ما يجب التعبير عنه.. و كما أن المشاعر الإنسانية أشياء غير قابلة للتحديد الحقيق فكذلك التعبير عنها يكون غير قابل للتحديد.. فنجد صورا لا منطقية على مستوى الوعي لكن المفترض أنها تعني شيئا على مستوى اللاوعي.. و كل هذا ببساطة تجربة ذاتية محضة.. فلا توجد قيمة عليا تدعو إليها..
من الغرابة أن أفلاطون كان يرفض انتشار الموسيقي كذلك لنفس الأسباب السابقة.. لأن الفن الحقيقي يجب ألا يكون مجرد تعبير عن تجربة ذاتية .. لكن تعبير عن قيمة عليا حقيقية..

حسنا.. نتفق ان الآداب و الفنون قد تكون جزئيا غير مفيدة.. لكن التقدم العلمي بالتقدم مفيد.. أليس كذلك؟
لا ليس تماما!!

"إن الكتابات الكافرة التي وضعها أمثال دياجورا و لانسيب ماتت بموتهم إذ لم نكن قد ابتدعنا بعد فن تخليد شذوذ العقل البشري و لكن بفضل الطباعة فإن الأحلام الخطيرة لسبينوزا و هوبز و أمثالهما ستخلد إلى الأبد"!

مرة أخرى نفس الجملة التي اقتبستها مسبقا.. فلولا التقدم العلمي و انتشار الطباعة لما انتشرت أفكار هوبز و سبينوزا الهدامة.. فأفكار دياجورا و لانسيب الهدامة القديمة يجهلها الناس الآن لأنه لم تتواجد مطبعة لتنشر كلماتهم بين الناس..
بل أن التقدم العلمي يؤدي إلى ازدياد الكسل و قلة النشاط.. إلى "الميوعة" كما وصفها روسو..

ثم أن الشخص الذي لديه ما يفعله حقيقة فلن يكون لديه وقت للرفاهية و المتع..
"إني لا أفرق أبدا بين المتع و الكسل و لكني أعلم علم اليقين أنه ليس هناك رجل شريف يزعم أن لديه متعا ما دام لديه شئ صالح يقوم به كأن يكون لديه وطن يخدمه أو تعساء يخفف عنهم"
فالرجل الشريف دائما يبحث عن الأعمال المفيدة لمجتمعه و لنفسه.. دائما لديه هدف يحاول الوصول إليه.. أما الفنون و الأداب فهى رفاهية المتعطلين.. تلك الرفاهية النابعة من ازدياد الثروة و التقدم العلمي..

"إن أول منبع للشر هو اللامساواة و من اللامساواة ولدت الثروات لأن كلمات "غني" و "فقير" كلمات نسبية.
وفي كل مكان يكون فيه الناس متساوين لن يكون هناك أغنياء ولا فقراء.. فمن الثروات ولدت الرفاهية وولد الكسل..
فمن الرفاهية ولدت الفنون الجميلة.. و من الكسل ولدت العلوم.
فلم تكن الثروات في يوم من الأيام منحة العلماء و في هذا يكمن الشر. إن الأغنياء و العلماء لا يقومون إلا بإفساد بعضهم البعض"
الأزمة كلها في عدم المساواة.. ذلك الذي يجعل هناك طبقية شديدة تؤدي إلى وجود طبقات غنية مرفهة.. تلك الطبقات التي تضيع وقتها في الفنون و الآداب.. لتجعل المجتمع يطمح في التفوق في تلك المجالات عوضا عن الانغماس في محاولة تصحيح الأوضاع الخاطئة.. لتصبح الراقصة و لاعب الكرة و المطرب هي النماذج التي يطمح إليها كل فرد!

سيقول البعض أن التقدم العلمي و انتشار الثقافة سيؤدي إلى القضاء على الجهل و الرذيلة.. و لكن روسو يرد عليهم بأنه لا علاقة على الإطلاق بين الثقافة و بين الرذيلة ...
"إن الفضيلة ليست متناقضة مع الجهل.. وهي ليست بالضرورة رديفتها باعتبار أن كثيرا من الشعوب البدائية كانت فاسدة.. إن الجهل ليس عائقا أمام الخير ولا أمام الشر. إنه بكل بساطة الحالة الطبيعية للإنسان"

فالإنسان بطبيعته ولد جاهلا.. لكن الفضيلة هى جزء منه يظهر عندما يحتك بالآخرين.. الفضيلة لا علاقة لها بالمعرفة.. بل أن الجهل أحيانا يجعل الانسان أكثر خلقا..

"وإن الزمن الجميل -أي زمن الفضيلة لدى أي شعب- هو زمن الجهل.
وبقدر ما يزداد العلماء و الفنانين و الفلاسفة في شعب بقدر ما كان يفقد قيمه و قوته و ينزل بذلك إلى صف الأمم الجاهلة المنحطة التي تخجل من الإنسانية.
إن الشعوب الوحشية -التي ليس لديها تقدم- تقدس الفضيلة دائما فيما تقوم الشعوب العالمة و الفيلسوفة -بكل ماأوتيت من قوة التقدم- بتهميشها وتحقيرها.
وفي هذه الحالة -أي عندما تصل أمة من الأمم إلى هذه الحالة من العلم- نقول أن الفساد قد بلغ ذروته بحيث لايمكن توقع علاج لها"

إذن فلنتوقف عن دراسة العلوم و الفنون.. لنتوقف عن الكتابة و قرض الشعر .. لنتوقف عن الاختراع و دراسة العلوم!!
لا .. لا.. هذا ليس ما يقصدة روسو.. روسو ينتقد الغياب القيمي و الأخلاقي عن هذه الأعمال.. لكنه مؤمن تماما باهمية وجودها.. و بوجوب وجود أنانس يشتغلون بها.. لكن يجب ان تكون هناك ضوابط لهذا..

