Emilio: o dell'educazione

Избрани съчинения #2

by Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Summa delle concezioni filosofiche di Rousseau sulla natura umana e sull'influsso esercitato dalla società, Emilio costituisce una chiave di volta nello sviluppo della sua dottrina: vagheggiato l'ideale di una società perfetta, è in queste pagine che vengono gettate le basi concrete della civiltà rinnovata. Emilio percorre le tappe della formazione intellettuale e morale di un individuo destinato a vivere nella società, ma capace di resistere alla sua influenza corruttrice. Un progetto ispirato ai principi di natura, libertà, rispetto dell'individualità del fanciullo, destinato a influenzare la riflessione pedagogica dal Settecento in poi e a diventare il punto di partenza della pedagogia moderna.

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

888 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1762

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

[فؤاد · Rating 3 out of 5]

زنى از اشراف پاريس از ژان ژاك روسو راجع به راه درست تربيت كودك پرسيد. روسو نخست قرار بوده نامه اى كوتاه در پاسخ بنويسد، اما هر چه بيشتر به نوشتن ادامه داد به اهميت موضوع بيشتر پى برد، تا بالاخره كتاب درخشان چهارصد صفحه اى "اميل" را نگاشت، كه مبناى برخى تحولات اساسى در نظام آموزش و پرورش فرانسه و ديگر كشورها گشت.


ساختار كتاب

روسو خود را در نقش يك مربى سر خانه تصور مى كند كه دعوت شده تا "اميل"، كودك يكى از خانواده ها متمول را بزرگ كند.
او در پنج فصل به مراحل مختلف رشد اميل مى پردازد و در ضمن آن مطالعات و نظريات خود را پى مى گيرد.

فصل نخست، آغاز طفوليت-مراقبت هايى كه نوزاد لازم دارد،
فصل دوم، تربيت اخلاقى كودك،
فصل سوم، پسرك ١٢ تا ١٥ ساله،
فصل چهارم، دوران شباب،
فصل پنجم، ازدواج.


وحشى نجيب، متمدن فاسد


«خداوند همه چیز را نیکو آفریده است؛ انسان است که با دخالت خود آن ها را فاسد می کند.»

اين نخستين جمله و مرام نامه ى كتاب اميل است. از نظريات اجتماعى پايه اى ژان ژاك روسو "وحشى نجيب" است، يعنى انسان بر اثر پيچيدگى هاى تمدن است كه دچار فساد اخلاقى مى شود، وگرنه به شكل طبيعى و آزاد، هيچ انسانى فاسد نيست.

بر همين اساس، در اين كتاب هم مى كوشد راه تعليم و تربيتى را بيابد كه هر چه بيشتر به رشد طبيعى كودك نزديك باشد؛ چرا كه معتقد است شيوه ى تربيتى بورژوازى است كه كودكان ثروتمندان را از همان روز نخست فاسد بار مى آورد.

او با تأمل در رفتارهاى كودكان از نوزادى تا نوجوانى، سعى مى كند بيابد كه طبيعت آن ها چه اقتضائاتى دارد، و با طبيعى ترين شيوه همان را برآورده سازد، و مى گويد: اشكال بزرگ در شيوه هاى تربيتى رايج آن است كه نيازهاى طبيعى كودك را ناديده مى گيرند، و مى خواهند به قهر و اجبار او را به شكلى كه خود و جامعه ى بورژوا انتظار دارد در بياورند.


اشكالات

١.
روسو مى خواهد شيوه اى پيشنهاد كند كه تربيت كودك متناسب با رشد طبيعى و نيازهاى طبيعى او باشد. اما در عمل گاهى از اين مقصود دور مى شود، و هم در تشخيص نياز طبيعى بچه، و هم در پيشنهاد شيوه ى تربيتى متناسب با آن، مطالبى بى اندازه پيچيده و تصنّعى (غير طبيعى) و دور از واقع بيان مى كند، مخصوصاً در فصل آخر كه به صفات "طبيعى" زن مى پردازد. درست همانند جمهور افلاطون (كه اتفاقاً مورد ستايش روسو هم هست) كه به بهانه ى تربيت درست مردم در مدينه ى فاضله، مستبدانه ترين سانسورها و سخت گيرى ها را مجاز مى شمارد.
٢.
اشكال ديگر آن كه كتاب در زمانى نوشته شده كه هنوز روش علمى در ابتداى راه خود بوده است، از اين جهت هر چند بسيارى مشاهدات روسو دقيق و ريزبينانه است، اما مى توان در صحت علمى آن ها خدشه كرد.
٣.
از طرفى، اين مشهور است كه روسو يك كتاب درخشان چهارصد صفحه اى در خصوص تربيت مهرآميز كودك نوشت، اما خود هرگز كمترين عنايتى به چهار كودك نامشروع خود نداشت، بلكه آن ها را با بی رحمی تمام به یتیم خانه سپرد و کودکان در آن جا جان دادند.


آيا بايد كتاب را خواند؟

بسيارى از راه هاى نادرست و ظالمانه ى تربيتى كه روسو از آن ها انتقاد مى كند، هنوز در ميان ما به قوت خود باقى است. كسانى كه مى خواهند بچه دار شوند، اما هنوز روحيات كودك را نمى شناسند، بايد اين كتاب را پيش از هر چيز بخوانند تا از تكرار شيوه هاى ظالمانه ى سنتى بپرهيزند.

اما آيا اميل تنها گزينه است؟ اين كتاب از نظر قدرت نثر و ديد انسانى كتاب بسيار خوبى است، اما امروزه كتاب هاى علمى تر و قابل اعتمادترى در روانشناسى كودك نوشته شده، كه مى توانند جايگزين هاى بهترى براى اميل باشند. در نتيجه، هر چند بايد كتابى در زمينه ى تربيت كودك خواند، اما ضرورت ندارد حتماً اميل خوانده شود.

[Trevor · Rating 4 out of 5]

I recently read Durant’s The Story of Philosophy. In that he said that it was a pity that philosophy had become quite so obsessed with epistemology (worrying about how we think) rather than ethics (worrying about how we can live a good life). Durant saw a time in the not too distant future when philosophy would get over epistemology and become once more a kind of thinking persons self-help club. In many ways this book is a version of ‘how to live a good life’ – no, better, how to educate people so that they are able to live a good life. A lot of it might have you hoping philosophy sticks with epistemology for a wee while yet.

Just about every time Jean-Jacques mentions women in this expect either that your blood will boil or run cold. That the smartest of men could say and believe the dumbest things is a constant source of amazement to me. On the good side, like Plato he believes girls need to be educated and to play an active role in society, but he also believes that women are meant for quite other things than men and that these separate roles are decided by nature and are therefore impossible to change.

Just about the only thing I knew about Rousseau prior to reading this was that he believed in the noble savage. That is, that it is society that is the cause of all corruption in the world and that humans in their natural state are pretty well wonderful to each other. So, it is reasonable to guess that he is going to also think that the proper way to educate people is to do so in accordance with natural principles of one kind or another. And this is his lasting influence, I think.

I’ve recently read Dewey’s Democracy and Education, and I was surprised at how often Dewey referred to Rousseau and this book. I had also recently read The Social Animal, which is a bit of a homage to this book in many ways (expressly so). So, reading this was becoming increasingly important. To understand the ongoing importance of this book to education it might be best to start with what is the opposite view to Jean-Jacques. Remember how bored you were for so much of your time at school? Well, a lot of the reason for this was that you were being asked to remember stuff that you weren’t really all that interested in. If it ever occurred to you to say to your teacher, “Look, enough of this shit already, I’m bored out of my bloody mind – can’t you torture flies or something rather than torturing me?” Your teacher would just as likely say to you, “Now, listen you snotty-nosed little bastard, it is hard enough having to teach this crap to an empty-headed fool like you, but what you have got to realise is that although this stuff is as boring as bat-shit now, give it a couple of years and you’ve no idea just how important it will all turn out to be.”

Education, in this model, is always something for some time in the future (a time that is always unspecified) and will help in ways that can’t really be put into words right now. That kids buckle under and keep on ‘learning’ in a kind of half-sleep says much, much more about power relationships within classrooms than it does about anything else. (The 'anything else' here being ‘what is important for kids to learn?’ ‘how is it best to teach them?’ and ‘what is it that they are actually learning when we force them to attend to this crap anyway?’)

Rousseau makes this point beautifully when he is discussing what happens when you teach kids the catechism. When I was a child my family used to have a record of Brendan Grace doing a comedy routine about a priest asking a group of boys questions for their confirmation. Not being Catholic, there was always a sense of naughtiness in getting this insight into the happenings in that other world. One question was, “What is the mystery of the trinity?” And the boy who is asked replies, in an accent the priest cannot understand, “Three divine persons all in the one God.” The priest says he doesn’t understand and the boy says, “You’re not supposed to understand, it’s a mystery, isn’t it?”

Rousseau says that if you want to see just how effective such teaching is, such rote learning despite the utter lack of understanding (or even a lack of an expectation of an understanding) on the part of the student – all one needs do is talk to the student about the subject outside of their learned (rehearsed) response. Once out of role not only do you see they have understood none of it at all, but also that their understanding is actually quite off from your intention. Why? Well, mostly because what they are being asked to ‘learn’ has no relevance or interest to them now. So, at best they remember disconnected pieces, rather than anything like a consistent whole.

Now, think about what we are teaching kids by teaching them this. We are teaching them that it isn’t important for them to understand anything properly, but that they will get a pat on the back if they have been able to parrot back what appear to be meaningless jumbles of words in more or less the right order.

What the child understands doesn’t really matter in the least, what matters is that they have their heads get filled with ‘knowledge’ that will make sense ‘sometime’.

So, is there an alternative to this? Well, according to Rousseau there is – and that is to teach according to what the child is interested in learning and needs to know now. And if you want to teach the child something that they are currently not interested in learning, then it is up to you to find a way to make learning that thing essential for the child in the here and now. For example, he talks about getting his student lost in the woods so that he can teach the child the importance of knowing how to find directions from the position of the sun and therefore how the earth travels around the sun and how the sun shifts position in the sky according to the time of the year. The point is, as anyone with kids knows, kids live in the present. If that is the case, you really do need to teach them in the present too. When people see the point of something then learn is as easily as breathing. That is what we humans do – we are learning machines. But it is so easy to make it hard for kids to learn and to convince them they are not good learners. And the best way to achieve this is to try to force them to learn stuff they have no interest in or even any way of working out what possible interest they might have in it.

