jean-jacques-rousseau « WordPress.com Tag Feed

Copilul sălbatic

blogideologic — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 07:14:14 +0000

Eram frustrat în liceu pentru că nu mai studiam gramatica generală, eram tentat să pun mereu întrebări de "gramatică filosofică" despre care sistemul şcolar comunist inducea în mine sentimentul că este numai „rătăcire a gândului”. De altminteri celebra probă de 'filosofie' din bacalaureatul francez nu este în fond nimic mai mult decât o probă de 'gramatică filosofică'. Întâmplător, am studiat la liceul ‚Fraţii Buzeşti’ din Craiova, şi aveam un respect extraordinar faţă de vechii profesori ai şcolii, eliminaţi de regimul comunist. Să-l amintesc aici numai pe Fanu Duţulescu, autorul unui concentrat „Dicţionar al filosofiei” în care explica atât de bine conceptele metafizicii, printre care şi noumen-ul sau „lucrul în sine”. Lucrurile în sine, inaccesibile experimental, constituiau la Immanuel Kant realitatea accesibilă prin discursul de cauzalitate. Eu mai cred că şcoala înseamnă toţi profesorii ei, chiar şi aceia trimişi la canal pentru că au „simpatizat cu legionarii”! Prin aplicarea imperiosului dicton leninist „Învăţaţi, învăţaţi, invăţaţi!”, mulţi dintre noi, care ne-am primit educaţia în deceniile, -căci 7 ani nu ajung-, de după cel de al doilea mare război, n-am învăţat limba germană. Majoritatea profesorilor români de limba germană, legionari sau simpatizanţi cu legionarii, săpau la canal ori tăiau stuf în deltă, aşa că noi nu-l citeam pe Goethe nici în traducere, nici în original, iar mitul lui Faust nu ne interesa. De vină mai era poate, fără să-i scuzăm pe ideologii secundari ce ne-au ucis profesorii, şi starea limbii române, pribeagă într-o Nirvana pastorală, de-ar fi să-l credem pe Ioan Eliade Rădulescu, -dar cine-l mai ia în serios?-, când Occidentul inventa conceptele din Epoca Luminilor. Şi chiar dacă, după Eliade, am avut profesori de română buni, la capitolul de literatură universală, când ajungeau la mişcarea Sturm und Drang, ni se traducea Furtună şi Elan. Cum din lecturile prohibite aflaserăm noi câte ceva despre Drang nach Osten, sinapsele rebele, nebune pentru că refuzau controlul ideologiei secundare, încercau să facă legătura. Despre tema interzisă nu ne vorbise niciun adult, cei care ştiau putrezeau prin puşcării, şi fără dascăl de sprache n-am păşit îndeajuns în Walhalla. De mergeam câţiva paşi în direcţia arătată de lehrer, l-am fi întâlnit poate pe Goethe. Şi l-am fi recitit pe Faust adeseori, dacă nu în original, atunci în orice traducere românească de sărbătoare. „Elan”-ul pus în locul lui Drang l-am împrumutat de la francezi, englezii traduc infinit mai bine, Storm and „Stress”, starea de tensiune este aceea care dă relevanţă şi forţă mişcării intelectului, brainstorming-ul, furtuna mentală. Sigur, acel stress este comun interpretat ca accent pus pe subiectivitate, însă realizam, făcând legătura cu Drang nach Osten, că-i vorba despre o tensiune ce are incorporată foarte multă energie. Energia unei tendinţe. Energie mintală care te ferea, de pildă, de acceptarea carnetului roşu. Se spune că Sturm und Drang ar fi pornit de la ideile lui Jean -Jacques Rousseau despre educaţia copilului liber. Dar timpul Sturm und Drang este şi Geniezeit, iar acel Genius pre-romantic nu-i cumva chiar „Copilul Sălbatic” al lui J.-J. Rousseau? Astfel, să ne liniştim, Sturm und Drang, prin sălbăticia sa, n-a fost, nu este şi nu va fi niciodată o atitudine „politiceşte corectă”. Atunci, este ceva nou sub soare ? Da, pentru prima oară interzicerea spontaneităţii gândului apare ca o clauză impusă nouă, -celor care încercăm să gândim-, de Contractul Social postbelic, - şi mereu a fost şi va fi câte un război să-l întărească-, vigilent Contract Social ce interzice, represiv şi violent, cărţile noi care se abat de la dogmele ideologiilor secundare şi terţiare. „Copilul Sălbatic”, intelectualul genuin lipsit acum de orice drept al exprimării libere, individul care fuge de educaţia forţată printr-un curriculum de lozinci, căutând izvorul tămăduirii în cărţile arse, în cărţile confiscate, în cărţile interzise, ori în înţelepciunea celor vechi, este redus prin activa poliţie politică a noului Contract Social, -cu potere de voluntari pe orice Media--, la condiţia mintală de „copil al străzii”, căruia sistemul îi livrează zi şi noapte, prin mass-media, supradoza de auro-lac informaţional întotdeauna „politiceşte corect”.