"إن العلوم لم توضع لعموم الناس فالإنسان يتيه في أبحاثه بلا توقف و إذا وصل أحيانا إلى نتائج علمية فغالبا ما يتم ذلك بعد وقوع ضرر ما..
لقد ولد يعمل و يدبر لا ليفكر..
إن التفكير لا يجعل منه إلا إنسانا تعيسا ولا يجعله أفضل او أعقل.
إن التفكير يجعله يندم على الأشياء التي أضاعها و يحرمه من التمتع بحاضره .
و التفكير يزين له المستقبل التعيس ليجعله يحس بذلك قبل وقوعه..
إن الدراسة تفسد أخلاقه و تمرض صحته و تحطم مزاجه و تميع حجته..
و إذا ما كانت تعلمه شيئا ما فإني أجد أنها تضر به أكثر مما تعلمه."

"أعرف بوجود نوابغ عظماء يعرفون كيف يخترقون الحجب التي تغلف الحقيقة و هؤلاء عقول مميزة وقادرة على الصمود أمام خزعبلات الغرور و الغيرة المنحطة و الرغبات الأخرى التي تنتجها الشغف بالآداب.
إن العدد القليل من هؤلاء الذين سعدوا بجمع هذه الخصال هم شرف النوع الإنساني و زينته فلهم وحدهم أن يحظوا بنعمة التفرغ للعلم.. و هذا الاستثناء هو الذي يؤكد القاعدة لأنه إذا كان كل الناس سقراط فإن العلوم ستكون غير مضرة لهم و لكنهم لن يكونوا بحاجة إليها"

"ماذا نظن بتلك الكوكبة من الكتاب الذين استبعدوا من أمام معبد آلهة الابداع الحواجز التي تحمي مداخله وهى الحواجز التي جعلت منها الطبيعة اختبارا لقدرة من يحاول الدخول إليه؟
ماذا نظن بهؤلاء الكتاب و الذين كسروا بكل حرية باب العلوم و أدخلوا في أرجائها الدهماء غير المؤهلة للاقتراب منها؟
كان من الأجدى أن يطرد من الباب كل أولئك الذين لا قدرة لهم علي التقدم في حقل الآداب و أن يردوا إلى حقل الحرف المفيدة للمجتمع. وذلك الذي كان سيقضي عمره في نظم شعر بلا إلهام أو مهندس مقلد لغيره كان يمكن أن يكون نساجا كبيرا"

"إذا كان لابد من السماح لبعض الرجال بالتفرغ لدراسة العلوم و الفنون فليكن ذلك فقط لمن يملكون القوة للسير في طريقه. لهذا العدد القليل وحده يمكن إقامة تماثيل لتمجيد الفكر الإنساني .. "

فببساطة لكي تكون عالما أو مبدعا يجب أن تكون أولا لديك الموهبة و القدرة الحقيقية.. لا يكفي أن تكون مقلدا للآخرين.. لا يكفي أن تكون شاعرا بلا موهبة.. بل يجب أن تكون لديك القدرات الحقيقية لهذا.. و يجب عليك أن تدرك أهمية ما تقوم به.. و أنك تقوم به فقط لأنك "تستطيع حقيقة" أن تقوم به في خدمة العالم.. و ليس لأنك تريد المجد أو الشهرة.. ليس لأنك تريد أن يظهر اسمك في وسائل الإعلام... ليس لأنك تنتظر منصبا من النظام الحاكم.. ليس لأنك تريد حياة الرفاهية.. لكن ببساطة لأنك تدرك أنك صاحب رسالة حقيقية و أن لديك ما يكفي من قدرة على توصيل تلك الرسالة... و أنك ستستطيع ان تتحمل في سبيلها أي شئ..

ليس معنى هذا ألا تحصل على كل تلك المميزات.. فطبيعي ان تحصل عليها عندما يقدم الفرد ما يفيد البشرية.. فروسو نفسه أصبح اسمه مخلدا في التاريخ بسبب ابداعاته الأدبية و الفكرية و كتبه... لكن هذا مجرد "نتيجة جانبية".. أو "عرض ثانوي" لا يجب ان يكون هو الهدف الحقيقي لأي مشتغل في تلك العموم او الفنون..


الكتاب رائع للغاية.. و روسو يضع منظومة فكرية متكاملة لنظريته من الصعب هدمها.. حتى لو اختلفت معه في أشياء.. حتى لو وجدته مبالغا قليلا -وأحيانا كثيرا- في أشياء.. إلا أنني لا أملك ألا الاعتراف بمدى تماسك نسقه الفكري.. و هذا يكفيني للغاية للإعجاب بأي كتاب..

[Kyaw Zayar Lwin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Barbarus hic ego sum, qui non intelligor illis.
Ovid

So long as government and law provide for the security and well-being of men in their common life,
the arts, literature and the sciences, less despotic though perhaps more powerful, fling garlands of
flowers over the chains which weigh them down. They stifle in men’s breasts that sense of original
liberty, for which they seem to have been born; cause them to love their own slavery, and so make
of them what is called a civilised people.

What a train of vices must attend this uncertainty! Sincere friendship, real esteem, and perfect
confidence are banished from among men. Jealousy, suspicion, fear, coldness, reserve, hate and
fraud lie constantly concealed under that uniform and deceitful veil of politeness; that boasted
candour and urbanity, for which we are indebted to the light and leading of this age. We shall no
longer take in vain by our oaths the name of our Creator; but we shall insult Him with our
blasphemies, and our scrupulous ears will take no offence. We have grown too modest to brag of
our own deserts; but we do not scruple to decry those of others. We do not grossly outrage even our
enemies, but artfully calumniate them. Our hatred of other nations diminishes, but patriotism dies
with it. Ignorance is held in contempt; but a dangerous scepticism has succeeded it. Some vices
indeed are condemned and others grown dishonourable; but we have still many that are honoured
with the names of virtues, and it is become necessary that we should either have, or at least pretend
to have them. Let who will extol the moderation of our modern sages, I see nothing in it but a
refinement of intemperance as unworthy of my commendation as their artificial simplicity.