Now, all that is the good bit of this book. You have to know that this book was written for a very small group of people – that is, ‘nice’ people who are able to afford servants. This is about how to go about the education of boys, but not any boys, only a very few well off boys. It wouldn’t take a lot to be turned off this book entirely. The long and rather boring discussion of religion, the sexism, the endless marriage preparations and the classism weren't really my cup of tea. All the same, the bits of this that are good are particularly good.

[Deborah Markus · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read this book as research for a writing project of my own. Once finished, I had no idea how I ought to rate it.

There is some brilliant writing here, and I highlighted a lot of eminently quotable passages. Certainly I can understand why the French adore some of Rousseau's ideas about education.

But even if one can get past the irony of Rousseau the child-abandoner writing (in very smug tones!) how the young ought to be raised and educated, there's the little fact that he was sexist above and beyond the call of duty. The thoughts on education that the French praise to the skies are all thoughts on the education of boys. When he does bother to mention girls, he stresses that their education ought to lie in teaching them how to be utterly submissive and obedient. Because if you're nice enough to that wife-beater your parents married you off to, he'll stop hitting you. And if he doesn't stop hitting you, well, I guess you weren't nice enough.

The fact that I'm paraphrasing shouldn't lead you to conclude that I'm exaggerating.

Yes, I know Rousseau lived and died in the eighteenth century. So did Mary Wollstonecraft.

So: Read this if you're interested in French history, the history of education, or Rousseau's bizarre life. And don't be fooled by the many people who refer to this book as a novel. It isn't. It's a work in which Rousseau presents his ideas about education, and at a certain point, says, "Let's pretend I was hired to be the tutor of a young man -- say his name is Emile. Here's what that might be like, and here are some conversations I can imagine having with this boy." Rousseau never claimed to be writing a novel. He simply alternates between the autobiographical and the hypothetical.

[Roy Lotz · Rating 4 out of 5]

If all the philosophers in the world should prove that I am wrong, and you feel that I am right, that is all I ask.

My reaction to Rousseau is very similar to my reaction to Thoreau, whose back-to-nature ethic owed much to Rousseau’s philosophy. Though constantly impressed with the breadth of their vision and the force of their rhetoric, I find the personalities of these two men—at least as manifested in their books—to be grating and unpleasant. When I am not underlining brilliant passages, I read Rousseau through gritted teeth and with frequent interruptions to roll my eyes.

I see much in common between these two Romantic devotees of nature. While Thoreau’s dour and stern demeanor is not comparable to Rousseau’s sentimental imagination, the two of them are self-involved, prickly, and vain. Both praise wild isolation at the expense of society because neither seemed to fit into the latter. Though the two of them were brilliant in the extreme, neither of them seemed to have reached the level of intellectual maturity that allows feelings to be submitted to reasons and other perspectives to be considered. Both of them fire off opinions with wild abandon, saying what feels good, without taking the trouble to thoroughly argue their points, to consider competing ideas, or even to make their own thoughts consistent.

To pick just one example of this last tendency in Rousseau, at one point he says: “Amid the uncertainty of human life, let us shun that false prudence which seeks to sacrifice the present to the future; what is, is too often sacrificed to what will never be. Let us make man happy at every age lest in spite of our care he should die without knowing the meaning of happiness.” And yet, almost immediately after this pronouncement, he insists that his titular pupil, after having fallen in love and proposed marriage, postpone the delight of union for two years—leaving his beloved to go travel—in order to learn to master his feelings. The book is rife with such inconsistency. And not only that but, as in Thoreau’s case, Rousseau’s manner of life was notoriously inconsistent with the principles he espoused, adding hypocrisy into the bargain. That a man who sent his own children to an orphanage should write a manifesto of education is rich indeed.

But Rousseau must be read and praised, this book above all, since he—as well as his American disciple—contributed a great deal to our common stock of ideas and the expansion of our cultural faculties. Under the guise of a treatise on education, Rousseau has written a universal reflection on human life, comparable to Plato’s Republic or The Brothers Karamazov for its omnidirectional scope. The novelistic device of describing himself as a tutor educating a child allows Rousseau to illustrate his philosophy of society, ethics, government, love, history, travel, religion, literature, and much else along the way, besides to his groundbreaking views on education.

Rousseau begins with his famous dictum that nature makes everything good, and it is human society corrupts our natural goodness into evil. His stated purpose is to illustrate how natural goodness can be preserved in a growing boy destined for life in society—that is, without Thoreau’s recourse of reverting to a state of nature. With this principle in mind, Rousseau blasts mothers for hiring wet nurses to breastfeed their children rather than doing it themselves. And though Rousseau’s reasons are fallacious, this advice probably did the world much good, since, in addition to the emotional bonding, breastfeeding allows important antibodies to be transferred from the mother to the infant.

After infancy gives way to childhood, Rousseau’s real educational work begins. Here he made another important contribution to child-rearing, by insisting that children’s minds are not suited to adult ideas and methods. A child is a different creature altogether and education must be suited to a child’s capacities and predilections. Lectures, sermons, and catechisms must be avoided; and using punishment and reward only corrupt the child. Instead the tutor must find ways to motivate the child to learn without ever seeming to do so. Rousseau the tutor is constantly devising tricks and schemes to get his imaginary pupil, Emile, to learn valuable lessons in a “natural” way—that is, relying on the child’s intrinsic motivation and using no explicit instruction. Everything in Rousseau’s model must simulate life and the child must work on his own conclusions following his own curiosity. The tutor is much more a guide—and, behind the scenes, an impresario—than a real teacher.

Following this procedure, lessons on magnetism and morality are woven into a magician’s act. Geography is taught by getting lost in the forest. Geometry is taught by attempting to draw and map. Botany and agriculture are taught through gardening. And so on, covering sciences, arts, and moral lessons. This way, Emile grows up into a competent, strong, and thoroughly honest boy with no social pretensions and no vanity whatsoever. At least, Rousseau assures us that this would be the result. By the time Rousseau takes Emile into Paris, as a young man, the student is disgusted at the foppery of the men, the arrogance of the philosophes, and the affected manners of the women.

More contentiously, Rousseau would not teach his pupil anything about God or religion until the age of eighteen, considering such subjects too abstruse and profound for a child to understand. He would not even teach Emile to read until shortly before that. And this is not all that occasioned scandal. Rousseau famously interrupts the story of Emile’s education to include the Profession of Faith of a Savoyard Vicar, the most well-known, influential, and controversial section of the book. Though couched in the language of philosophy, the Profession is essentially an argument against both organized religion and atheism in favor of deism, based on feeling alone. Voltaire, a deist himself, considered this the book’s only worthwhile section, only lamenting that it has been written by “such a rascal.” It was largely this trenchant criticism of organized religion that led to the book getting banned and burned in Paris and Geneva. And yet, ironically enough, the idea that inner conviction is a surer basis for faith than logic was to become a pillar of religious thought in the coming centuries.

The last section of the book consists in finding a mate for Emile. This is by far the most unpleasant part of the book. Rousseau’s view on women and their upbringing is reactionary and sexist to the utmost, not to mention unpleasantly marred by Rousseau’s own sentimental (and sexual) fantasies regarding women. Rousseau’s ideal companion for his pupil is named Sophie, and her education differs markedly from Emile’s. Sophie is to be a kind of passive doll, a creature not fit for reason or art, whose job is to caress Emile and to make his life easier. Rousseau describes their courtship with the drama of a novelist and the passion of an onanist. Both the principles and the writing are revolting.

Finally, after enduring a forced separation for his beloved—a very unnatural thing for Rousseau to recommend!—Emile settles down happily in blissful union with Sophie, and prepares to educate his own children along Rousseau’s lines.

This summary does not exactly do justice to Emile, since it omits all of the manifold digressions that Rousseau yields to in the book’s wandering course. Some of these are among the best sections of the work; others are pointless rambling. Even when he is not off in the bushes, Rousseau can be very repetitive, giving us five sentences where one would do, spending three paragraphs harping on a minor point. The final result is a book much longer than it has to be. This is Rousseau's most conspicuous stylistic flaw, which he excuses in typical Rousseau fashion: “If this book is to be well written, I must enjoy writing it.” Unfortunately the author’s pleasure is often gotten at the expense of the reader’s. Yet the book’s best moments are masterful, rising to heights of power and lyricism that cannot be forgotten. Immanuel Kant famously had to read the book twice, the first time just for the style, the second for the content.

The flaws in Rousseau’s ideas are many and grave. Most obviously, Rousseau’s educational program is impractical in the extreme, relying on a perfectly wise tutor to devote twenty years of his life to a perfectly malleable pupil. This may be excused, however, by treating the arrangement as an explanatory device and not a real proposal to be emulated. More seriously, Rousseau’s conviction that nature is intrinsically good is, I think, incorrect and even incoherent. Natural disasters, such as the Lisbon Earthquake in Rousseau’s own lifetime, demonstrate that nature can be cruel and merciless; and in any case, how can you know what nature is, or where nature ends and human culture begins? Besides, doesn’t Rousseau advocate many “unnatural” things? The level of control exercised by his tutor over his pupil’s reality is far greater than any real parent or teacher.

Yet even when strictly viewed as an educational treatise, there is much to be praised in the book. Rousseau’s emphasis on experiential rather than theoretical learning was quite valuable. And his conviction that education must take into account the child’s development and maturity was a revolution. I also share his suspicion towards using external rewards and punishments to motivate children, since the bad is avoided and the good is sought for artificial, rather than instrinctic, reasons.

Of course the book’s merits extend much further than education. Taken together, Rousseau’s philosophy touched on every aspect of society, from philosophy to fashion, from labor to love. For all his naïveté, Rousseau seemed to have correctly sensed that his society was artificial and could not last. Thirty years before the revolution, he says: “The crisis is approaching, and we are on the edge of a revolution.” And he then goes on in a footnote: “In my opinion, it is impossible that the great kingdoms of Europe should last much longer. Each of them has had its period of splendor, after which it must inevitably decline.” Like Thoreau, Rousseau was a prophet and a true original, embittered by being misunderstood, isolated, and ostracized, whose all-too-obvious faults concealed the revolutionary reach of his vision.

