Rosseau

At the end of the 17th century most people had accepted the fact that from a geographical viewpoint part of Russia belonged to Europe. Still, many understood it as a nation, which should not be included in the European cultural scene.
However, through Peter the Great’s military success during the Great Northern War at the beginning of the 18th century and the battle of Poltava in 1709, which showed itself to be the watershed of the war with Sweden, the whole situation changed. The treaty of Nystad in 1721 determined Russia’s rise in the Baltic Sea and brought it closer to Europe.
Due to Russia’s new political position in Europe a new discourse emerged. This was particularly discussed by the French intellectual circle of the Enlightenment. They stopped utilizing the traditional understanding of the Europe-term, which until then was mainly used in a geographical sense. Instead they started to associate the term with keywords like “culture“ and “civilization“. As a consequence, the question arose if the new cognitive concept of Europe should include Russia or not.
During this discourse the French proponent of the Enlightenment Voltaire emerged to be the greatest supporter of Russia. He presented Russia's tsarina Catherine II as a patron of the Enlightenment in Western Europe. Therefore, many considered that Russia had truly earned itself a position in the cultural society of Europe.
Though this changed completely when Diderot's new personal knowledge of Russia reached Western Europe and the French Revolution broke out.
As a result Western Europe began to turn away from Russia. Hence this also led to a temporary end of the discourse, which excluded Russia from the Western Europe intellectual society again.

Dupuy urges his readers to undergo the "daunting spiritual challenge" of confronting the inevitable disaster that awaits humanity while also resisting the temptation to panic (61). He calls humanity to take responsibility for the catastrophic evils of the past, present, and future; and to abandon the idea that God is the one to be blamed for human suffering. Dupuy does not offer any direct action or political agenda to avoid the disastrous future and he remains decidedly wary of any human attempts to do so, especially through means of science and technology. His purpose is to turn our gaze towards the abyss into which we are all running headlong, like sprinters in a tournament. His strategy for accomplishing this task is what he calls "enlightened doomsaying," which involves behaving as if the future catastrophe has already occurred and grieving not only for ourselves and future generations but also for all humans throughout history whose meaning will become obsolete in the wake of our extinction.

Individuals in the present society were mostly recognizing happiness as a fleeting feeling that comes and goes around over a short period of time-like a passing fancy that can be taken away easily if the situation permits. On the other hand, the general happiness was not given enough attention as not everybody is interested in its pursuit or the majority did not know that they are pursuing general happiness. The concept of general happiness changes from time to time as several individuals take place to redefine and reconstruct its meaning or essence. Accordingly, the question in regards to its attainment continually grow as well. In the case of the philosophers Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, it was said to be that happiness can be attained through the imposition of Social Contract in which, the relationship between the state and the individuals have developed. This study aims to expose how the Social Contract Theory of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau were established in the acquiring the general happiness through the assessment of the state of nature, sovereignty, obligations as well as the resistance of every individuals, and democracy. The researcher will venture into their philosophies in order for them to identify how the relationship between the state and its people affect the general welfare. In addition, the researcher will provide her insights regarding to what she sees as fitting to the attainment of the general happiness by the assessment of how the three philosophers viewed the state as a machine. Lastly, she will confine to give light to the said exposition by attacking the rival philosophy of her chosen philosophers in regards to the social and political theories that were proposed.

This chapter revisits the key theses of Georg’s Jellinek’s  Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizens: A Contribution to Modern Constitutional History  [1895]. The objective of this chapter is to expose the ‘umbilical cord’ that linked the notion of ‘constitutional’ rights and the will theory, on one side, and the internal incompatibility of notion of ‘inalienable rights’ with the will theory – reflecting an unabated confl ict of the doctrines of parliamentary supremacy and constitutional rights, on another side. These doctrines are part of both ‘continental’ and ‘common law’ traditions. Our intent is also to reflect on the shared groundwork of the doctrine of sovereignty of Hobbes, Austin (and Dicey), on one side, and Rousseau, on another side. Our more particular thesis is that ‘neo-Benthamite’ positivists, as Waldron, assailing adjudication as being ‘undemocratic’, seem to return to the Rousseauan position, with all its flaws.