Titus Filipas

Day 12 (8.vii.08)

Marius Ostrowski — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:44:37 +0000

Well, it looks like I will probably be staying in N.America for a while longer; though I say this just as another almighty crack of thunder shakes Rowell Jackman Hall from the rafters down to its foundations. The reason for this is that my registration for the political philosophy summer course went through this afternoon after the initial layer of admin was completed with the combined involvement of myself, the international office here, my extended family and all their friends, the UN Security Council, the European Court of Justice, the Microsoft boardroom and ABC News. I'm joking of course (for those of you who were in any way unsure), but it was rather a complicated manoeuvre - I can imagine that planning an entire military campaign using only an inflatable globe and a sledgehammer might possibly have been easier to accomplish (and no, I'm not speaking from personal experience on that one)... Anyway, I'm enrolled now, and there only remain a few minor details (like library access, which could prove useful in future) that I can sort out as and when it suits me now the important stuff's done.

Speaking of the course, I had my first classes today, in something called the Sidney Smith Hall which, like everything that's anything at the U of T, faces directly onto St George Street. Having set my alarm for 08:00, I was mildly perturbed to find the time more like 10:00 when I woke up (so much for mobile phone alarms), and quickly got dressed ready for teaching to start at 12:00. I recognised the building from when I'd wandered around it a week or so ago - as modern architecture goes, it's rather good, very flat (though perhaps that's partly an illusion created by the massively chunky science blocks on either side), and with a coffee-shop/canteen just inside the door. My particular room is on the first floor, which on this side of the Atlantic is called the second floor. Confusing? You bet! It's bigger on the inside than it looks on the outside - not in a Harry Potter way, because that's just absurd - and crammed to the brim with individual chairs that have those leany-desk-surface-things (all very white) attached ingeniously to the side. On the slightly raised podium at the front (in between the two doors) was a sort of rudimentary lectern in front of which, when one of the resources people finally wheeled it in, was a low movable tower-shelf with a projector on it. To complete the room, because the decorators didn't really seem to go in for posters or sheets or any other wall-hangings, there was a large blackboard on the wall behind the podium, and a retractable OHP-screen attached to a frame mounted on the wall.

Though I'd missed the introductory session last week, I soon realised that this wouldn't hinder me very much, especially once the lecturer, an energetic, serious and rather well-dressed man in his thirties, had gone to photocopy spare syllabi and assignment sheets for the latecomers. We seem to be doing theories of the state and theories of justice to start with, which of course overlaps heavily with what I learnt for Prelims in Hilary Term last year, but not so much that I'll ever risk losing interest. J.S.Mill is again ubiquitous - I'm getting the impression he might just be the political theory author par excellence. Not Rousseau though - our lecturer doesn't seem to like him, even though his ideas (rubbish as they are) tie in rather neatly with Rawls' inclination for a theory of the general will. Our author of choice at the moment,however, seems to be John Rawls, who I'll be doing this year for one of my modules, so I see this as early swotting for, effectively, Finals in two years' time. 10 lectures, 2 essays, some exams with nothing riding on them, all on stuff I really enjoy writing about - what better way to spend the holiday! At the very least, since I'm not really a summer-weather kind of person, I'm doing it for the air conditioning... ;)

Lecture done at 15:00, I headed back to my room via Subway's (they actually recognised me this time, possibly a worrying sign) and did some more results-stalking on Facebook. A few chats (lengthy and otherwise) later, involving brownies, poetry and GP's surgeries (beat that for a chain of non sequiturs), I got into a footballing mood and pootled about on Football Manager 2008 for a bit (I'm trying to take Leyton Orient to the Premiership - might be a little bit harder if I hadn't improved all the players on Editor beforehand...), and am now feeling the characteristic Toronto Star evening vibe. I should probably upload some photos soon, since my last few days' entries have looked decidedly bare...