[John Warner · Rating 5 out of 5]

this book is difficult to understand and hence easy to dismiss. many of the other reviews bear witness to this in the most immediate way. emile is not an instructional manual on how to educate a child, nor is it a misogynistic tract that insists on the inferiority of women. these suggestions fail to engage this work precisely where it becomes interesting.

Emile is, and was intended to be, the modern equivalent to Plato's Republic. It is a synoptic book, a sustained, comprehensive, and unified reflection on the human condition. All questions of perennial importance are not only treated, but treated with assiduous care and attention to detail.

The devil, it turns out, is in the details of this elusive and allusive book, which gives beautiful expression to perhaps the most dubious principle in the history of philosophy--that of man's natural goodness.

One reviewer advises us to skip directly to the beginning of the last Book, where Rousseau offers us his views on women. This strategy is more than adequate for all readers who do not care to understand Rousseau. For those who wish to come to grips with what he actually wrote, however, this peculiar advice will not do. If it is impossible to begin at the beginning, then begin at the very end. Read everything else in light of the work's conclusion, and see how--if--it hangs together.

[ladydusk · Rating 2 out of 5]

Rousseau writes about his view of education from infancy through marriage for his one pupil. It's a lot. It's the soup we live in.

I listened to Emile because I wanted to go fast and not be lulled by his arguments - I wanted to know his general arguments and ideas.

From time to time, I was surprised to agree with him - even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes.

Much of the time I was in firm disagreement. He insists that children can be raised like hothouse flowers - staked and grow perfectly straight stems with no disagreement. Did he ever know a child?

His arguments about letting a child grow "by nature" and allowing the child's selfish desires lead ... while stringing the child along by the nose and using that selfishness to control him or her ... is so shockingly wrong. People try parts of it while leaving the hard parts alone and we see the results.

I can see how people could take some of his ideas and apply them to unschooling - but very careful, hard work. But, still, I just cannot get behind the idea of tabula rasa.

He had an intriguing section where he derived the idea of God from nature, which he does, but he can't get to faith in Jesus from there. Then there is a large digression discussing what religion to follow he can only get to recommend following the religion you were born into.

His whole discussion regarding advising Emile on marrying and finding an appropriate wife was ... creepy at best.

As I was listening, there were several points when I thought Charlotte Mason is specifically arguing against this without naming Rousseau. Anyone who wonders if she read him, it is very obvious that she was quite familiar with his discussion - and starts at the beginning with "Children are born persons."

[Renin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Çok ilginç bir insan bu Rousseau! Öyle cevherler var ki bu kitapta, insan şaşırmadan edemiyor, 1750’lerde bunu nasıl söylemiş diye. Modern pedagojinin yeni kavramlarını o günlerde tanımlamış bile.

Tanımlamış ama gel gör ki kadın meselesinde ileri görüşlülüğü sona eriyor. Bu yüzden 5. Bölümü biraz atlayarak okudum, tahammül edemedim.

Bir de, çok çenesi düşük bir yazar. Rakı masası muhabbeti gibi, konu nerelerden nerelere geliyor, arada naralar atılıyor, dedikodu yapılıyor, özel hayat ortaya saçılıyor. Aylar sürdü bu yüzden bitirmem, hafiften şiştim. Okuyacaklara sabır dilerim. Sabrederseniz şahane kitap.

[لونا]

في البدء أحب أن أذكر أن جان جاك روسو قد عمل مرة في حياته مربياً لطفل من طبقة النبلاء ولكن التجربة لم تستمر وباءت بالفشل، وأيضاً كان قد تخلى أن أبناءة الخمسة فور ولادتهم للملاجئ بدون أن يترك علامة أو دليل يُمَكِّنه من الرجوع لهم يوماً ما، فلم يستطع أحد معرفة مصيرهم ... فأغلب المتتبعين لحياته يعتقدون أن هذا الكتاب كان نوعاً من التكفير عن الذنب لتخليه عن دوره كأب أو محاولة لتدوين أفضل أسلوب للتربية بعد تحليله لفشل تجربته كمربي ... ولمن أراد أن يعرف أكثر عن حياته أنصحه بقراءة اعترافاته "اعترافات جان جاك روسو"

بالنسبة للكتاب:-

مُرَبي يتفرغ لتربية الطفل "إميل" من المهد إلى الرشد، ولكن أي طفل؟ خصَّ جان جاك روسو أطفال الأغنياء بذلك فأطفال الفقراء والقرى الطبيعة كفيلة بتربيتهم !! ..

ركز في أسلوب تربيته على أهمية تعزيز التجربة لترسيخ المعلومة و استكشاف جدوى العلم بالتطبيق العملي للتجارب والبحث عن استخداماته في واقع الحياة، والإجابة على الأسئلة بإجابات تثير الفضول ولا تشبعه لاستثارة ملكة التفكير .. وهذه الطريقة تعتبر غريبة وثورية في عصره الذي يركز على اللغات، التاريخ والدين أي العلم النظري

عدم قناعته بدراسة اللغات، العلم النظري والقراءة التي يعتبرها حشو الأدمغة بمعلومات ليست ضرورية لحياة الشخص، ويتضح ذلك في قوله "لن أترك بيد إميل إلا كتاب روبنسون كروزو لأنه رجل عمل بمفرده على حفظ حياته" ... (وبعيداً عن هذا الكتاب الغريب أن أغلب إبداعات جان جاك الأدبية جاءت كتحصيل حاصل لشغفه بالقراءة .. فمنذ الصغر كان والده يقرأ له الكثير من مكتبة الوالدة وكانت الكتب أكبر من سنه فغَّدت ملكه الخيال والإبداع عنده ) ونجد في هذا الكتاب دعوته للتأمل في الطبيعة والتفكير عوضاً عن القراءة

تكلم الكتاب في أغلبة (أكثر من ثلاثة أرباع الكتاب) عن تربية الذكور أما الإناث فتكلم عليهن فقط عندما كبر "أميل" وأصبح بحاجه لزوجه، والزوجة المثالية بنظر روسو تكلم عن نشأتها وتربيتها في الجزء الخامس من الكتاب وأطلق عليها اسم "صوفي" وهذه الجملة تعطي فكره عن صوفي "يجب أن تكون تربية النساء برمتها مرتبطة بالرجال. فإن واجبات النساء في جميع الأزمان هي إرضاء الرجال ونفعهم وتحري محبتهم وتكريمهم....إلخ" !!! ... وأيضاً "لا أحبذ أن تكون المرأة من صاحبات النبوغ فإن النبوغ سيخلق لها مجداً شخصياً يُغنيها عن التماس الفخر في انتسابها إلى زوجها وقيامها بواجب الأم والعقيلة وهذا السبب في أني أنادي بأن تبقى كل فتاة ذات نبوغ عانساً بغير زواج طول الحياة" .. لن أنتقد هذا الجزء لأنه يحتوي على السلبي والإيجابي مثل الجزء الخاص ب"إميل" وإن غلبت سلبيته


جان جاك روسو عاش يتيماً، فقيراً، مشرداً، غير مُوفق في علاقاته مع البشر ومطارداً بسبب أفكاره إلى أن مات .. أغلب المبدعين عاشوا حياة صعبة وعُرفت قيمتهم بعد موتهم وهو ليس بالاستثناء

لن أمنح الكتاب أي نجمه لأنه خارج نطاق التقييم بالنسبة لي لأنه كُتب في عصر غير عصرنا و يعتبر ثورياً بمحتواه وقتها، أما في عصرنا هذا قد استغرب ولا أتَّفق مع بعض مما جاء فيه و شدني وأعجبني بعضه، فالخطوط العريضة لأساليب التربية كتبت بطريقة جميلة جداً .. الكتاب أمتعني كثيراً .. الترجمة موفقة جداً .. ولو كان التقييم مستند عل المتعة فقط لمنحته النجمات الخمس

[Kathryn Cantrell · Rating 1 out of 5]

Please read the last chapter first. If you can accept Rousseau at his most offensive, then maybe you should continue with the rest of the book. Personally, I'm enough of a feminist that I cannot stand this work. I have heard too much praise for this work by so many who haven't finished it (i.e. read Rousseau's treatment of Sophie) that I will refuse to discuss it altogether.

If you're of the "but, gender issues aside" persuasion, you should consider that at the time, there was enough feminist perspective, and we're not talking radical (think Austen), that apology is not appropriate.

[Αβδυλλα Aωαςhι · Rating 5 out of 5]

مراجعة كتاب: إيميل أو تربية الطفل من المهد إلى الرشد

لــــ جان جاك روسو

هذا الكتاب هو أثر خلّفهُ روسو في التربية بجانب آثاره الرئيسية الأخرى التي تركها ، نذكر منها كتاب: العقد الاجتماعي الذي يشكل نواة القوانين السياسية في المجتمعات الحديثة و كتاب الاعترافات الغني عن التعريف و رواية جولي الأدبية الرومانسية.

في هذا الكتاب يتناول روسو قضية تنشأة الطفل الذي سيسميه *إيميل* من لحظة ولادته حتى يصبح أباً سيصاحبه في رحلاته و تنقلاته و يعلّمه مما لديه من الحكمة كمربٍ متخذاً من الطبيعة معلماً في كل شيء و يتخلل الكتاب قصة لقاء ايميل و *صوفي* – الفتاة التي ستمثل دور البنت التي تلقت تربية مثالية كما سيبين روسو من خلالها أسلوب تربية الفتيات بعد أن بين أسلوب تربية الشبان مع إيميل.


لحظات الحب و الوصال في النهاية بين إيميل و صوفي التي تنتهي بالزواج و تكلل بالنجاح ، و ذلك بعد أن خبر ايميل الأمصار مع أستاذه و عاين البشر على اختلافهم.

اختصرت المراجعة بهدف التشجيع على قراءة الكتاب.

كتاب خمس نجوم و النصيحة بقراءته أكثر من ضرورية.


