"the reader finds with surprise that the voice of nature, when it begins to speak, is uttering a hotch-pot of arguments derived from Aristotle, St Augustine, Descartes, and so on." - dead
You claim he was 'unethical', on the contrary, he was very ethical about his relationships with women, he even wrote a book on it, Marriage and Morals (1929). Rousseau's behaviour towards his children is the source of Russell's contempt for his morals, and it's hard to disagree that putting your 5 children into a foundling orphanage is worthy of scorn. In regards to Rousseau's political theory, this was written in 1943-44, shadowed by the rise of Hitler and unprecedented slaughter, which Russell thought had a direct lineage to 'The social contract', so it was unlikely to avoid criticism from one of the staunchest anti-war commentators of all time.
To be frank, having listened to most chapters of his book, Russel is an evident anti-french xenophobe, like many British people from a deeply buried sense of inferiority insecurity that they will not admit even to themselves. It's a typical islander syndrome to hate the inhabitants of the continent next to it. It is also evident by how Russel devotes pages after pages on Hume, who is not even considered worth citing outside England, yet sounds annoyed to have to talk about Descartes (but finds sly ways to ridicule him). But then it is true that France and England are mortal enemies. It is England's hate of France that lead them to secretly agree to Germany developing a navy (behind France's back) so that France would not be the only Navy outside England. This lead to WWI. Although today these rivalries are no longer important as both are getting destroyed at the hands of **wsh financial globalists whom Russel would sure lick the shoes of as he never says a single critic word on any philosopher connected to their ideas or creed.
@@goognamgoognw6637 ironic calling someone a xenophobe when you yourself find yourself a stunning example of it greater than any minor quibble you might throw on Russell.
@@MatthewsPersonal Go use your name calling card game elsewhere. Russel was obviously deprecating of the French in the traditional way as all honest Englishmen will admit to.
Perhaps laws of nature and natural justice are abstract yet straightforward having no written laws, judges, clauses and advocates. Yet exists always in our mind, thoughts and dreams and sometimes expressed in drafts called " representations " Very difficult yet cute talk and was waiting to listen since past seventy years. Thanks.
Humans invented words, no more than 500,000 years ago. Words took on a life of their own and evolved into prose and poetry. Eventually, words began to appear on papyrus, skins, paper and computer screens. At last, it was possible to compose the writings in the Bible and for gods to issue commands.
The "General will" = objective democracy! In physics the "General will" is the velocity of light, the velocity of light is the same and equal for observers, it is independent of the observer's perspective. The laws of physics = "The General Will".
With or without Russell's interpretation, Rousseau was an egotistical pain in the face and like all these male philosophers, has nothing to offer humanity at all. I would make an exception of Machiavelli who at least had something intelligent to say !
You're such a legend for uploading these.
He narrates like a father would correcting his child's homework.
This is how we all need to narrate the accent is a bonus
It’s out of envy that his own philosophy was discarded in his lifetime
24:31 "Some savages are persuaded by the natural light that it's their duty to eat people" same.
"the reader finds with surprise that the voice of nature, when it begins to speak, is uttering a hotch-pot of arguments derived from Aristotle, St Augustine, Descartes, and so on." - dead
1984
I do not think Bertrand was a fan...
You claim he was 'unethical', on the contrary, he was very ethical about his relationships with women, he even wrote a book on it, Marriage and Morals (1929). Rousseau's behaviour towards his children is the source of Russell's contempt for his morals, and it's hard to disagree that putting your 5 children into a foundling orphanage is worthy of scorn. In regards to Rousseau's political theory, this was written in 1943-44, shadowed by the rise of Hitler and unprecedented slaughter, which Russell thought had a direct lineage to 'The social contract', so it was unlikely to avoid criticism from one of the staunchest anti-war commentators of all time.
To be frank, having listened to most chapters of his book, Russel is an evident anti-french xenophobe, like many British people from a deeply buried sense of inferiority insecurity that they will not admit even to themselves. It's a typical islander syndrome to hate the inhabitants of the continent next to it. It is also evident by how Russel devotes pages after pages on Hume, who is not even considered worth citing outside England, yet sounds annoyed to have to talk about Descartes (but finds sly ways to ridicule him). But then it is true that France and England are mortal enemies. It is England's hate of France that lead them to secretly agree to Germany developing a navy (behind France's back) so that France would not be the only Navy outside England. This lead to WWI. Although today these rivalries are no longer important as both are getting destroyed at the hands of **wsh financial globalists whom Russel would sure lick the shoes of as he never says a single critic word on any philosopher connected to their ideas or creed.
@@goognamgoognw6637 ironic calling someone a xenophobe when you yourself find yourself a stunning example of it greater than any minor quibble you might throw on Russell.
@@MatthewsPersonal Go use your name calling card game elsewhere. Russel was obviously deprecating of the French in the traditional way as all honest Englishmen will admit to.
@@goognamgoognw6637 I never put anything in your mouth. You can't call someone a xenophobe because of their fucking nationality, mate.
ouch!
Perhaps laws of nature and natural justice are abstract yet straightforward having no written laws, judges, clauses and advocates. Yet exists always in our mind, thoughts and dreams and sometimes expressed in drafts called " representations " Very difficult yet cute talk and was waiting to listen since past seventy years. Thanks.
Humans invented words, no more than 500,000 years ago.
Words took on a life of their own and evolved into prose and poetry.
Eventually, words began to appear on papyrus, skins, paper and computer screens.
At last, it was possible to compose the writings in the Bible and for gods to issue commands.
The "General will" = objective democracy!
In physics the "General will" is the velocity of light, the velocity of light is the same and equal for observers, it is independent of the observer's perspective.
The laws of physics = "The General Will".
Roosevelt? More Rousseau in him than not.
Rousseau's quote single quote concerning his belief in God make up for the mundane narration, and the cynical subjectivity of Russell's opinion!
I see! Thanks for clearing that up !
And what god might that be?
With or without Russell's interpretation, Rousseau was an egotistical pain in the face and like all these male philosophers, has nothing to offer humanity at all. I would make an exception of Machiavelli who at least had something intelligent to say !
They seem to have a lot more to offer than you...