Is he the most based contratualist, /lit/? >he were, at the

he was definitely cooler than what academic critics give him credit for. but you should give us more Content than just a wikipedia summary of his isms

we SHOULD force people to be free. I have no problem with this.

>>9359749

I should give more content? Well anon, since the objective of my thread was just to start the discussion, i didn't really see any utility in doin this. But well, everything on his ideas decay in a system most similar to Nietzsche, that being - become what you really are, and what you really are is what humanity really is. That being, in his ideas, the liberal freedom of having a moral system based on intuitive compassion, and not on morals taught to you that only serve to continue the economic system.

>>9359776
now thats what I'm talkin about

morals come from within, they aren't imposed by the law. you hear that /pol/?

>>9359737
>thought man was fundamentally good but corrupted by civilization which is created by man, who is fundamentally
>chick and egg problem

No-one should take this faggot seriously, for all his talk he knowingly let 6 of his children die in orphanages.

>>9359737
on the social contract > leviathan/second treatise of government

>>9359816

It's not essentially that they come from within, and more like that the state of humanity, in his ideas, should be relocated again in our minds and hearts. Nature is essentially benevolent because the morals are fundamentally ideas and actions that make life better. It's much more like a psychology concept (i guess more similar to Jung) than an philosophical or political complex. This only in his ideas on mind and nature, off course. He applies this essentially to everything political, which is a amazing way to discuss how our society really needs to be.

>>9359836

You have a misconception. The "fundamentally good" can be (and it is, on precise terms) an thought idea. An archetype that represents what humanity is, essentially. A return to more "natural" and "nature-given" principles and morals is, essentially, an return to a more human society.

>>9359836
judging any writer by the life they led is dumb as hell

if they were superheroes of life they wouldnt be writing books, other would write books about them. see: jesus, buddha, etc

writers are by nature failed people, doesnt mean they cant have good ideas

File: weekhmerrouge.jpg (31KB, 340x454px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 340x454px

The genius of Rousseau, which strikes me every time I read him, is the radically rural outlook he takes on life.

Most academics are raised in academia, which leads them to blindly attack his ideas as simplistic and lacking rigor. Really they're just used to obscuring ideas in layers of reference and dialogue. Reading Rousseau is almost like reading the Tao Te Ching, in that rather than reference Plato for an idea he references human experience in it's most basic state.

I feel like he's set to make a big comeback in the next couple of years. Even though the academic establishment does everything they can to bury him, the originality of his thought has a fertility to it that cosmopolitan armchair critics like Voltaire just don't understand.

Lately I've been reading his confessions. The scene where he goes around flashing ladies then gets chased with a sword is absolutely hilarious. I feel like he's be a 4chan poster if he was alive today.