Αωαςhι
١٩ تموز/ يوليو ٢٠١٦

[David Sarkies · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Educated Human
26 January 2016

To say that Rousseau has a low opinion of humanity is an understatement – he absolute despises the corrupting nature of humans and the effect upon the world around them. This is clearly summed up in his opening statement:

God makes all things good; man meddles with them and they become evil.

Actually, Rousseau has an interesting view of reality: the world is initially good and people are free however from the moment of birth the corrupting influence of humanity comes to the fore and seeks to enslave the child - this book is a treatise on how to insulate the child from this corrupting influence and thus to create a new and evolved human through education. The problem with Rousseau is that he does not seem to recognise that human corruption is a part of their nature as opposed to something that comes about through interaction with society, and as such despite being isolated from society the child will still be corrupt. In a way it is sort of like a genetic disorder that is passed down through the parents, meaning that if the parents are corrupt then the child will inherit that corruption despite the parents attempting to insulate the child from the corrupting nature of society.

As you have probably guessed, this text (and it is a pretty long one mind you – Rousseau himself indicated in his foreword that he initially intended it to be quite short but unfortunately it blew out to beyond all proportions) is about the best way to educate a child, however it goes beyond that to theorise on how to craft and mould the child into becoming what Rousseau considered to be an enlightened human, and to do so he realises that one cannot simply isolate the child from society for there must come a time when the child will partake in society, particularly when it comes time for the child to marry. However the conclusion is the belief that if the child is educated properly, right up to and including marriage, then it will form the foundations of a new and enlightened culture as the educated child will then pass that knowledge and training onto his children.

The Education System
I'm going to have to say that I'm not hugely familiar with the system of education back in Rousseau's days, however it was certainly not the system that we are exposed to today. My understanding was that back in Rousseau's day children were educated through the use of private tutors and apprenticeships. If a child were highborn (that is a member of the aristocracy) then private tutors would be brought in to teach the children, and in many cases this education simply involved how one was to conduct oneself in such social circles. In fact I would go as far as to suggest that a lot of the aristocracy of these days probably weren't educated, or at least they weren't educated in the way we understand education. However they no doubt were literate, and would have been exposed not just to the teachings of the church, but also to the writings of the ancients (and in some cases contemporaries, unless their writings had been banned, which was not all that uncommon).

The lower classes tended to be apprenticed and their training would be similar to what we understand as on-the-job training. The idea of going to school and deciding on a career simply did not exist – one's career had been decided by birth and that career was either in the family business, or based upon when one was born as well as one's gender. Females generally would not be given the same education as where the men, and they certainly weren't taught to be literate. One of the problems I found with this book though was that this sexism does permeate quite deeply, despite the fact that Rousseau does state that with the exception of some physiological differences men and women are basically the same.

However that does not necessarily mean that our modern system of education is better – in fact I would have to argue that in many cases it is worse. I suspect that if Rousseau were to be grabbed by Bill and Ted and taken to modern day San Dimas he would be absolutely appalled (isn't it interesting that when the people of historical significance explored modern day San Dimas they were all pretty impressed). The thing with our modern system of education is that it is a by product of industrialisation. Children are all seen as similar products and are put through a machine with the idea of them emerging identical at the end. In a sense it not only assumes that everybody is the same, it works on the principle that one can grade a student's performance on a standardised test. There is one big problem with that, as is exemplified by this cartoon:



Okay, I went through school before they came out with this wonderful idea of standardised testing, however there were still elements of it during the time I was there. The idea of having an exam at the end of every year, or even tests throughout the year, worked on the principle that everybody could write a perfect essay, or everybody was good at maths. The problem is that this is simply not true. I remember when one teacher said to the class that when he handed out an essay assignment that all of the essays when submitted were to be identical to each other. In fact he even wrote the entire essay on the board to illustrate what he expected. Needless to say I dropped that class and went on to do maths and science.

It is not necessarily the teacher's fault though as the teacher can only work with the tools given to them (and the fact that teachers are severely underpaid is a problem in and of itself). I personally believe that they should be given a lot more credit than they are by society, but I suspect that modern society hates teachers because as children we hated our teachers. In a way this is what it has become:



However, one thing that I will point out before I move on is that one of the ideas, especially for the later years of highschool and university, is that the student is supposed to become more specialised. That is the earlier years brings out the child's strengths and weaknesses, and in the later years the child then pursues subjects that play on the child's strengths. Of course I could also write about how the modern education system is also a form of mass indoctrination, but I will leave it at that for the time being.

On Religion
The main focus of this book is about education, but Rousseau needed to touch upon a number of aspects of his society to be able to explain this philosophy on how to train somebody to become an enlightened individual, and one of these areas is religion. I have noticed that many seem to believe Rousseau to be, while not an atheist, at least a humanist, but this could not be further from the truth. The idea of humanism is that humanity is the peak of the evolutionary ladder and that which humanity creates is worth paying attention. In fact our understanding of society and how to progress should come out of the whole body of human knowledge.

The problem is that Rousseau considers humans to be thoroughly corrupt, meaning that anything that is written by a human simply cannot be trusted, and this is very much the case with religion. Rousseau believes in the existence of God, however he points out that the problem with knowing the characteristics of god simply comes down to referring to human knowledge, which he considers corrupt. While be points out that in Europe at the time (as well as across the globe) there were all these groups claiming that their understanding of religion was the 'one true way' it all boils down to one thing – human understanding, which is untrustworthy.

Rousseau is basically a natural theologian in that his understanding of any spiritual reality can only come through observing nature, however he the goes on to conclude his treatise on religion by referring back to Christianity, and in fact pointing to Christ. His belief is that the horrendousness of Christ's death, and the fact that he was mocked and brutalised, adds to the truth behind Christ's claims simply because it is so absurd. The idea of God becoming a human is ridiculous enough, but subjecting himself to arrest, mockery, an unjust trial, and probably one of the most barbaric forms of execution is outright bizarre. In fact his suggestion is that it is so bizarre that it simply has to be true.

Mind you, he does touch on the idea of fundamentalism, and he does provide a warning that one needs to be very circumspect when talking about religion and belief systems as a whole because there is a danger that the child, if not taught properly, or even not taught at all, would become a fanatic.

The Social Sphere
Another idea that I picked up from this book was how decadent Rousseu's viewed the world of the French aristocrats. It was a world of high society, of debauchery, and of political machinations. No doubt this came about through their learning, particularly with the ancients. This is why Rousseau suggests one should be really circumspect on what they should be taught, and that there is only a handful of ancient texts that the student should be exposed to. In a way life in the upper crust of French society at the time was little different to that among the Roman patricians. While it has been a while since I have seen it, the film (which is based on a book) Dangerous Liaisons paints a very clear picture of what it was like.



This is probably why Rousseau, when he comes to the end of the book, suggests that his protegee (and his wife) should leave the city and live in a modest cottage in the country. In his mind the city is one massive cesspit of corrupting influence, and despite all of the work in training Emile, he knew that if Emile were to remain in the city, especially Paris (where much of the politics would be played out) then all of this hard work would be undone in short time. As mentioned, Rousseau believed humanity to be corrupt, and when humans got together in large numbers then this corruption would increase exponentially.

Marriage
I wish to finish off here, namely because I found that this was probably the most unrealistic aspect of the treatise. The idea is that there will come a time when Emile will need to marry, and as such for the experiment to work Rousseau will need to find what I considered to be the perfect woman. However there is one problem:



So, my big question is, did Rousseau (or even somebody later) actually put this into practice, and did the whole experiment crash and burn when it came time for Emile to marry?

[Jim · Rating 5 out of 5]

How is it that the same book can at one and the same time be so fascinating and so wrong-headed? The author of Emile indicates that to bring up a child, the parent must be a lifelong tutor -- to the exclusion of any schools or spouses or relatives or anyone else. Rousseau deals with a fictional son named Emile. During the course of the book, he shows his influence from infancy to early marriage.

Perhaps such a controlling type of mentorship was possible only in a rural society; and Rousseau not only confines himself to rural society, but he attacks urban society. As I sit here in Los Angeles, surrounded by 10 million other Angelenos, I must admit that such an education as Rousseau describes is not only impracticable, but it would give rise to early rebellion and a broken family.

Now, one asks is this the way that Rousseau raised his own children? Not at all: The sad fact is that the children that Rousseau fathered were all given up to orphanages, as described by the author in his Confessions.

So what then is the attraction of this book? For perhaps the first time in Western Civilization, a man of penetrating intellect has bothered to systematize education that is separate from religious influences. Rousseau gives a nod to religion, but he prefers natural religion, the religion of common sense. He attacks the whole notion of catechisms and learning by any other means than by deduction from observable facts.

Imagine to yourself Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin sitting thousands of miles away across the North Atlantic reading this book and dreaming of a new nation founded upon "inalienable rights." We all came from Rousseau. He was perhaps only a way station to life as we know it, but he was powerfully influential. A man of intellect and feeling, he was at the same time prey in his life to persecution and jealousy to which he massively overreacted.

I loved reading this book. It was a difficult read, but I feel a rewarding one. You see, I have always believed that one could learn as much from writers with whom one disagrees than from anyone else. Rousseau raises the right issues. It is just that he does not always provide the right solutions.