[Melly-Jade Fournier · Rating 2 out of 5]

I guess que je vais continuer de vivre dans l’hypocrisie 🤷🏻‍♀️

[Wiom biom]

1. got the feeling that there was more rhetoric than substantiation (perhaps it was the style of essay-writing back then)
2. quite a few generalisations/motherhood statements which are pretty hard to agree with (for example, his thesis is that the pursuit of arts and sciences/knowledge in general invariably leads to decadence, idleness, civilisational decline but I'm not convinced; it could be just a correlation but not causation.)
3. disagreed with him quite a lot
- he's a proponent of 'ignorance is bliss' in this essay and keeps describing pre-Enlightenment Europe in idyllic terms; claims that the Europeans would be better off ignorant and content with their lot, and wouldn't be less peaceful, less governable, less thriving but isn't that only valid from the perspective of the privileged? surely few people, if any, in the post-Enlightenment era wanted to go back to the days of being a peasant with little stake in society
- the pursuit of arts and sciences by a mature civilisation leads to the neglect of the military -> warriors less respected etc.; a really conservative refrain that is probably still uttered by many in the world today but it's pretty dated don't you think? war should be a thing of the past and while soldiers deserve to be respected for defending the country, the priority in the modern world should not be to secure borders or prepare for the next war -- with advancements in the arts and sciences (the empowering of civilian knowledge and power) and diplomacy with neighbouring countries, we can better preserve peace and allow society to thrive. I get that Rousseau was writing in a time when European states had no qualms about starting wars but yeahhhh it's just pretty dogmatic
4. it's also pretty ironic that Rousseau, a philosopher himself, was attacking amateur philosophers as idlers who do not contribute to the country. He also encourages the lay person to "leave to others the care of instructing people about their duties, and limit ourselves to carrying out our own well. We do not need to know any more than this."; frankly I don't think Rousseau heeded his own advice, and while I agree that most people should leave governance to the politicians, there's still a strong argument for an engaged citizenry.
5. "We no longer ask if a man has integrity, but if he has talent, nor whether a book is useful but if it is well-written. The rewards for a witty man are enormous, while virtue remains without honour." Well I do agree with this! Even today, there's so much emphasis on one's merits and abilities, we seem to no longer care if a person is decent. That reminds me also of a CNN anchor who said that Biden's victory sent a message to children that 'decency matters'. But then again, how has this anything to do with the pursuit of the arts and sciences? I think the problem isn't with the pursuit of knowledge during the Enlightenment but its most dramatic implication -- the birth of modern capitalism. So yes, there may be a correlation but there isn't causation per se. Just because something malignant came out of intellectual inquiry and discourse does not mean that we should all stop thinking and go back to the good old days of being ignorant. Anyways, with any society, there will be some people with more knowledge than others and that was why most people in the past accepted oppression without thinking.

thought-provoking I guess but didn't teach me anything new

[Köksal KÖK · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bilimler ve Sanatlar Üzerine Söylev

(Eleştirilere Yanıtlar)

J.J.Rousseau
Say Yayınları / Felsefe Dizisi
168 s.
İstanbul, 2009
ISBN : 9789754688436


Fransız Dijon Akademisi’nin açtığı yarışma, 1750,
Soru; “ Bilimlerin ve sanatların gelişmesi ahlakın düzelmesine yardım etmiş midir?

Discours sur les Sciences et les Arts (Bilimler ve Sanatlar Üstüne Söylev), Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 1750.

bu söylevle büyük ödülü kazanmış, lakin bilim ve sanatı da fena halde sırtından hançerleyip satmıştır.

Kitap 2 bölümden oluşuyor;

1-söylev,
2-söyleve gelen eleştirilere yanıtlar.

Söyleve 2 yönden bakılabilir;

bilim ve sanatı sattığı, büyük hainlik ettiği yönündeki bakış açım, ki eleştiriler de, çağında hep bu yönde olmuş. Daha ik cümlede belirtiyor bunu zaten, ahlak ve erdemi bozmuştur diye.

Bilim ve sanatı sırf sutunlu yapılarda zengin evlerde yapıldığı, cepleri doldurduğu, erdem ve ahlakı ötelediği, temelde materyalist bir kafaya hizmet ettiği yönünde, tabii bu düşünceyle bilim ve sanata ve de onu kendi emellerine kullanan zamanın burjuvazisine adamakıllı çatar.

2. bakış açıma göre, bu bir kusma. Bu asırlardır içte kalmış bir kinin kusulması, konjonktüre karşı birikmiş düşüncenin ifadesi, ki bu yüzden aydınlanma çağının önemli bir figürü haline gelmiş.

anlayışın, ahlak ve erdemi antik yunandan sonra ötelemesi, yazarda bir fırsatla büyük patlamaya sebep olmuştur. Bunda da aslında haksız da değildir.

bir paralellik, Reusseau ve Adolf Hitler; zor şartlarda yaşamışlar, tüm fakirliği çaresizliği ezilmişliği görmüş yaşamış, milletin neden bu hallere geldiği ve sömürüldüğü konusunda radikal fikirler öne sürmüşler. Ve bunları yazıya dökmüşlerdir. (Rousseau bunu yazmakla yetinmiş, Hitler ise eline geçen siyasi ve askeri yetkileri en iyi şekilde (ama insanlığa kötü yönde) kullanarak ütopyasını deneme sahası bulmuştur.