Eighth Sunday after Pentecost

Nathan — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 09:19:27 +0000

'Man was born free, but is everywhere in bondage.'

- Jean Jacques Rousseau

'Humankind was created for communion, but is everywhere divided.'

- William T. Cavanaugh

'For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility... For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father.'

- Ephesians 2

Definições...iv

Jorge da Silva Santos — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:09:53 +0000

"o homem nasce bom e a sociedade corrompe-o" - Jean Jacques Rousseau

A frase de Rousseau, leva-nos a divagar bastante na mesma. Ora, se por um lado dizemos que o homem é mau, por outro poderemos tentar perceber de onde vem essa maldade. Será que já nascemos assim ? Maus, por natureza ? Ou, apenas o que nos rodeia irá influenciar-nos para a maldade ? Pegando, no exemplo do bom selvagem, do mesmo filósofo. Ele diz-nos que o homem bom, é aquele que nasce sozinho no meio da selva (traduzindo: aquele que nasce longe da sociedade). Por si só, isto não é argumento nenhum, porque apenas estamos a "negar a negação". Vamos, então, tentar ver, onde é que Rousseau se baseou, para dizer estas palavras. Imaginando um homem sozinho na selva (por exemplo: o tarzan), poderemos dizer que ele não tem qualquer compreensão do que são preconceitos, por exemplo:

Eu não posso ter preconceitos, de algo que eu desconheça a sua existência.

Pegando num exemplo mais comum :

Eu não posso ter preconceitos, em relação a emos, se nem souber o que isso é, ou, nunca ter visto um, ou até mesmo, nunca me terem falado nesse termo.

Considerando que preconceito é algo mau. Podemos dizer que o dito, bom selvagem, não tendo preconceitos de qualquer ordem, é mais bondoso que nós. Mas será isso suficiente para dizer que ele é bom ? Vamos, tentar descobrir onde é que nós somos vis, para estabelecer um paralelismo com o bom selvagem. Poderemos dizer, que a corrupção é algo mau na nossa sociedade. Mas pensando no bom selvagem, ele nunca poderá ser corrupto, uma vez que não vive em sociedade, deste modo, ele não poderá exercer a corrupção sobre alguém. Encontramos então, outro factor, que faz com que o nosso bom selvagem, seja mais bondoso que a maioria de nós. Considerando, que o nosso selvagem, precisa de se alimentar, ele terá que matar animais para sobreviver. Muitos poderão considerar isso maldade, mas, acho que é apenas sobrevivência. Do mesmo modo, que se ele souber usar o fogo, faz fogueiras, poderá ser considerado algo vil, estando ele a deitar árvores abaixo? Mais uma vez, posso argumentar, que no Inverno, sem essa fonte de calor ele morreria. Por conseguinte, mais uma vez, estamos a falar de sobrevivência. Após analisar tudo o que foi dito, posso concluir algo:

Os humanos, maior parte das vezes, para não dizer sempre, são maus uns para os outros. Se o nosso bom selvagem, não vive em sociedade, por conseguinte, não vive com outros humanos. Poderá ele, ser considerado um homem mau ?

Naturalmente, é o facto de nós vivermos em sociedade que nos torna maus. A inveja, o ciúme e o egoísmo, são alguns sentimentos, que, para mim, em solidão, não fazem sentido. Sendo assim, para o nosso bom selvagem, ele não terá noção desses três sentimentos, estando isolado. Poderemos então afirmar, que um homem sozinho (selvagem), será um homem bom, uma vez que não terá, ou não conseguirá, ser mau para outro da mesma espécie, uma vez que ele está sozinho. Poderemos, olhar isto noutra perspectiva. Se não vivêssemos em sociedade, a espécie humana, não poderia sobreviver. O simples facto, de um homem viver com uma mulher, já faz deles uma sociedade, muito basilar, mas, contudo, uma sociedade. Com isto, posso dizer, que os humanos, nasceram para viver em sociedade. Posto isto, fará sentido, falar na bondade apenas alcançada na solidão, por uma espécie, que nasceu para viver em sociedade ? Noutra perspectiva, poderei dizer que :

Os humanos por natureza, poderão ser maus, mas será essa solidão do bom selvagem, que o fará, de facto, bom ?