[gamzereadsbooks · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rousseau bu kitapta hayali öğrencisi Emile’i doğaya uygun bir şekilde nasıl yetiştireceğini anlatmış. Kitap 5 bölümden oluşuyor; kabaca ayırırsak ilk bölümde bebeklik, ikinci bölümde çocukluk, üçüncü bölümde ergenlik öncesi-ergenlik, dördüncü bölümde geç ergenlik ve beşinci bölümde ise ilk yetişkinlik ve kadın-erkek ilişkileri işlenmiş.
Doğaya uygun çocuk yetiştirme fikri beni cezbetti ama Rousseau’nun bazı fikirlerini açıkçası çok uç ve uygulanması güç buldum. Örneğin çok ciddi tıp karşıtlığı var, bir doktor olarak bana fazla geldi :) ya da çocuklara fikir yürütmeyi öğrenene kadar (ergenliği kastediyor) herhangi bir bilgi öğretilmemesini öğütlüyor (bugün bilimsel çalışmalardan bildiğimiz ise; çocuğu erken yaşta olabildiğince kelimeyle tanıştırmak çocuğun bilişsel gelişimini olumlu yönde etkiliyor). Kitabın yazıldığı zamanı göz önünde bulundurursak bu detaylar o kadar gözümüze batmayabilir diye düşünüyorum.
Kitabın özellikle ilk iki bölümü gerçekten çok akıcı yazılmış, her ebeveyne yol gösterecek ipuçlarıyla dolu.
Üçüncü, dördüncü ve beşinci bölümlerde felsefe daha ağır basmış. Felsefe severler belki memnun olacaklardır ama ben ilk iki bölümden daha çok keyif aldım. Beşinci bölümde kadın ve erkeğin rolleri betimlenmiş, günümüz değer yargılarıyla bakarsanız bu bölümü biraz cinsiyetçi bulabilirsiniz.
Rousseau’nun Fransız tarzı ebeveynlik üzerinde çok etkisi olduğunu duymuş ve kitabı okumaya o yüzden karar vermiştim, kitabı okuduktan sonra da buna hak verdim. Her ebeveynin, her eğitimcinin ve çocuk gelişimiyle ilgilenen herkesin bu kitabı okuması gerektiğini düşünüyorum.
Şuraya sevdiğim birkaç alıntı bırakayım:
”İçimizde bu yaşamın iyiliklerine ve kötülüklerine katlanmayı en iyi bilen kişi bana göre en iyi yetiştirilmiş kişidir.”
“Gözyaşlarının bunca şeye yaradığını gördükten sonra, neden ağlamaktan geri kalacaklar ki?”
“Emile yaralanmasın diye dikkat etmek şöyle dursun, hiçbir zaman yaralanmaması, acıyı tanımadan büyümesi beni çok üzerdi.”

[Nigel]

The noblest virtues are negative, they are also the most difficult, for they make little show, and do not even make room for that pleasure so dear to the heart of man, the thought that someone is pleased with us.
-Jean Jacques Rousseau

It is a strange way to start" the noblest virtues are negative" What do you think he meant by that?

That something we want is either bought easily but with how much of a cost. That will to be greedy and have to much or sell everything for one thing. On anything worth much is worth less to others but where we are dealing principally in education theory is to have it all and give little. Should we not have little and give more?

Are you thinking or reading this? I don't think that a virtue is a possession. Is it? Hmmmmm. I think doing something nice for someone you love knowing they will never know and that you can not tell them!

I wonder if the noblest virtue is some kind of a self sacrificing one?

I would agree with you.


But are we constantly fighting with what were taught. That education gives into fight for the having enough but not to much that we don't care what we have like keeping the riches test having all and caring little about what they do have but the middle class scared to lose it all that they keep giving it to the richest but the poorest class not having anything and not getting ahead cause of an education barrier where other's are concern they haven't got what is needed but for what is needed is aristocracy to do the job that is available not what having can bring. That all good things are a matter of opinion, besides bodily harm and remorse. All are woes are imaginary.

I think I may quit my job and become a philosopher

Philosophers "starve"!

Lol😊📚

80 % of problems are caused by the 20% running the show. with the 99% Working for the 1%. The middle class keeps the 1% growing and institutions can not all teach everyone to do the same job and lots of well educated people can find no work. How can we say education is not a disciplinary technique for the consuming market.
Why the economist says life has 80% practice with 20% protocol and procedure and why the young get life and the old get wiser.

It more relevant the the middle class nations have more problems with money as less foreign aid making diversity greater that your neighbour could be paid a dollar but the other neighbour rich man having making the community more aggressive like in India wife burning could happen from a rich man making thousands or a poor man beside because the rollercoster of the society doesn't bond well in middle class nations diversity differences compared to the poorer class nations that get foreign aid.

I feel like therapy often amounts to someone holding your hand while you try to figure it out what your feelings mean. But feelings don't mean anything. They just happen, and you try to forgive yourself what they did.


WHY do people engage in activities that are known to reduce functionality of the brain? Because, the frontal lobe is a known maladaptation. Mystery solved.
Making less of outlaws not get justice needing justice outside the law and criminals get the same justice as every other person in society.
Thoughts on the draconian Alberta tobacco tax are below and why it'll never change and the rate of pay will increase and so of currency dropping and why hasn't gluten been taxed?
Fair tax will never come and the rich put money in other banks outside other tax jurisdiction to pay less of their entitlement.
Men that know little are great talkers, while men who know much say little.
The latter includes the former, which means literally "onewho cannot speak;" thus Valerius speaks of puerum infantem.

More people that are born the supply and demand is the less they can pay 💰 for a worker


The man who eats in idleness what he has not earned is a thief, and in my eyes the man who lives on an income paid by the state for doing nothing, differs little from the highwayman that lives on those who travel his way.
Outside the pale of society, the solitary, owing nothing to any man, may live as he pleases, but in society either he lives at the cost of others, or he owes them his labour in cost of his keep, there is no exception in this rule. Man in this society is bound to work; rich or poor, weak or strong, every idler to thief.

First maxim - it is not human nature to put our selfs in place of those who are happier than ourselves, but only in our place of those can claim our pity.

Second maxim - we never pity another's woes unless we know we may suffer in a like way manner.
I know nothing go fine, so full of meaning, so touching, so true as these words.

Third maxim - the pity we feel for others is proportionate, not to the amount of evil but the feelings we attribute to the sufferers.
We only pity the wretched so far as we think they feel the need of pity.



I proceed along the path which the forces of circumstance compels me to tread, but do not insist that my readers follow me. Long ago they have made up there minds that I am a wander the lands of chimeras, as in wild eye thoughts, while for my part they are dwelling in a country of prejudice. When I wander so far from popular beliefs I do not cease to bear them in mind; I examine them, I consider them, not that I may follow them or shun them but that I may weigh them in the balance of reason. When ever that reason compels me to abandon those popular beliefs, I know by experience my readers will not follow my example; I know they will persist in refusing that will to believe what they can not see, they will have youth of imagination of life that orders. They forget that the needs are different, because of a being raised in a different fashion and has been influenced as a wholly different feelings and instructed a whole different manner, that it would be whole stranger to be a pupil than to be what I have supposed it to be.
Emile or on education -Jean Jacques Rousseau



The man who eats in idleness what he has not earned is a thief, and in my eyes the man who lives on an income paid by the state for doing nothing, differs little from the highwayman that lives on those who travel his way.
Outside the pale of society, the solitary, owing nothing to any man, may live as he pleases, but in society either he lives at the cost of others, or he owes them his labour in cost of his keep, there is no exception in this rule. Man in this society is bound to work; rich or poor, weak or strong, every idler to thief.



*Journal from blogs with book*
That in a maxim who is rich and never taking money from who earned it that the working poor and criminals have more opportunity in the community than the ones hoping to help or get them to quit drugs and be in a save place to figure life out and maybe rehabilitate and improve one self enterediness that the mediocracy of culture is slowly making mental illness not a security issue as the rich keeping there money with less hands in agricultural means have diminished there jobs in the 1920 not the automobile industry that saved most of the has turn to robots to make it. So did computers turn to robots making robots. Even robots in the forestry industry, That the rich indulge in dispensary of money to there notion of disputation of money to taxes or disposal of strategic donations in a lower subsidizing of health costs to controversy to sell more. to social need to taking millions CEO get to bankrupt massive employment for less restrictive environment reduction laws for there profits hurting the industrial nations instead of a post industrial nation.

http://portside.org/2016-03-03/stephe...

However, I know of the body is worn out and destroyed by the division of parts, but I am cannot conceive a similar destruction of the conscious nature, and as I cannot imagine how it cannot die. I presume it cannot die. As this assumption is consoling and is in itself not unreasonable, why should I fear not to accept it?

I am aware of my soul; if it is known for me in feeling and in thought; I know I know what it is without knowing it essence; I cannot reason about which are unknown to me. What I do know is this, that my personal identity depends on memory, and that indeed the same self I must remember that I have existed. Now after death I could not recall what I was when alive unless I also remembered what I have felt and therefore what I have did; and I have no doubt that this remembrance will one day form the happiness of the good and the torment of the bad. In this world the crowd of eager passions which cheat remorse. The humiliation and disgrace involved in the practise of virtue do not let us realize it's charm.


"I propose a treaty between us which shows our esteem for you, and restore the order of nature between us. Parents choose a husband for there daughter and she is consulted as a matter of form; that is custom. We shall do just the opposite; you will choose and we will be consulted. Use your right, wife of Emile, use it freely and wisely. The husband suitable for you should be chosen not by us. But it is for us to judge whether, he is really suitable, or whether, with without knowing it you are following your own wishes. Birth, wealth, position, conventional opinions will count for nothing with us. Choose a good man whose person and character suit you; whatever he may be in other respects we will accept him as our son-in-law. He will be rich enough he has bodily strength, a good character and family affection. His position will be good enough if it ennobled by virtue. If everybody blames us, we do not care. We do not seek the approbation of men, but of your happiness."

The contronyms of time in the French Revolution say that things of dispensary of inequality don't change with the immortality equality distribution


Even a disorderly queue is a disorder against a background of order. Otherwise, there is no queue at all. This is what makes apparently trivial issues or order, moral issues.


Who ever is scorn may seem to make of it a lot or more is how much more suffering to be the more misery life will be.
Whatever may be said by the scornful, good sense belongs to both sexes alike. Girls are usually docile than boys, and they should be subjected to more authority, as I will show later on, but that is no reason they should be required to do things in which they can see neither rhyme or reason. The mother's art consists in showing the use of everything they are set to do, and this is easier as the girls intelligence is more precocious than the boys. This principle banishes, both for boys, and girls, not only those pursuits which never lead to any appreciable results, not increasing the charms of those who pursue them, but also those studies whose utility is beyond the scholar's present age and can only be appreciated in later years. I object to little boys being made to learn to read, still more I object to it for little girls until they see the use of reading; we generally think more of our own ideas than theirs to attempt to convince them of the utility of this art. After all, why should little girl how to read or write! Has she have a house to manage? Most of them make a bad use of this fatal knowledge, and girls are so full of curiosity that few of them will fail to learn with out compulsion. Possibly cyphering should come first; there is nothing so obviously useful, nothing which needs so much practise or gives so much opportunity for error as in reckoning.