[Adolf Hitler de Kavgam adlı kitapta, zamanın zenginlerini (Yahudileri) tek suçlu görür.]

2. bölümde, eleştirilere yanıtlarda, savunurken de altını tarihsel argümanlarla doldurmaya çalışır, işin kötü tarafı ikna etme konusunda, şeytanın avukatlığını yaparken, insanı unutturup inandırıyor da.

Sözün özü, söylevi okurken insan bi şok geçiriyor, bunu belki de sırf ödül almak ve sivrilmek için yapmıştır. Ama döneminin ve 20. yya kadar da sürecek olan toplumdaki sınıfsal ayrımı da göz önünde tutmak gerek, bir gerçek.

[ha bir de -bilimler ve sanatlar- diye belki yanlış, dilbilgisi hatası, bence doğrusu -bilim ve sanat üzerine.

[Anmol · Rating 4 out of 5]

What would we do with the arts without the luxury that feeds them? What purposes would jurisprudence serve without the injustices of men? What would history become if there were no tyrants, no wars, no conspirators? In a word, who would want to spend his life in fruitless speculations if each person, consulting only the duties of man and the needs of nature, had time for nothing but the homeland, the unfortunate, and his friends? Are we destined then to die fastened to the edge of the well where truth has retreated?

Rousseau in this bizarre essay makes the claim that the arts and sciences have only enervated us and caused a downturn in our virtue, leading to a weakness, a rot as it were, in modern civilisation. My central response to this essay is that - because Rousseau himself constantly gives examples of societies which became obsessed with arts, and were then invaded and destroyed by stronger races - should we never evolve beyond an animalistic existence using art, solely because of the constant threat of external power? To me, it appears much more intuitive to argue that progress in the arts and sciences come as a result of political and social stability, and the same need not be faulted for making men less vigorous in their defence of the homeland - instead of impotence, this may suggest a more humaneness alien to antiquity.

Where Rousseau's characteristic wisdom shines through, though, are in his remarks on education, reminiscent of Emile -

Everywhere I see immense establishments where youths are brought up at great expense to learn everything but their duties. Your children will not know their own language but will speak others that are nowhere in use. They will know how to compose verses they will scarcely be capable of comprehending. Without knowing how to separate error from truth, they will possess the art of making them unrecognizable to others by means of specious arguments. But they will not know the meaning of the words magnanimity, fair-mindedness, temperance, humanity, courage. That sweet name homeland will never strike their ear; and if they hear God spoken of at all, it will be less to be in awe of him than to be in fear of him.

Here and in other places, Rousseau comes close to espousing not just an anti-modernist, but even an anarcho-primitivist thought, where the values of ignorance as bliss, poverty, and an unknowing virtue are championed over the modern triumph of the rational intellect (with its concomitant decline in the virtue, with reason after all turning out to be an agent of the passions):

Almighty God, you who hold minds in your hands, deliver us from the enlightenment and the deadly arts of our fathers, and give back to us ignorance, innocence, and poverty—the only goods that can bring about our happiness and that are precious in your sight.

O virtue! Sublime science of simple souls, are there so many difficulties and so much preparation necessary in order to know you? Are your principles not engraved in all hearts, and is it not enough, in order to learn your laws, to commune with oneself and, in the silence of the passions, to listen to the voice of one’s conscience? That is the true philosophy. Let us know how to be satisfied with it.

[Ahmad Badghaish · Rating 3 out of 5]

الكتاب جميل جدًا، فكرته واحدة تقريبًا. هو عبارة عن حوارات روسو حول الفنون والعلوم. كان أول كتب روسو وبه نال شهرته، رغم أن روسو لم يكن راضيًا عنه تمام الرضى.

[Amber · Rating 1 out of 5]

Je crois que je n’ai juste rien compris, malheureusement 😭

[Alp Turgut · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jean-Jacques Rousseau’yu dünyaya tanıtan eser olma özelliği taşıyan "Bilimler ve Sanatlar Üzerine Söylev / Discourse on the Sciences and Arts / Discours sur les Sciences et les Arts", Rousseau’nun Dijon Akademisi’nin ortaya attığı yarışma sorusuna cevaben yazılmış, Rousseau’nun sonraları "Toplum Sözleşmesi"nde toplum olarak güncelleyeceği bilimler ve sanatların insanlığı nasıl bozduğuna dair oldukça düşündürücü bir felsefi eser örneği. Her ne kadar Platon’nun "Devlet"ini hatırlatan Rousseau’nun söyledikleri başta aşırı hissedilse de aslında üzerinde biraz düşünülünce ünlü filozofun demek istediklerini daha iyi anlıyorsunuz. İnsan doğasının bilim ve sanatın ortaya çıkmasıyla bozulduğunu belirtirken, insanların ortaya çıkardıkları şeyler sonucunda gelişen rekabet, kıskançlık, hırs, kin ve nefret gibi kavramlar üzerinde duruyor. Hobbes’dan farklı olarak insan doğasının kötü olmadığını sonradan bozulduğunu belirten Rousseau’nun aslında eleştiri odağında eğitim sistemi bulunuyor. Daha şimdiden yıllar sonra kaleme alacağı "Emile"in temellerini atan Fransız yazarın bir diğer eleştirdiği konu da "lüks" ve "haksız kazanç". Olgunlanmamış olmasına rağmen vermek istediğiyle oldukça değerli bir felsefi eser olduğunu düşündüğüm "Bilimler ve Sanatlar Üzerine Söylev", yazarı daha iyi anlamak için kesinlikle okunmayı hak ediyor.

İstanbul, Türkiye
27.06.2019

Alp Turgut

http://www.filmdoktoru.com/kitap-labo...

