i appreciate your effort in bringing out the ideas directly from the literal script of the book, at the same time getting to know your views about the text. This can be counted to be an effort towards fraternizing common understading in literature in an age when almost always we have to come up about the meaning of words, sentencces and paragraph on our own, and more often alone. Literature derives its value only from a common understanding rather than individual interpretations.
wow, this was the most elucidating lecture on CEE i've listened to in probably a year or so. 1) as a sort of ignoramus on in-depth Rousseau-ian analysis, i was prepared to hate everything i heard from Emile and also the broader synopsis of Rousseau philosophy. yet several of his 'foundational' assertions appeal to me and i can see how they, superficially, would appeal to peasantry at the time. 2) this lecture made clear that i have little to no knowledge of the mechansim or unfolding of Rousseau's connection to Jacobian movement as time progressed.
The first 30 in the *Philosophers, Explained* series are: 1. Immanuel Kant 2. Plato 3. Galileo Galilei 4. Ayn Rand 5. Jean-Jacques Rousseau 6. René Descartes 7. Jean-Paul Sartre 8. Socrates 9. Martin Heidegger 10. Thomas Aquinas 11. Arachne and Athena 12. Aristotle 13. Albert Camus 14. Friedrich Nietzsche 15. John Dewey 16. Sigmund Freud 17. G.W.F. Hegel 18. William James 19. Søren Kierkegaard 20. John Locke 21. Karl Marx 22. John Stuart Mill 23. Thales 24. Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile 25. William Paley 26. C.S. Lewis 27. David Hume 28. John Maynard Keynes 29. Thomas Kuhn 30. George Orwell Full Series playlist: czcams.com/video/z-kR5Ove3tI/video.html
In the instant global society, if there be a social contract, do all the participants put in the same set of mutual promises and duties to one another? Or are there classes of individuals, defined by differing sets of such promises and obligations? And, if the latter, by what criteria do they differ? And why?
That's a running misinterpretation of original sin. Rousseau fell for it too. It's a potentiality to violate the inherent goodness of human nature. Human nature is good because it is in His image.
i appreciate your effort in bringing out the ideas directly from the literal script of the book, at the same time getting to know your views about the text. This can be counted to be an effort towards fraternizing common understading in literature in an age when almost always we have to come up about the meaning of words, sentencces and paragraph on our own, and more often alone. Literature derives its value only from a common understanding rather than individual interpretations.
wow, this was the most elucidating lecture on CEE i've listened to in probably a year or so. 1) as a sort of ignoramus on in-depth Rousseau-ian analysis, i was prepared to hate everything i heard from Emile and also the broader synopsis of Rousseau philosophy. yet several of his 'foundational' assertions appeal to me and i can see how they, superficially, would appeal to peasantry at the time. 2) this lecture made clear that i have little to no knowledge of the mechansim or unfolding of Rousseau's connection to Jacobian movement as time progressed.
Thank you
Very informative Dr. Hicks. This fills in quite a few details in my understanding of Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
The first 30 in the *Philosophers, Explained* series are:
1. Immanuel Kant
2. Plato
3. Galileo Galilei
4. Ayn Rand
5. Jean-Jacques Rousseau
6. René Descartes
7. Jean-Paul Sartre
8. Socrates
9. Martin Heidegger
10. Thomas Aquinas
11. Arachne and Athena
12. Aristotle
13. Albert Camus
14. Friedrich Nietzsche
15. John Dewey
16. Sigmund Freud
17. G.W.F. Hegel
18. William James
19. Søren Kierkegaard
20. John Locke
21. Karl Marx
22. John Stuart Mill
23. Thales
24. Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile
25. William Paley
26. C.S. Lewis
27. David Hume
28. John Maynard Keynes
29. Thomas Kuhn
30. George Orwell
Full Series playlist: czcams.com/video/z-kR5Ove3tI/video.html
In the instant global society, if there be a social contract, do all the participants put in the same set of mutual promises and duties to one another? Or are there classes of individuals, defined by differing sets of such promises and obligations? And, if the latter, by what criteria do they differ? And why?
That's a running misinterpretation of original sin. Rousseau fell for it too. It's a potentiality to violate the inherent goodness of human nature. Human nature is good because it is in His image.