"I propose a treaty between us which shows our esteem for you, and restore the order of nature between us. Parents choose a husband for there daughter and she is consulted as a matter of form; that is custom. We shall do just the opposite; you will choose and we will be consulted. Use your right, wife of Emile, use it freely and wisely. The husband suitable for you should be chosen not by us. But it is for us to judge whether, he is really suitable, or whether, with without knowing it you are following your own wishes. Birth, wealth, position, conventional opinions will count for nothing with us. Choose a good man whose person and character suit you; whatever he may be in other respects we will accept him as our son-in-law. He will be rich enough he has bodily strength, a good character and family affection. His position will be good enough if it ennobled by virtue. If everybody blames us, we do not care. We do not seek the approbation of men, but of your happiness."

The contronyms of time in the French Revolution say that things of dispensary of inequality don't change with the immortality equality distribution


Even a disorderly queue is a disorder against a background of order. Otherwise, there is no queue at all. This is what makes apparently trivial issues or order, moral issues.

[Marc Lamot · Rating 2 out of 5]

Rather loose collection of thoughts about everything, but all in view of the upbringing of an imaginary young man. A bit uneven: sometimes downright traditional (especially in male-female relationships), prude (sexual education), but also progressive (very child focussed, education to liberty, naturalness and especially individuality). Sometimes very boring. An historical document, before everything, not really an interesting read.

[Owlseyes]

"All children are afraid of masks . I begin by showing Emile the mask of a pleasant face..."

"Remember that, before you venture under taking to form a man, you must have made yourself a man; you must find in yourself the example you ought to offer him."

The Archbishop of Paris, Christophe de Beaumont, found this book "dangerous", and a "mischievous work": “it’s irreligion”; the book was burnt by the executioner; Rousseau had to leave Geneva.

[Ivan]

Un libro odiato! Letto a scuola, l'ho detestato subito. E' da cretini educare così. A parte questo, è di una melensaggine infinita. Non ho voluto mai più leggere nulla di Rousseau.

[BookChampions · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reading this tome was an equally delightful and discomforting one, as a lover of literature, great ideas, and feminist egalitarianism. On one hand, it is obvious that Rousseau was a true visionary (and a master of language). I am truly in awe of what he is trying to accomplish here. As a philosophical exercise of incredible scope, Emile is incredible. I couldn't help but ask myself, "Where are the visionaries of today?"

In another sense, though, it is certainly difficult to swallow Rousseau's misogyny; his depiction of Sophie (despite her namesake) is sadly small and limited. He reduces her worth to that of an appendage of men. Yet I ultimately feel that Rousseau cannot be faulted for the sexism of his time. Rousseau did not have the pleasure of being born in a time when he could have been influenced by the feminist vision that would soon follow, yet he still ATTEMPTS to understand women (Emile, in fact, spurred Mary Wollstonecraft to write her seminal Vindication on the Rights of Women). For surely Rousseau's love of freedom and commitment to breaking the restricting chains of society would eventually inspire him to want to release all humans from the straightjacket of gender, as well.

So while Rousseau surely fails in his reading of gender & "female/male nature" (and while this does blacken his argument immensely), I actually believe Rousseau's vision is more helpful than harmful to feminists and egalitarians. For the more I think about this book, the more my mind expands to fullness with the breadth of human possibility--exactly the thing Wollstonecraft demanded for all human beings.

[Marwa Assem Salama · Rating 4 out of 5]

أما الشئ اللآخذ باللُب بحق فهو أني نسيت بمرور السطور والوقت غايتي التي من أجلها قرأته.....فلقد سلب مني مجامع القلب صدق الطريقة التي استولد بها من رحم الخيال طفله، (إميل) !!..فدليل الحاجة عندي عين الخيال... وإلا فيم ياتُرى يرى الرحّال قريح الحلق بين الصحاري نبع السراب ؟؟....ولئن أخطئتم فحاسبتم (روسو) على هذا الكتاب مرةً كمفكرٍ، فيلسوفٍ، يقظ العقل ....فحاولوا أن تنصتوا إليه أخرى كرجلٍ وحيدٍ حالمٍ ...من فوق هذي السطور يئن : (وإني بهذه السن ..أحوج ما أكون إلى طفل) ...فبمثل ذلك فقط أصبت كبد الكتاب!!.... في يومٍ ما هجر( روسو) أطفاله كلهم.. بل وإليهم أبدا لم يعد !!... هكذا دوّن نادماً بثلاثة أجزاءٍ من الاعترافات...فإن لم تكن بعد لها قارئاً ، فهامش المترجم سيكون كافيا لتعرف....فلقد أجهز عليه بالطعان مرتين جاهرا بذاك الذنب....لذا قررت من حيث كوني بهذه الحياة لا أدري ما قد يُفعل بي ولا بكم ... وبالرغم من أني أتفق مع بعض ما كتب (روسو) هنا وعن بعضه أختلف...إلا أن حسبي منه أنه يوما بما اقترف من الإثم قد اعترف ...وبهذا الكتاب أعلنه أمامكم مربيا فاضلا بل وأبا عطوفا لإميل... ولو كان بالإمكان أن أُحيل خطايا الأيام بالاعتراف رزمةً من ورق ، لأبدلته تلك الآثام بصك غفران ...ثم فعلت مثله.

إن أردت أن أختصرتحت عنوانٍ واحد ما أسهبه جان جاك روسو على مدار هذه الثلاثمئة وخمسون صفحة من تعاليم التربية ، لما اخترت غير (منهج الطبيعة) ..والطبيعة فقط!! سواء أكانت بنزعة الروح أم في فطرة الجسد ...فهاهو يرفض بشدة فرط الدلال وإفراط الحماية ...بدءا بتفاصيل دقيقة كاتخاذ المربيات والمرضعات عن أمه كبديل ...وكشد القماط والأردية على خاصرة الطفل في أيامه الأوّل ..وحتى أدق وأقصى قيود الحرص لآخر الآجل ..ولعل هذين المقطعين فيهما على منهجه ذاك الذي عييت في اختصاره بعض دليل:

فعن عادات الجسد يقول روسو :"إن المرء ينبغي أن يصون طفله وهذا لا يكفي ، بل ينبغي أن نعلمه كيف يصون نفسه حين يضحى رجلا ، وكيف يحتمل ضربات القدر وكيف يواجه البؤس والنعيم ، وكيف يعيش ان اقتضى الأمر في الزمهرير والقيظ ، وعبثا تحتاط حتى لا يهلك ، فما من الموت مفر ، إن واجبك أن تعلمه كيف يعيش لا كيف يتحاشى الموت"

أما عن طبائع الروح فقال: " إن الناس في الحالة الطبيعية سواسية ، ومهمتهم المشتركة أن يكونوا رجالا ، وأنا لايعنيني أن يكون مصير تلميذي الانضمام إلى الجيش أو الكنيسة أو الاشتغال بالقانون ، فالطبيعة تندبه قبل كل شئ للحياة الإنسانية، والحياة هي المهنة التي أريد أن ألقنه إياها، وحين يتخرج من بين يدي لن يكون قاضيا أو جنديا أو قسيسا ، بل سيكون إنسانا قبل كل شئ، بكل ما ينبغي أن يكونه الإنسان ، وسيعرف كيف يكونه على الوجه الصحيح ومهما غيرت صروف الأيام من وضعه ، فسيكون دائما في موضعه الحق"

رغم انحيازه المعروف للإنسانية ، فلقد ُاتهم روسو بهذا الكتاب أيضا بشئ من الطبقية ..كونه أصر على اختيار تلميذه إميل بناء على صفات منتقاة ..من ضمنها أن يكون متوسط الذكاء و يشترط فيه حسن التكوين و صحة البدن وأن لا ينتمي إلى طبقة الفقراء ..وقد علل اختياراته تلك بتعليلات قد لا تعنيني في شئ ، قدر ما تعنيني حقيقة أن لو كان للمرء أن يهب للأطفاله أقدارهم لما اختار أبعد من ذلك ..فيقول روسو في مقاطع شتى على سبيل المثال:

" فإذا أتيح الي أن أختار ، فسوف أختار طفلا متوسط الذكاء ، وسأفترض أن تلميذي إميل هكذا فتعليم العاديين هو الذي يصلح مثلا يحتذى في تعليم نظرائهم ، أما من عداهم فقادرون على تربية أنفسهم مهما يكن من شئ " ..ثم يستطرد بموضع آخر: " ومادام الفقير يربي نفسه للرجولة التي تليق بطبقته من تلقاء نفسه ، فمن الأوفق إذن أن نختار تلميذي من الثراة، لنخلق رجلا لو فقد عناية المربي لما صار ذلك من تلقاء نفسه ، ولا يهمني أن يكون إميل ذا حسب ونسب ، فإني بذلك أكون قد أنقذت من براثن الأباطيل الموروثة فريسة بريئة!!"

أما عند هذا الشرط فستفهم وتتفهم غايته كلها ..يقول: " وليكن إميل يتيما إذ ليس يعنيني أن يكون له أب أو أم ، وبما أني سأتحمل جميع أعبائهما وواجباتهما ، فسأرث إذن جميع حقوقهما ، إنه طبعا يجب أن يكرم أباه وأمه ، ولكن لا ينبغي أن تكون طاعته لأحد سواي من الناس !..فهذا هو شرطي الأول لقبول رعايته ، أو لعله شرطي الأوحد!"