Jean Jacques Rousseau

αrquetipo — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:51:20 +0000

Ya se habrán dado cuenta que hace tiempo que no publico una entrada en la sección de ConCiencia, bueno pues ya era tiempo de traer los viejos aires al blog, en esta ocasión recordaremos a uno de esos hombres importantes en la ciencia, se trata de Jean Jacques Rousseau quien nació un día como hoy pero del año 1712.

Rousseau fue un escritor y compositor suizo, que además de sus ideas políticas que inspiraron a la Revolución Francesa, se enfoco en otro punto de vista, enfatizo “el regreso a la naturaleza”, debido a que a sus 65 años fue atraído hacia la botánica, reflexiono acerca del papel que jugaba la naturaleza en la vida del hombre y como tomando atención a esto podíamos relacionar dos aspectos, el humano y el natural.

Termino con esta pequeña frase de él:

La naturaleza ha hecho al hombre feliz y bueno, pero la sociedad lo deprava y lo hace miserable.

Backwards in life

Quote-ster — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:42:34 +0000

There is a period of life when we go backwards as we advance.

- Jean Jacques Rousseau, 1712-1778, French philosopher

My take, for me I think the period started sometime right after 3rd grade.

Pop philosophy

António Luís Vicente — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:08:06 +0000

Ao contrário do que à partida se poderia esperar, são poucos os termos e categorias da filosofia política que passaram para o discurso político do dia-a-dia. Não sei qual será a explicação para esta parcimónia numa tão barata fonte de legitimação e pseudo-solenidade retórica.

Assim de repente lembro-me apenas de dois que passaram para o uso corrente: "contrato social" (Rousseau), usado hoje por Helena Roseta, e "imperativo categórico" (Kant). Este último é particulamente mal usado. Quando se ouve fica-se a saber que vem ai despesa pública, tipo "apoiar os agricultores é um imperativo categórico do governo". É usado quase como sinónimo de uma obrigação tão forte que não deve ser discutida, o que, como se imagina, dá muito jeito em política.

Já a expressão "contrato social" usa-se normalmente em discursos sobre falta de legitimidade do regime ou em questões de direitos sociais. A expressão é invariavelmente conjugada no futuro. Há sempre a necessidade de um "novo contrato social" ou de "renovar o contrato social". Nunca é "vamos sair do contrato social" porque assume-se sempre que um contrato é algo excelente. Este não é o lugar para discutir a debilidade deste conceito de Rousseau, mas ao menos neste caso, e ao contrário do que se passa no imperativo categórico, a expressão é usada num espirito próximo da intenção do filósofo francês.

Certamente estou a esquecer-me de outras (agradeço e-mail ou comentário caso alguém se lembre).

Há uma expressão que nunca se generalizará devido ao seu carácter negro, perturbador e realista (caracteristicas dispensáveis na retórica). Trata-se de uma das expressões filosóficas que mais impacto teve em mim - foi um dos meus muitos "awakenings from a dogmatic slumber". Trata-se da famosa opinião/descrição que Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) faz da vida no "estado de natureza", sem lei, sem ordem:

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. (Leviathan, 1651)

Hobbes Kant

Spettatori come spettacolo

Fr@nce§ca — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 08:18:08 +0000

"Piantate un palo adorno di fiori in mezzo a una piazza,

riunite attorno il popolo e avrete una festa.

Ancora meglio offrite gli spettatori come spettacolo,

fateli attori essi stessi, fate che ciascuno si veda

e si ami negli altri, affinchè tutti siano più uniti".

(Jean-Jacques Rousseau)

Filósofos e a formação do conceito de Estado

Danilo Bueno — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 07:08:17 +0000

Proponho aqui um exercício sobre História das Relações Internacionais, baseado nos textos iniciais do livro “Relações Internacionais – teoria e história” do geógrafo e pesquisador do NADD-USP, Demétrio Magnoli.