RESUMEN En el presente trabajo se realiza un estudio comparativo entre el ensayo Sobre el suicidio de Hume y las cartas XXI y XXII presentes en la tercera parte de Julia, o la nueva Eloísa de Rousseau, que fueron publicadas en conjunto por un editor anónimo en Inglaterra en 1783. Se analizan los argumentos presentes en cada uno de los textos, la disímil recepción que tuvieron por parte de los lectores de la época y las posibles fuentes compartidas. A partir de dicho estudio, se intenta mostrar cómo el estilo literario en el que están escritas estas obras, compartido por varios pensadores del siglo XVIII, se corresponde con la pretensión de generar un tipo de reflexión filosófica particular acorde con aquellos temas que no caen bajo el dominio de reglas generales. ABSTRACT This research focuses on the comparison of Hume´s essay On Suicide and the letters XXI y XXII present in the third book of Julia or the New Heloise written by Rouseeau, that were published together by an anonymous editor in England in 1783. We will analyse the arguments present in both texts, the different reactions the audience of that time had and the possible common sources between them. On the basis of this study, the second attempt of this paper is to show how the literary style used in these works and common among the 18 th century thinkers is related to a particular kind of philosophical reflection upon issues that couldn't be measured by general rules.
http://www.rfytp.fahce.unlp.edu.ar/issue/view/387

Rousseau in the First Discourse opposes himself to the rhetorical irresponsibility of Hobbes, who taught “that men are wolves and can devour one another with clear conscience.” By pointing out the possibly pernicious effects of a work’s presentation, despite its ultimate point or real meaning, Rousseau shows that he himself is aware of this problem and will present his work in such a way that it has a salutary effect on the common reader. He considered his task as a philosopher in a way that mixed both classical and political philosophy. Implicit in his rhetoric is the recognition of the dominance of opinion in politics and its fundamental discontinuity with philosophy and science. Yet he also accepted the new philosophy’s emphasis on freedom and its implicit suggestion of human perfectibility. Stated simply, he wanted to keep modern science but preserve as well the classical distinction between the philosopher and the city; he thought enlightenment was irresponsible because it failed to realize that science and philosophy would only manifest themselves on a broad level as opinion, and would therefore contain only incidental moral teachings, usually useless, but possibly harmful. A responsible science or philosophy would be careful to present itself with an unlearned audience in mind. Rousseau thinks he has done that in his writing.

The meaning of therapy is a treatment intended to relieve or heal a disorder 1with that, if you have a disorder, do you need therapy? To begin with, it`s already known that when the first man in the world had the will to colonize new places and going through it successfully, Wars were more common around the world. What leads it were different motivations, some as territorial conquest, to reign over a place, to be known as a Conquer, or just to do the evil. Concerning, Rousseau had said someday: "The man is the sole judge of the proper means of preserving himself and consequently becomes his own master". That is one of the way of thinking to answer the question about the evil inside the men and his motivations to do his willing, but do we born with it or just because of consequence we do what is bad? Well, this question will stay for reflection.

Resumo: O presente artigo discorre sobre a ideia de formação pelas viagens na obra Emílio, de Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Esta temática é pensada a partir do momento em que o personagem, Emílio, é educado por seu preceptor para a vida adulta, o que inclui casar-se e ter filhos com Sofia, a figura feminina que será sua esposa no futuro. O que se evidencia nas páginas da mais extensa obra de Rousseau é sua ênfase na natureza enquanto energia ou força formadora do homem; seu repúdio à erudição vazia e sem vinculação com a experiência vivida; e ainda, sua tentativa de mostrar que os valores da natureza e da paisagem são importantes não só para a formação do Emílio jovem, mas decisivos para pensá-lo também como um cidadão do mundo.
Abstract: This article discusses the notion of education through journeys in Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Emile. This theme is been thought here from the point of the work in which Emilio is educated by his preceptor to the adult life: which includes to marry and to have children with Sofia, female figure that will be your wife. What is evidenced in the pages of the Rousseau's largest work is his emphasis on nature as the energy or formative force of man; his refusal of empty erudition, which lacks of relation with lived experience; and his attempt to show that the values of nature and landscape are important not only for Emilio's education, but also become decisive for thinking him above all as a citizen of the world.