وكان له في شأن التهذيب والآداب مقالات شتى فيها من الإفادة ما فيها ...غير أني سأنتقي منها هذه لكونها لامست في نفسي وترا ما ..يقول روسو: " واحذر على الخصوص من تلقين الطفل صيغا شكلية فا��غة للتهذيب ، فإنه سيستخدم ��لك عند الحاجة وكأنه رقية سحرية لإخضاع جميع من يحيطون به وللحصول فورا على كل ما يشتهيه ، إن التربية المتحذلقة التي درج عليها الأثرياء تجعل الأطفال محبين للتسلط وإن يكن ذلك في أدب ظاهري ، لأنهم يعلمونهم الألفاظ التي ينبغي أن يستخدموها حتى لا يجسر أحد على مقاومتهم ، ولكن الملاحظ أن هؤلاء الأطفال ينطقون تلك الألفاظ المهذبة بلهجة وسمت لا يدلان مطلقا على الترجي ، بل يكونون وهم ينطقونها مثلا للعجرفة ، بل إن عجرفتهم في ذلك الموقف أشد من عجرفتهم وهم يأمرون بصراحة ، وكأنهم وهم ينطقون بالرجاء واثقون من الطاعة سلفا ..ومن أول وهلة يشعر الإنسان وهم يقولون له (من فضلك) أنهم يقولون في الحقيقة : (من فضلي ) ..أما (أرجوك) فمعناها على لسانهم (آمرك) ..فيالها من تربية جميلة !! ويا له من أدب رائع !! ذلك الذي لا يحقق إلا قلب مدلولات الألفاظ على ألسنتهم ، وإني لأوثر ألف مرة أن يقول ببساطة وبرجاء قلبي: ( إفعل هذا) على أن يقول بأمر وغطرسة ( أتوسل إليك) ... فليس المهم في نظري هو لفظ الطلب ، بل الشعور اللذي يصاحب اللفظ وهناك دائما حد وسط بين التفريط والإفراط"

يرى روسو أن لا فائدة في مجادلة الطفل في أول عهده بالحياة حول الصواب والخطأ ، بل يرى أيضا أن حشو عقله الغر بشعارات الفضائل بذلك السن هو هراء لا نفع فيه بل قد يؤدي به إلى حفظ ألفاظها دونما وعي حقائق معانيها ...ويرى أن الفطرة جبلت الطفل على ملكة واحدة فقط هي (غريزة الملكية ) ومنها تستطيع أن تبث إليه الكثير من الفضائل ...راقني منها هذا المثال الذي يقترح فيه وهب الطفل قطعة صغيرة من بستان لزراعتها ..ثم يقول:" وسأقاسمه هوايته وأعمل معه لا للذته هو بل للذتي أنا فأصبح معاونه في فلاحة البستان وأقلب معه الأرض بالفأس حين تعجز ذراعه عن ذلك ، ثم يزرع حبة فول ويتعلم معنى الملكية بهذا العمل ، ولا شك أن إحساسه بملكية هذه النبتة أقدس وأشد احتراما عنده من إحساس المكتشفين لدولهم لمجرد قيام المكتشفين بغرس أعلام تلك الدول في تربتها ، وطبعا سيعود الطفل لري الفول ، وكلما رآه يرتفع تملك السرور العظيم ، فأزيد على سروره بأن أقول له : (هذا ملكك) ، وأشرح له عندئذ لفظ الملكية وأنه ثمرة لما بذله من وقت ومن عمل ومن جهد ، أي أنه ثمرة لما بذله من نفسه في إنتاج ذلك الشئ "

ومن أهم ما كتب هنا بناظري قوله : "إن غالبية قواعدنا اﻷخلاقية مبنية على تناقض، والوصية الوحيدة التي تناسب اﻷطفال من كل الوجوه هي ( ألا يسيؤا إلى أحد )...فإن جميع الناس يفعلون الخير أحيانا، ولكن القليلين منهم جدا هم من لا يسيؤن إلى أحد مطلقا. وهؤلاء وحدهم هم الفضلاء بمعنى الكلمة "

أما فيما يختص بالتعليم الدراسي فتعاليمه أصابتني بالإحباط ، خاصة في زمن كزماننا لا مناص فيه من تعليم التلقين الذي انتقده بل رفضه لإميل بشدة وحسم فالتاريخ لا يُفهم إلا بالتجربة والفكر ...والجغرفيا لا تعلّم إلا بالترحال والنظر.. والعلوم لا تدرك إلا بالحاجة والتأمل ...واللغات لا تعني شيئا إن لم يفطن مدلولات لغته الأم أولا ... وكذا بشتى العلوم ... ويقول في ذلك :

" قد تكون معلومات إميل العلمية بهذه الطريقة محدودة ، ولكنها على قلتها جيدة كلها وصائبة ، إنه قد يجهل الكثير ولكن ما من شئ مما يجهله سيعجز عن معرفته بهذا التكوين العقلي ، فذهنه متفتح ذكي ومستعد لمعرفة كل شئ ، فهو على حد تعبير مونتاني : إن لم يكن متعلما فهو قابل للتعلم ، وحسبي منه أنه يعرف كيف يكتشف المراد من كل ما يفعله ، والسبب في كل ما يعتقده"

لم يكتفِ روسو بتخيل حياة طفله (أميل) من المهد إلى الرشد فحسب ‘ بل قام أيضا بانتقاء عروسه (صوفي) والتي جعل منها بفصله الأخير الوجيز موضوعه في تربية الإناث، الأمر الذي اتخذه البعض ذريعة لانتقاد روسو مرة أخرى كونه راعى في تلك التربية التحفظ على الفروقات الفسيولوجية والأدبية والاجتماعية فيما بين الجنسين ، وهراء كانت انتقاداتهم برأيي ،.. فهو كما حافظ في توجيهاته تلك على أن تكون في المقام الأول أما فاضلة وزوجة مخلصة فلقد أعاد وكرر حرصه على أن تكون تقية في غير تشدد ومثقفة في غير تنطع ، ومن يقرأ تلك القصة القصيرة التي ذيّل بها كتابه والتي وإن احتوت على بعض السذاجة المحببة ، إلا أنها أظهرت من خلال الطريقة التي رسم بها (روسو) اللقاء المتخيل بين (إميل ) و(صوفي) بالإضافة إلى محاوراتهما ، أنه وهبها كأنثى كرامة ونبلا بالطباع هو أحق بالأثرة وأجدر بالاتباع.

"وأيما رجلٍ عجز عن النهوض بأعباء الأبوة حق النهوض، فما من خصاصة أو عمل أو جاه بشري يمكن أن تعفيه من واجب إعالة بنيه وتنشئتهم بنفسه ، قد لا تصدقني أيها القارئ ، ولكني نذير من بين يديّ ندم شديد لكل من به نسمة حياة ثم تخلى عن تلك الواجبات المقدسة ، ليذرفن الدمع السخين على ما فرط فيه ، ولن يجد له من حسرته سلوانا!!" هكذا قال روسو بلسانه هو على ضفاف بداية الكتاب.

"هنئ تلميذك يا أستاذي ، فإني سأغدو أباً عما قريب وحاشا لله أن ألقي إليك بأعباء تربية الابن بعد عناء تربية الوالد ! حاشا لله أن ينهض بهذا الواجب المقدس أحد سواي!!" ..وهكذا قال بلسان إميل على مشارف نهايته ..وأقول أنا للسائرين فيما بين العبارتين من درب:.. لا تنسوا أن ترفعوا أقلامكم عنه فلقد كفّر روسو عن الذنب.

[S h a y a N · Rating 3 out of 5]

امیل اثری‌ست که روسو ابتدا آن را به شکل یک‌سری نامه در نظر داشت، اما در نهایت به یک رمان-رساله‌ی فلسفی-تربیتی بدل شد؛ اثری پر از ایده‌های جسورانه، گاه متناقض، و بیاناتی که هنوز هم خواننده را متعجب می‌کند. این کتاب، با وجود شهرت و تأثیر تاریخی‌اش، سراسر از گزاره‌هایی است که هم می‌توان آن‌ها را ستود و هم به‌شدت به چالش کشید.

روسو با شعار آزادی شروع می‌کند اما در عمل، کودکی که تربیتش را بر عهده گرفته را نه در مسیر آزادی، بلکه در مسیر شکل دادن به یک الگوی فکری از پیش تعیین‌شده قرار می‌دهد. او به‌جای آزاد گذاشتن فرد، اغلب امیل را در چهارچوب دیدگاه‌های خودش محدود می‌کند، و این تناقض میان “آزادی ادعاشده” و “کنترل پنهان” از مهم‌ترین نقدهای وارد به کتاب است.

در عین حال، فصل آخر که به تربیت زن (سوفی) می‌پردازد، به‌شدت زن‌ستیزانه و از نظر منطقی و انسانی ناموجه است. گرچه باید در نظر گرفت که کتاب بیش از دو قرن پیش نوشته شده، اما همچنان این بخش از کتاب برای مخاطب امروز، ناراحت‌کننده و غیرقابل پذیرش است.

با تمام این ایرادات، امیل نکاتی عمیق و پیشرو هم دارد. برای مثال، روسو به شکلی قابل توجه رشد کودک را مرحله‌ای در نظر می‌گیرد، که با آنچه بعدها پیاژه در نظریه‌های رشد شناختی خود مطرح کرد، همخوانی دارد. در بخشی دیگر در مورد قضاوت اخلاقی نظری مشابه نظریه رشد اخلاقی کلبرگ می‌دهد. همچنین نقد روسو به نظام آموزشی زمان خود ‌که بر حفظ کردن طوطی‌وار حجم انبوهی از اطلاعات بی‌کاربرد تأکید داشت، هنوز هم تازه و قابل‌تأمل است. به‌درستی اشاره می‌کند که آموزش باید در دل تجربه‌های زندگی باشد، نه در تقویم خشک مدرسه‌ها.

امیل کتابی‌ست پر از فراز و فرود: از ایده‌هایی بسیار پیشرفته گرفته تا باورهایی واپس‌گرایانه؛ اثری که نه می‌توان کاملاً آن را ستایش کرد و نه به‌سادگی ردش کرد. خواندنش مثل دیدن یک نقشه‌ی پرچین‌و‌چروک از تاریخ اندیشه‌ی تربیتی‌ست؛ گاهی گیج‌کننده، گاهی آزاردهنده، اما گاهی هم به‌شدت الهام‌بخش.

[May Ling · Rating 3 out of 5]

I recognize that this is a classic of Rousseau literature and in many ways it's not bad for its time. But it is very hard for me to swallow, knowing how philosophy has advanced and having had the benefit of Plato's works, which Rousseau may not have had full liberty to, given when Plato was dug up. He is SO held within the structure of his time, which can be seen throughout in his biases and his assumptions on class, race, and gender. Painful to swallow if you are not in the majority on any of those.

Secondarily, he has so many biases on what knowledge is and who it should come from. Frustrating when one considers that academia and that certain sort of knowledge has its own biases embedded within it.

