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.)
|
||
|
||
----
|