31 lines
1.3 KiB
Plaintext
31 lines
1.3 KiB
Plaintext
|
Date: 14 Aug 2014 22:37
|
|||
|
Topic: Scrap Notes on Rousseau
|
|||
|
Modified: 26 Jan 2015 23:26
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
in my examination of this work, is three things:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
* First, that Rousseau fails at his own stated goals, which are as follows:
|
|||
|
* To prove “if, in the civil order, there can be any sure and
|
|||
|
legitimate rule of administration, men being taken as they are and
|
|||
|
laws as they might be.”
|
|||
|
* “to find a form of association which will defend and
|
|||
|
protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate,
|
|||
|
and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone,
|
|||
|
and remain as free as before."
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
* Second, that he could not possibly have succeeded, because of:
|
|||
|
* the internal inconsistencies in his own thinking, and
|
|||
|
* the excusable ignorance of his day.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
* Third, that the any attempt at such a project (a “social contract”) is doomed to failure, because:
|
|||
|
* It is superfluous
|
|||
|
* It presumes, and requires, perfect knowledge
|
|||
|
* It is undefinable (Rousseau’s own construction points to what is actually present in his day,
|
|||
|
and asserts “This is a form of social contract” no matter what the constitution,
|
|||
|
and then self-servingly asserts “They’re doin’ it wrong”, in order to invalidate it in favor
|
|||
|
of his ideal. He can’t have it both ways.)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
----
|