/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16188593]

What does /lit/ think of Rousseau's second discourse: the discourse on the origin of inequality? Do you think that the concept of amour propre is a good alternative to Hobbes' account of human nature? Is he right his critique of Locke's account of property rights?

[Anonymous No.16188699]

>>16188593
I've been reading it recently to learn what he has to say about amour de soi vs. amour propre, but I haven't got very far yet.

[Anonymous No.16188718]

>>16188699
Keep at it anon. We can talk about it when you're done.

[Anonymous No.16188803]

One mythology to counter another, but Hobbes still slaps and Rousseau's private property degeneration is cope central

[Anonymous No.16189323]

>>16188803
what makes rousseau's private property degeneration cope central?

[Anonymous No.16189662]

One last bump as I head to bed. See you in the morning anons.

[Anonymous No.16189914]

>>16188718
Thanks for the motivation anon, I'll read some today. Last I read he was talking about how humans have certain new skills if they're raised in nature and how they differ from man in civilization.

[Anonymous No.16190055]

>>16188718
I love this guy's channel
He just put out a video today
https://youtu.be/138PYhmbh1k
I've always had a certain affinity for these man-like machines, androids of a sort. They make me introspect on the nature of sentience, even if in this case the object in question isn't. That calling the doll an object even feels wrong, instinctively, is intriguing.
TL;DR cute robot good channel

[Anonymous No.16190473]

Read his confessions, Rousseau bought a blonde Italian loli to groom.

[Anonymous No.16191785]

>>16190473
Did the carpet match the drapes?

[Anonymous No.16192354]

Morning anons! i had a pretty terrible nights sleep but I'm glad this thread is still up.
>>16189914
Nice! i'm sure you already know, but it's important to note that rousseau isn't making any anthropological claims in this work. So don't take that stuff too seriously.
Remember, he asks us to
>begin by dispensing with the facts
and that these are
>hypothetical and conditional reasons
being used because they are
>more suitable for illuminating the nature of things than for showing the true origin
I just add this because it is common for people to attack rousseau over the fact that the 'Noble Savage' never existed.
Happy reading! I think rousseau is a joy to read so i hope you have fun with it.
>>16190473
Did he name her Sophie?
Didn't he also get killed by a great dane?

[Anonymous No.16192932]

>>16192354
>Did he name her Sophie?
That was in Emile, fiction. She was called Anzoletta.

>>16191785
Nothing happened or he didn't write about it.

[Anonymous No.16193248]

>>16190055
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRKxzB1-Xpk
cute!

[Anonymous No.16194008]

>>16193248
https://youtu.be/KUgSAbzZl_E
I think, when I watch these videos, it awakens a part of my soul that might otherwise be concerned with raising a child. They say that "cuteness" is connected to that instinct, neurologically, but the fact that the cute thing in question here is a doll, which merely approximates sentience, but cannot attain it, further raises a kind of mournful introspection within me of what it means to create a thing in general. A kind of Frankenstein's monster, only monstrous insofar as it's observer might pity it, no matter how ludicrous it might be to do so. But, it's a loving kind of pity, maybe even a tinge hopeful. If I could suppose a loving God might feel any way about us, if He loves us at all, I would imagine that we share in His love this way.

[Anonymous No.16194080]

>>16188593
Rousseau is a paradoxical man, He wrote the gayest most faggiest prose ever before or since published with few exceptions, but he wrote an extremely bland and boring autobiography. Hume, Rousseau and Nietzsche all wrote very gay prose

[Anonymous No.16194584]

c'mon, one of you guys must have read it.

[Anonymous No.16194669]

>>16188593
Sounds like some turbo boomer shit. I'm sure it was edgy enough to cause a revolution but that shit is deprecated now.
I don't think any political philosopher has insight into humans. Man isn't evil, or vicious, and looking to group up to be safe otherwise they would have never grouped up. I don't think institutions are blankly bad though otherwise laws would never work. I like the skirting over natural inequality like a 2016 college magapede

[Anonymous No.16194699]

>>16194669
Also he spends so much time explaining away why we progress and asserts as man we naturally don't progress. There's no reason to assume he asserts turbo trad crap so I really don't think his individual is well defined at all

[Anonymous No.16194755]

>>16194669
>>16194699
Have you actually read it?