[David Sarkies · Rating 3 out of 5]

Rousseau's views on a flaw education system
19 January 2013
It is difficult to tell whether Rousseau is being serious in this discourse or not. Apparently this won an award in an essay competition (and mind you when I read these essays, and then read one of the essays that I wrote in university I realise how crap my writing was back then, and probably still is), but it seems that Rousseau is being a little hypocritical since he is a very educated person who is attacking education. The other thing about this is that his argument is actually quite flawed, but then again, he did not have the benefit of Twentieth Century history.
The basis of his argument is that an educated society is a weak society in that people become lazy and are more reliant upon others to do their work for them. He points to Egypt, Athens, and Rome as an example, but once again I consider that he is misinterpreting the evidence that was available to him at the time. It is difficult to tell whether Egypt was really an enlightened society like that of Athens and Rome, and even then Egypt have a very long history. However, we must remember that there were periods of greatness, and periods when Egypt was under the yoke of foreign powers. In any event, despite invasion, Egypt hasdalways managed to maintain its own unique identity, and was always able to rise up out of the ashes.
As for Athens, despite their so called laziness and pursuit of leisure, they were not only able to fight off the Persians twice, but they also managed to hold their ground against the Spartans for over thirty years, even after their navy had been decimated: never underestimate the power of freedom. With regards to Rome, granted the Republic collapsed to be replaced by a dictatorship, but Rome lasted centuries, and still holds the record for being the longest contiguous empire in the history.
Now, I shall turn to the Twentieth century to once again demonstrate how Rousseau was wrong, and we simply need to look towards World War I as evidence. Here we have a militaristic German Empire at war against the Liberal Democracies of Britain and France. The war was seen as a test of the strength of the liberal democracies, and the liberal democracies passed with flying colours. There was also World War II and the Cold War, in which the Liberal Democracies once again both won with flying colours.
I do accept that art and science can create complacency and laziness, but we must not forget the power that freedom gives people, and the lengths that they will go to to fight for their freedom. The Viet-Cong held off the Americans for fifteen years, despite being out numbered and out gunned, and the same is true of Iraq in recent years. In both cases, the invaded people did not want to live under American imperialism because they knew and understood that the Americans were not going to offer them the sort of lifestyle that they wanted. Granted, Germany, Japan, and Korea have become advanced economies, but these miracles have not been replicated in any of the other countries that American has intervened in, and it was clear that this freedom and economic prosperity was not going to necessarily be awarded to to Iraqis or the Viet-Cong. In fact, as we have seen, the so called economic miracle never arose in Iraq, in the same way that it never arose in Haiti, Granda, or Afghanistan.

Another reading of Rousseau's discourse
21 February 2013
I have now read this discourse a second time, and also having had the benefit of listening to a couple of lectures on Rousseau, and reading it in light of Immanuel Kant, I have come to understand his arguments a lot more. I do not think Rousseau is being satirical in this discourse, rather I believe that what he writes here suggests that he is being deadly serious.
The question that Rousseau raises is whether education is a dangerous element to our society and as I reread the tract I have come to understand that Rousseau was quite prescient in predicting the flaws within our social structure. We also need to remember that the problems that Rousseau was raising was not some future prediction but problems that he could see in French society at that time.
Now Kant, in his pamphlet entitled 'What is Enlightenment', says that enlightenment is being able to think for oneself without having to defer to another person's opinion to make your decision. In the example that I used previously, it is like making the decision to ask a girl out on a date and rather than simply asking her, going and asking all of your friends whether you should ask her out on a date. Now, Rousseau attacks education in that it does not teach us how to think but rather to regurgitate what has been told to us by our teachers. In fact, the problem with modern education is not that we are taught to think, but rather that there are all these people out there wanting us to pay them money so that they can teach us how to think.
The problem is that being able to think for oneself is dangerous because by being able to think for ourselves give us freedom. After I read 'What is Enlightenment' I handed it to a friend. The reason I did that is because I read the first paragraph of the tract and it so blew me away I felt like I should give it to him. The reason I did so was because he had gone to an 'insecure beta male' (a term that another of my friends uses) to ask for advice (which I believed was a really bad thing) at which point this particular guy suddenly sunk his claws into him and took control of his life. It is not the question of bad advice, it is that by going to the wrong person for advice can end up enslaving you to that person.
This is what Rousseau is on about. At the beginning of his tract 'The Social Contract' he writes 'Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains'. In this discourse he writes 'up until that time Romans had been content to practise virtue; everything was lost when they began to study it.' Here he suggests that by adhering to a code of morality you in the end become enslaved by it, but in reality this code of morality is not actually virtue, but it is virtue that is taught to us and in turn it is expected by us, and that in the end we become enslaved by it.
Christ teaches in a broad stroke 'love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength … and love your neighbour as yourself' and then humanity comes along with a large set of rules to tells us how to do that. When the Bible talks about virtue, it talks about characteristics, such as love, joy, peace, patience, while the church teaches us what it believes these things are (that is, it studies virtue). Granted, while our society tells us that we should not walk around the street naked (and Rousseau goes as far to suggest that clothes were originally developed to hide deformities, and we even see in the Bible that clothes were invented to hide our shame) to go against that norm is probably not a really good idea.
I mentioned previously that I do not believe that Rousseau is entirely correct in his examples, until you remember that it is indeed true that the Persian Empire was overthrown by a bunch of barbaric savages (and remember one of Alexander's chief tactics was to simply charge the king rather than to fight some set piece battle). We see the same thing in Vietnam and in Iraq. The might and sophistication of the American military was brought to a halt by a group of rag-tag insurgents, and it seems that that is the new tactic that is now being used against the West.

[Néguine · Rating 4 out of 5]

J'aurais dû lire ce livre beaucoup plus tôt. Rousseau n'est pas parmi mes écrivains préférés , mais ce qu'il a écrit dans ce livre est un sujet plus ou moins tabou.