Descreva brevemente a evolução do conceito de Estado a partir dos principais filósofos que trabalharam na sua formulação. Contextualize o momento histórico das diversas etapas deste processo revelando como o ideal de “liberdade” se inseria nas diversas formulações teóricas sobre o caráter ideal Estado.

3h31

O conceito de Estado sofreu diversas modificações ao longo da história, podendo-se dizer que foi evoluindo paralelamente às corrente econômicas e filosóficas a partir do século XVI.

Os estudiosos de Relações Internacionais consideram os Tratados de Westfália, em 1648 como o marco que configurou o atual sistema de estados europeu. Naquela ocasião, a dinastia dos Habsburgo buscava consolidar uma “Monarquia Católica” para toda a Europa, obrigando a França católica, principal força na Europa da época a formar aliança com outros estados protestantes para resistir aos Habsburgo, colocando os interesses do “Estado” a frente dos interesses religiosos. No entanto, para o estudo da evolução do Estado, convém voltar um pouco mais na história e analisar a formação das primeiras monarquias absolutas na Europa.

Com o renascimento das cidades os príncipes começavam a centralizar o poder antes dissipado entres inúmeros nobres, de acordo com o sistema Feudal. Neste contexto, Nicolau Maquiavel, em seu livro “O Príncipe” justificava a importância do uso da força pelo soberano para unificar o seu reino, pondo fim ao caos que, segundo ele, é inerente ao sistema desprovido de regulação. Ele introduz o conceito de “contrato social”, segundo o qual o cidadão renega à sua liberdade, entregando-a para o soberano com o fim de formar uma sociedade mais organizada.

Seguindo a linha de Maquiavel, Thomas Robbes, com seu livro “O Leviatã” justifica ainda o poder absoluto do soberano como quase “divino”. Ele justifica ainda a centralização do poder e o uso da força pelo príncipe evitar a “guerra de todos contra todos”, que seria inevitável considerando-se a natureza egoísta do ser humano.

Com a decadência do absolutismo começaram a aparecer teorias que propunham uma nova visão da idéia de “Estado” como um poder centralizado. John Locke acreditava que a natureza do ser humano não era ruim e egoísta, apesar de ter este potencial. Para ele, um Estado não significava a renuncia à liberdade, pelo contrário, sua principal função seria garantir esta liberdade concedendo ao cidadão o direito de participar da formulação das leis que ele próprio deveria seguir.

Foi seguindo esta linha de pensamento que Montesquieu propôs a divisão do poder em Executivo, Legislativo e Judiciário. Ele formulou sua teoria no contexto da reforma da monarquia e do parlamento inglês no século XVIII no qual o rei perdera grande parte do seu poder, transformando-se em executor das leis que seriam criadas pelo parlamento. O filósofo Jean Jacques Rousseau defendia a natureza generosa do ser humano, apoiado na idéia do “bom selvagem”. Apesar de seguir as tendências do seu tempo, sendo um liberal, Rousseau foi de certa forma um precursor das teorias utópicas socialistas, afirmando que seria o Estado o verdadeiro corruptor do homem, que em seu estado puro não saberia o que era o bem, tampouco o que seria o mal. 4h01 460 palavras

It Is All Natural

grant czerepak — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:46:21 +0000

I have had the unfortunate privilege to read some of the work of Jean Jacques Rousseau and I wish I had had the liberty to bash his brains out. Rousseau is the bane of humanity for one reason: his definition of natural and artificial. The truth is there is no such distinction and there never was.

Everything on this planet is natural. Every tree, every pollution belching factory, every cloud, every strip mine, every river, every nuclear bomb. Man and the products of man are natural. There never was a noble savage.

So all you stupid environmentalists can shove your pastoral myths and recognize that progress is inevitable. Hunter gatherer society is at an end worldwide. Agriculture and Aquaculture will take over and will transform into industrial capacities. Urbanization and urban sprawl will continue unabated as new energy sources are found.