Aside from all of these premise, when one looks through to consider what Rousseau is trying to say about education and how one must tenderly care for how a child is raised so as to inspire a love of learning that does not require this outside praise, you can actually see the beauty of Emile. Indeed, today's idea of everyone gets a medal, no one looses, is very much the opposite of what Rousseau is saying and we shall see the types of personalities this produces in years to come.

[Mr B · Rating 4 out of 5]

Không cần nói nhiều. Cuốn non fiction số 1 của 2022 mà tôi đọc. Epic. Cho 4 sao vì nhiều đoạn dài dòng lan man (chính ông cũng nhận thế luôn) nhưng mà để nói về sự kinh khủng của Rousseau thì thật sự...

Đây là cuốn tôi rất mong các bậc cha mẹ, các thày cô trước khi có ý đinh đi dạy học hoặc có con thì đọc nó. Tất nhiên, đọc và phá bỏ cái tư duy cũ nát của mình. Một trong những thứ quan trọng khi đọc mấy ông triết là đừng đoan chắc, đừng giữ khư khư ý nghĩ cá nhân và phải dũng cảm đập bỏ cũng như nghi ngờ.

Epiccccc

[Yazeed AlMogren · Rating 4 out of 5]

أعتقد بأن هذا الكتاب بالرغم من الجدل الذي أثير ولا يزال مثار حوله وحول آراء روسو في بعض القضايا الا أنه يعتبر أحد الكتب الأساسية التي كتبت في علم التربية، يعطي روسو في هذا الكتاب نصائح وارشادات في تربية الطفل والتعامل معه من مولده حتى بلوغه ونضوجه وكيف يتعامل من الإبن والإبنه، بالرغم من قدم هذا الكتاب وتغير بعض الأفكار ووجهات نظر الناس حول بعض القضايا الا أنه يستحق القراءة ويعتبر من أهم كتب جان جاك روسو

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this because it's a key Western canon text on parenting and education. I figured that despite the fact that the author 's personal life was a mess (his biological children ended up in an orphanage) and does not recommend him as an authority, he ought to at least raise interesting questions. It was in fact interesting on a number of levels.

Rousseau emphasizes the concept of raising a child according to nature; this being more like the nature in "natural law," not the nature in "the natural man is an enemy to God." He does seem to have a more optimistic view of human nature than I do, but he is surely correct that a lot of poor behavior results directly from active, misdirected parenting, not human nature. He thus stresses what you might call incentive compatible parenting, where children's rules and environments are intentionally structured to properly incentivize the right behaviors in the long run. And accordingly his incentives are along the lines of "I will lock you in a dark room for the night if you repeatedly wake me up at night for no good reason" (actual example) or "if you're going to be dumb, you've got to be tough," not so much "here's a cookie." He's a big fan of exposing children to natural consequences.

Rousseau is very skeptical of childrens' ability to understand history, philosophy, politics, etc. on a conceptual level, asserting that most efforts to teach them such topics just result in rote repetition, and actually pulled my thinking on this somewhat in his direction. He would rather have an [N]-year-old be a happy [N]-year-old, excellent in all that an [N]-year-old does, than a miserable being who acts like an [N+3] year old. He figures if the child is always well-adjusted, he will easily take in subjects once he is of age for them and end up with a deeper understanding than he could via premature rote learning. This resonated with my personal experience, in that at around 12 I couldn't appreciate even something accessible like "Screwtape Letters," but somewhere around 16-17 the philosophy switch turned on and I started reading and enjoying stuff like Locke. (And fortunately I was encouraged to read and given age-appropriate stuff rather than forced onto philosophy prematurely.) Part of his argument is an appeal to infant mortality i.e. "let the kid enjoy his early years, since even odds they're all he'll ever have," a tack that probably wouldn't occur to most modern readers.

His perspective on family is interesting; he considers that only a father (or a father-figure present from birth to adulthood) can adequately educate a child. The latter part of the book discusses marriage quite a bit; his ideas on women's education are from 1762 ('nuff said) but he does paint a good picture of the young man's whole education as pointed towards married happiness. He gives firm recommendations around moral education, encouraging parents to avoid generating any air of mystery around procreation, explain it to kids before the kids will find it interesting, and protect young adults from temptation.

He views travel as an important part of education, but specifically calls for travel directed at understanding local cultures (particularly outside of homogeneous large cities) and government, not entertaining, historical, or scientific tourism.

He gives surprisingly great importance to practical and physical education.

He has a very dim view of his contemporary, degenerate moral culture. How things change...

Very enthusiastic about agriculture, small-town living, and teaching children a marketable skill (with carpentry specifically endorsed).

I read the Project Gutenberg edition, which is good quality and free.

[Hantz FV]

I ain't reading all that...

[Tamar7 · Rating 5 out of 5]

A society is composed of citizens. If you want a strong and virtuous society, you must start at ground zero; with the citizen, with the child. This book by Rousseau is, in my mind, his epic masterpiece(notice I say his masterpiece, not necessarily a philosophic masterpiece, though that argument could be made, I think). This work is an amalgamation of all his best ideas, presented by way of a young boy named Emile. If you could raise a child the 'right way', Rousseau's way, you would have a nation of citizens that would form a society that was moral, valued self-expression and had pride in their community. This book can be viewed as a figurative allegory or a literal guidebook for how to raise a child, as I believe Rousseau wrote it with both in mind.

It is also, and most importantly I think, a critique of modern society. Rousseau was a decidedly anti-enlightenment thinker and his harsh and stinging words about the state of modern society during that time cut to the bone. He thought courage, bravery, and love of community had been replaced with pseudo-intellectualism, office jobs and mothers who dropped their babies off to nannies and took no time to instill in them the values that would shape a strong and upstanding society. Of course, modernization of the world has its benefits and the argument could be made that Rousseau was a man caught up in a fantasy of romantic notions of warrior societies, reminiscent of Sparta or Rome. Societies such as those were dying and in their place new ways of thinking, scientific methods and distrust of religion were growing. Many at the time viewed him as a man fixated on a fantasy and his famous feud with Voltaire through public letters highlighted the struggle between the culture of old and new.

Even so, Rousseau's words ring true to this day. One doesn't have to look far to see that with all the conveniences of modern society, there has also been a softening of our minds and bodies that seems a disappointing outcome to the millions of years of hard work, innovation and struggle our ancestors went through to develop new and better ways of living. Rousseau asks us not to let that spark of humanity die out in favor of comfort, convenience, fancy words and modern entertainments. This is my absolute favorite work by him and one that has inspired me in my personal life like few other philosophic texts have. "I do not draw my rules from the principles of high philosophy, but find them written by nature with ineffaceable characters in the depth of my heart" - Rousseau, Emile

[Sıla J. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Alright, I may be biased because I regard Rousseau as my chief inspiration (I could build a temple for him and be the high priestess of Rousseauism) but I think it's cruel to cut off everything else he had to say about very important issues such as what is good and what virtue is, politics and governance, and how we should educate children (well, male children) by saying that he was a narrow minded sexist.
Being a bigot means that having problems with progress. One who is a bigot is the one who doesn't like the age he / she lives in and wants the progress to turn backwards. For example, in a society in which people mostly have no intolerance against newcomers and immigrants, a bigot would be the one who stands up and says "But what about the good old times when we didn't have anyone coming in? We should stick to our traditions and let no one else bring theirs along with them! We are good on our own!"
Before saying that Rousseau was a bigot or a fanatic, we must examine the age he belongs to. 18th century Europe was certainly not a place where women were highly regarded as equal to men. Even the most open minded thinkers thought of them to be creatures of a lesser value. (Yes, I'm looking at you, Voltaire) And few women were brave enough to protest this injustice and ignorance. Women did not and could not speak out. All Rousseau did was to correspond with the state of mind which ruled over his age. We would be right if we blamed him on the basis of not being revolutionary enough when it comes to women, but we cannot blame him for being a bigoted sexist.

[Freedom Breath · Rating 4 out of 5]

ان من يضيق بفترة الطفولة لايدرك أن النوع البشري كان حرياً به أن يهلك لو لم يبدأ الانسان طفلاً.. فنحن نولد ضعافا في حاجة الي القوة ونولد مجردين من كل شئ في حاجة الي العون ونولد حمقي في حاجة الي التمييز وكل مايعوزنا حين مولدنا ونفتقر اليه في كبرنا تؤتينا اياه التربية.

والتربية تأتينا أما من الطبيعة أو من الناس أو من الاشياء فتنمو وظائفنا وجوارحنا الداخلية ذلكم هو تربية الطبيعة وماتتعلم من الافادة من ذلك النمو ذلكم هو تربية الناس ومانكتسبه بخبرتنا عن الأشياء التي نتأثز بها فذلكم هو تربية الأشياء .
#جان_جاك_روسو
****************************************************

كتاب تربوي اكثر من رائع ومفيد بدأت فيه شهر نوفمبر -2015 وانهيته. في 3-2016 اطول مدة قراءة واستجمام عقلي لانه رحلة تربوية تحتاج الي التمهل بالرغم من انه موجه لتوضيح افضل الوسائل التربوية للطفل لكن اثره الطيب والافادة تعم اي قارئ في اي مرحلة عمرية.

[Tyler · Rating 5 out of 5]

Emile, or On Education, is, in general, an educational manifesto; it covers raising a child from infancy to adulthood. It is a sprawling document, with advice on how to teach a child navigation/astronomy, theology, and political philosophy, in that order, as he grows older. There are analogies for his whole life in the simple weaning of the baby, and analogies for the whole nation's life in Emile's simple, modest life. At the very end, it is shown how to rear a perfect suitor for Emile, and how to maintain and balance their marriage in life.

Very good book. Would recommend. It is long, and you will get little snippets of what Rousseau thought about Navigation, theology, and political philosophy. Believe it or not, I had a better sense of understanding how Rousseau thought about political systems from this than I did from The Social Contract.

[Said · Rating 3 out of 5]

تربیت فرزند به سبک فرانسوی با چاشنی قرن هیجدهم

کتاب راجع به زنان یکم موضعگیری بد داره ولی برای اولین کتابی که در زمینه ی آموزش و پرورش فرزند خوندم خ خوب بود. بچه هاتون رو با الهام از این کتاب بزرگ کنید
:)