Du point de vue religieux, il faut rester dans l'ignorance totale, d'après les textes bibliques plus on est simple d'esprit, plus on trouve le bonheur dans la vie d'aujourd'hui et auprès de Dieu au paradis !
Sans oublier que Eve a mangé le fruit de l'arbre de la connaissance! Donc tout le malheur humain a commencé par ledit arbre!

Mais la religion à part, Rousseau croit que les sciences et les arts sont les prémices de nos vices. Et cela pourrait conduire la civilisation et la vie des hommes à une sorte de décadence sans qu'on le sache.
Cette réflexion est facilement justifiable. On n'a qu'à regarder de près les conséquences de tous les progrès scientifiques, il y a la possibilité de voler en avion et il se peut qu'il y ait des accidents aériens. La même chose pour l'énergie nucléaire... Et au-delà de tout, ce qui est problématique c'est que les progrès techniques et scientifiques qui en apparence facilitent la vie des hommes sont tombés entre les mauvaises mains et cela aboutira tôt ou tard à la disparition de l'espèce humaine au moins sous forme qu'on la connaît.

[Marika · Rating 2 out of 5]

Es steht halt schon viel Schwachsinn drin auch.

[Kasparas · Rating 4 out of 5]

science is effeminate 😝

[Manuel Gomez · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ensayo de lectura compleja donde analiza de forma negativa la focalización de la educación en las artes y las ciencias.

This assay is difficult to be read. It analices how the education is wrongly focused, according to the author, into arts and sciences.

[Skyler Myers · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Are your principles not engraved in all hearts, and in order to learn your laws is it not enough to go back into oneself and listen to the voice of one's conscience in the silence of the passions? There you have true philosophy. Let us learn to be satisfied with that, and without envying the glory of those famous men who are immortalized in the republic of letters, let us try to set between them and us that glorious distinction which people made long ago between two great peoples: one knew how to speak well; the other how to act well.”

PROs:

* Engaging writing

* Great historical information

CONs:

* Quite hypocritical

* Many assertions not fully thought out

“Those whom nature destined to make her disciples have no need of teachers. Bacon, Descartes, Newton — these tutors of the human race had no need of tutors themselves, and what guides could have led them to those places where their vast genius carried them? Ordinary teachers could only have limited their understanding by confining it to their own narrow capabilities. With the first obstacles, they learned to exert themselves and made the effort to traverse the immense space they moved through. 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.”

I found this discourse far superior to the second one. Even though I completely disagree with pretty much everything Rousseau said, I still liked the book because of how well he incorporated history into his arguments which made this book extremely entertaining. The one problem with his argument is that he seems to idolize the past, yet never mentions any of the burdens. There's a bit of confirmation bias here. Even so, I feel like I learned a lot after reading it and there are plenty of great quotes by Rousseau in here. One last problem I have with Rousseau in general is his incessant use of run on sentences. I had to read each sentence (generally about a paragraph each) about three times to fully grasp them.

“Europe had fallen back into the barbarity of the first ages. People from this part of 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. It was the stupid Muslim, the eternal blight on learning, who brought about its rebirth among us.”

[Scot · Rating 4 out of 5]

I simply read the Discourse on the Sciences and Arts and it was a wonderful look at all that has gone wrong since we moved away from virtue and liberty toward luxury and self-perceived greatness. Whereas I see the benefit of the Arts and Sciences, and I think in some regards Rousseau does too, I can appreciate the conclusions he has come to regarding their pursuit and more so our motivations for their pursuit as an empty practice. He seems to use these as the example as one of the many ways we have moved away from virtue, doing what is right, supporting others, enjoying the company of our friends, etc. It is also quite interesting that much of what he was talking about when he wrote this is perfectly applicable to America today where are politicians are no longer interested in virtue and well-being but instead business and the economy, and our wars are not fought for legitimate reason but simply because our ways are perceived better than others. Short piece well worth the read whether you agree with him or not, only would avoid if you can't get past his slams on art and science.

[Yann · Rating 2 out of 5]

A la question portant sur l'éventuel amélioration des mœurs introduite par les progrès des sciences et des Arts, Rousseau répond par la négative, outré par les excès de l'hypocrisie de l'homme civilisé, de l'affaiblissement de la vertu au contact du luxe et des commodités. Il vante les spartiates, les premiers romains, les sauvages Germains et les Hurons. Il n'est pas étonnant qu'il se soit attiré des inimitiés, lorsqu'il imagine Socrate louant l'ignorance, ou qu'il attribue à Ovide et Martial la décadence Romaine, ou qu'il déplore l'invention de l'imprimerie. Ainsi, il trouble dans son discours une saine indignation par de tristes sophismes, amalgames et raccourcis. Il regrettera d'ailleurs ce texte, qui lui a apporté autant de gloire que d'ennemis.

[aurora · Rating 2 out of 5]

Beklentiyle başladım ve başlarda güzeldi fakat o kadar da iyi bir kitap değilmiş. Her ne kadar verdiği örnekler iyi olsa da kendisine katılamadım, sürekli kendini tekrar etmesi de biraz sıkıcı yapıyor

[Heba Tariq · Rating 4 out of 5]

إسلوبه مميز
لكنه متحامل قليلاً على العلوم و الفنون
أظن إن كتاب روسو هذا ستتضاعف قيمته فى خلال الخمسين عام القادمة نظراً للسيطرة الحقيقية للعلم على المصير البشرى

[Mitch · Rating 2 out of 5]

Well-written polemic. Only becomes interesting in the context of R's other writings.

[Isaac Colvin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Was a little disappointed by this compared to Qutb's SJII, but holding Rousseau to a much higher standard tbf. I was planning on writing actual reviews to log my research but then I realised that would be fucking stupid I don't wanna plagiarise myself through turnitin. two quotes then:

"the dangerous reveries of the likes of Hobbes and Spinoza will remain forever ... famed writings of which the ignorance and rusticity of our forefathers would have been incapable" Sayyid agrees.

"A [renaissance] revolution was needed to bring men back to common sense; it finally came from the the least expected quarter. It was the stupefied Muslim, the eternal scourge of letters, who caused them to be reborn among us." Sayyid disagrees with the racism.

[Temuka Zoidze · Rating 2 out of 5]

რაღაცაზე ძალიან გაბრაზებული, გაბოროტებული და თან საოცრად მოსაწყენი მიზოგინი მასკულინია რუსო.

[Nina · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.75

[Ömer Talha · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bilimlere ve sanatlara yönelik beklemediğim bir antitez. Dumura uğratan yazılar bütünü.

[Loli · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bilimlerin ve sanatların gelişmesi ahlakın düzelmesine yardım etmiş midir?
Sorusuna yanıt olarak yazılan bir eser. Sanırım beni yardım etmediğine dair ikna etti. :)

[Sam Brazenas · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed reading this essay, and agreed with Rousseau on a lot more than most people seem to. Though I fall into the same contradiction as him - I am a dedicated learner, so I suppose I am losing my virtues and giving way for vices to dominate (HA Joke's on you because my morals are all over the place)

What I understood from this, it that it is the pursuit and desire to be educated in Arts and Sciences and to know more than our peers that gives way to this demise in virtuous peoples. (This is my first experience with Rousseau so I can't presume to know his intentions) He says, "Astronomy was born of superstition, eloquence of ambition, hatred, falsehood and flattery; geometry of avarice; physics of an idle curiosity; and even moral philosophy of human pride. Thus the arts and sciences owe their birth to our vices; we should be less doubtful of their advantages, if they had sprung from our virtues" This is where I get the understanding that the pursuit of this knowledge is what is "bad" and not the knowledge itself. I mean, we couldn't advance as a society without it.

Anyway, I get it - we all want to be and feel more intellectual. That's why I constantly have a book in my hand or am watching documentaries (mostly for the enjoyment of entertainment and learning, but I would say climbing the societal ladder is an underlying reason for why I enjoy learning) I also feel the same with art - I am always watching independent arthouse films because 1. I enjoy them, but it also makes me feel superior when I can discuss them with my intellectual friends or hop on a reddit thread to talk about the themes and symbolism. It's crazy to me how something written in the 1700s can be so relevant today. We hold these people who excel in their fields on a high pedestal and aspire to gain their wisdom, knowing we will never be on their level. But being able to discuss it with peers puts me on a higher pedestal than those around me who have no knowledge of these sorts. It's a ridiculous sentiment but it's true. So I understand what Rousseau is saying in that this pursuit isn't always virtuous, and perhaps leads to a lot of pretentious people thinking they know everything when really they know nothing. (I appreciated his many references to Socrates, so I felt compelled to throw in a reference myself)

I do disagree with Rousseau in that he believes a heavy focus on science and art in education leads to a lack of empathy and understanding. He says, "We see, on every side, huge institutions, where our youth are educated at great expense, and instructed in everything but their duty. Your children will be ignorant of their own language, when they can talk others which are not spoken anywhere. They will be able to compose verses which they can hardly understand; and, without being capable of distinguishing truth from error, they will possess the art of making them unrecognisable by specious arguments. But magnanimity, equity, temperance, humanity and courage will be words of which they know not the meaning." I feel that literature and art make me a more empathetic person - I am able to learn about the world through a lens that isn't my own, but make interpretations about the world that are solely mine.

Finally, I do agree with him in terms of those in power. I think a lot of what he says is relevant to American politics. Rousseau says, "Let it be admitted that luxury is a certain indication of wealth; that it even serves, if you will, to increase such wealth: what conclusion is to be drawn from this paradox, so worthy of the times? And what will become of virtue if riches are to be acquired at any cost? The politicians of the ancient world were always talking of morals and virtue; ours speak of nothing but commerce and money." This sh*t is so accurate. We vote for politicians because they talk of a prosperous future for us in terms of MONEY. Think about the rhetoric used by political candidates - they are always talking directly to the middle class and how they will help us see more wealth, to have more luxuries. We aren't voting based on values and morals, we are voting on a selfish desire to move up the economic ladder. Hence, Donald Trump. So yeah, Rousseau, I agree with you here. I just don't necessarily agree that it is science and art that are the luxuries in today's world as the internet makes information accessible to a large portion of the population (who can afford internet). Then again, it's near impossible to move up the economic ladder without a Master's degree or PhD which is ultimately a piece of paper that proves you are more "enlightened" rather than skilled.

IDK. It's difficult to read this without comparing it to modern times as opposed to reading it solely through the lens of someone living through the early phases of Enlightenment. I enjoyed the connections to modern society that I was able to make though, and this essay is quotable as f*ck, so it will be great to use some of these lines in my writing going forward.

[l’ivresse rhapsodie. · Rating 5 out of 5]

l’homme est né bon mais c’est la société qui le corrompt

[Eric Xia · Rating 2 out of 5]

A very anti-intellectual essay that won a prize, probably due to its extensive reference to previous intellectuals, despite his own rejection of their activity as a whole.

Richness in dress can announce a man with money and elegance a man with taste. The healthy, robust man is recognized by other signs. It is under the rustic clothing of a labourer, and not under the gilded frame of a courtesan that one finds physical strength and energy. Finery is no less a stranger to virtue, which is the power and vigour of the soul. The good man is an athlete who delights in fighting naked. He despises all those vile ornaments which hamper the use of his strength, the majority of which were invented only to conceal some deformity.

Human nature was not fundamentally better, but men found their security in the ease with which they could see through each other, and this advantage, whose value we no longer feel, spared them many vices.

...an inhabitant in some distant country who wished to form some idea of European morals based on the condition of the sciences among us, on the perfection of our arts, on the propriety of our entertainments, on the politeness of our manners, on the affability of our discussions, on our perpetual demonstrations of good will, and on that turbulent competition among men of all ages and all conditions who appear to be fussing from dawn to sunset about helping one another, then this stranger, I say, would conclude that our morals are exactly the opposite of what they are.

There is in Asia an immense country where literary honours lead to the highest offices of state. If the sciences purified morals, if they taught men to shed their own blood for their country, if they inspired courage, the people of China would become wise, free, and invincible. But if there is no vice which does not rule over them, no crime unfamiliar to them, if neither the enlightenment of ministers, nor the alleged wisdom in the laws, nor the multitude of inhabitants of that vast empire was capable of keeping it safe from the ignorant and coarse yoke of the Tartars, what use have all these wise men been to them?

"From poets," Socrates continues, "I moved to artists. No one was more ignorant about the arts than I; no one was more convinced that artists possessed really beautiful secrets. However, I noticed that their condition was no better than that of the poets and that both of them have the same misconceptions. Because the most skillful among them excel in their specialty, they look upon themselves as the wisest of men. In my eyes, this presumption completely tarnished their knowledge. As a result, putting myself in the place of the oracle and asking myself what I would prefer to be—what I was or what they were, to know what they have learned or to know that I know nothing—I replied to myself and to the god: I wish to remain who I am."... "This just man would continue to despise our vain sciences; he would not help to augment that pile of books with which we are swamped from all directions, and he would leave after him, as he once did, nothing by way of a moral precept for his disciples and our posterity other than his example and memory of his virtue."

"Gods," you would have said, "what has happened to those thatched roofs and those rustic dwelling places where, back then, moderation and virtue lived? What fatal splendour has succeeded Roman simplicity? What is this strange language? What are these effeminate customs? 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? Was it to enrich architects, painters, sculptors, and comic actors that you soaked Greece and Asia with your blood? Are the spoils of Carthage trophies for a flute player?

Romans, hurry up and tear down these amphitheatres, break up these marbles, burn these paintings, chase out these slaves who are subjugating you, whose fatal arts are corrupting you. Let other hands distinguish themselves with vain talents. The only talent worthy of Rome is that of conquering the world and making virtue reign there. When Cineas took our Senate for an assembly of kings, he was not dazzled by vain pomp or by affected elegance. He did not hear there this frivolous eloquence, the study and charm of futile men. What then did Cineas see that was so majestic? O citizens! He saw a spectacle which your riches or your arts could never produce, the most beautiful sight which has ever appeared under heaven, an assembly of two hundred virtuous men, worthy of commanding in Rome and governing the earth."

, we will not find an origin for human learning which corresponds to the idea we like to create for it. Astronomy was born from superstition, eloquence from ambition, hate, flattery, and lies, geometry from avarice, physics from a vain curiosity— everything, even morality itself, from human pride. The sciences and the arts thus owe their birth to our vices; we would have fewer doubts about their advantages if they owed their birth to our virtues

What would we do with the arts, without the luxury which nourishes them? Without human injustice, what is the use of jurisprudence? What would become of history if there were neither tyrants, nor wars, nor conspirators? In a word, who would want to spend his life in such sterile contemplation, if each man consulted only his human duties and natural needs and had time only for his country, for the unfortunate, and for his friends? Are we thus fated to die tied down on the edge of the pits where truth has gone into hiding? This single reflection should discourage, right from the outset, every man who would seriously seek to instruct himself through the study of philosophy

So answer me, illustrious philosophers, those of you thanks to whom we know in what proportions bodies attract each other in a vacuum, what are, in the planetary orbits, the ratios of the areas gone through in equal times, what curves have conjugate points, points of inflection and cusps, how man sees everything in God, how the soul and the body work together without communication, just as two clocks do, what stars could be inhabited, which insects reproduce in an extraordinary way, answer me, I say, you from whom we have received so much sublime knowledge, if you had never taught us anything about these things, would we have been less numerous, less well governed, less formidable, less thriving, or more perverse?

I will simply ask: What is philosophy? What do the writings of the best known philosophers contain? What are the lessons of these friends of wisdom? To listen to them, would one not take them for a troupe of charlatans crying out in a public square, each from his own corner: "Come to me. I'm the only one who is not wrong"? One of them maintains that there are no bodies and that everything is appearance, another that there is no substance except matter, no God other than the world. This one here proposes that there are no virtues or vices, and that moral good and moral evil are chimeras, that one there that men are wolves and can devour each other with a clear conscience. O great philosophers, why not reserve these profitable lessons for your friends and your children? You will soon earn your reward, and we would have no fear of finding any of your followers among our own people

. 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

So many precautions reveal only too clearly how necessary it is to take them. People do not seek remedies for evils which do not exist. Why must these ones, because of their inadequacy, still have the character of ordinary remedies? So many institutions created for the benefit of the learned are only all the more capable of impressing people with the objects of the sciences and of directing minds towards their cultivation. It seems, to judge from the precautions people take, that we have too many farm labourers and are afraid of not having enough philosophers.

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.

Sublime science of simple souls, are so many troubles and trappings necessary for one to know you? Are your principles not engraved in all hearts, and in order to learn your laws is it not enough to go back into oneself and listen to the voice of one's conscience in the silence of the passions? There you have true philosophy. Let us learn to be satisfied with that, and without envying the glory of those famous men who are immortalized in the republic of letters, let us try to set between them and us that glorious distinction which people made long ago between two great peoples: one knew how to speak well; the other how to act well.