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.609152&w=425&h=350&fv=]

more about "Water-fuel car unveiled in Japan | Vi...", posted with vodpod

Rousseau was not describing a lost state of man. He was describing a future state of man. The savage is gradually becoming noble. Stephen Pinker backs me up in the following video:

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.607033&w=425&h=350&fv=bgColor%3DFFFFFF%26file%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fstatic.videoegg.com%2Fted%2Fmovies%2FSTEVENPINKER-2007_high.flv%26autoPlay%3Dfalse%26fullscreenURL%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fstatic.videoegg.com%2Fted%2Fflash%2Ffullscreen.html%26forcePlay%3Dfalse%26logo%3D%26allowFullscreen%3Dtrue]

more about "Steven Pinker on the myth of violence...", posted with vodpod

Julie ou la Nouvelle Héloïse by Jean-Jacques Rousseau

dinglingzi — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 17:06:10 +0000

Préface Il faut des spectacles dans les grandes villes, et des romans aux peuples corrompus. J'ai vu les mœurs de mon temps, et j'ai publié ces lettres. Que n'ai-je vécu dans un siècle où je dusse les jeter au feu!

Text refers to wikisource.org

Rousseau lived from 1712 to 1778, was as famous as Voltaire and Denis Diderot who were regarded as some of the greatest figures in 18th century. He wrote Discours sur les sciences et les arts, Discours sur l'origine et les fondements de l'inégalité parmi les hommes, Julie ou la Nouvelle Héloïse, Du Contrat social ou Principes du droit politique, Emile ou de l'Education, Les Confessions, and Rousseau juge de Jean-Jacques. Dialogues.

"ou" in French means or. This ou is used in titles of books, to give 2 titles to a book. First title is more synthetic, synoptic, and sometimes enigmatic, is a general approach to the content of the book. The second title is more developed, gives an outline of the book, clarifies the first title. Readers apprehend from the first title the main subject in the book, and the second title determines whether the book corresponds to their interests or not. This ou is used in the same way from then up to now. Source refers to Yahoo! Answers

Quest for a Healthy Brain

Robin — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:19:46 +0000

One of the mildly interesting things about observing my generation, the baby boomers, is the lengths we will go to in order to "Rage, rage against the dying of the light," and refuse to go gently "into that good night," as the Welsh poet Dylan Thomas ordered us. One of our greatest fears is the deterioration of our minds, and I am right there with the rest of my peers. Alzheimer's Disease claimed my paternal grandmother, and my paternal uncle is now deteriorating from another rare brain illness that is baffling his doctors. I have spent a large portion of my life living in my head; ergo, if I lost that capacity, would I be alive or dead? I am still young enough that these thoughts rarely intrude, and if I'm honest, I've retained enough of my adolescent self to think that I'm invincible where brain health is concerned. Anything else is incomprehensible. Still at lunch with friends this past weekend, my ears perked up when the discussion turned to a recent documentary on our local PBS affiliate called "Change Your Brain; Change Your Life." It is based on the book by the same name by Dr. Daniel Amen.

The discussion was very disconcerting. One of the ways I've consistently heard to keep my brain agile and healthy is to keep learning new things and do crossword puzzles. I learn new things all the time, and have my Astronomy Picture of the Day to make sure of it. I don't do crosswords all the time, but I do them regularly enough in spurts, and it is at the top of my things to do daily once I hit sixty. Dr. Amen puts a major qualifier on these oft uttered prescriptions. My friend Mary informed us that because she has done crosswords her whole life it will do little good. That's a real blow because I've clung to the hope that a close family member can't be mentally deteriorating as much as it appears because she's done crosswords her entire adult life. My friend Julie chimes in that learning new things only helps if it is stuff that you aren't used to learning. This is another major blow, because almost all of my new learning is of the liberal arts variety. Then she throws me a lifeline. According to Dr. Amen, learning new languages is good, and I am in my dilatory fashion learning Welsh and its variations historically. Whew!

I leave our luncheon with the conviction I am doomed to reading regularly the works of Enlightenment philosophers, especially Kant (I was so relieved to abandon my extensive library of them after my Master's thesis research on Mary Wollstonecraft and Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley I came close to burning them), certain schools of poetry, and depressing postmodern fiction (all of which give me brain sprains), doing Sodokus involving numbers (because of a mild learning disorder my brain is like a skipping record when it comes to processing strings of numbers) and becoming a mad linguist (at least I'll kind of enjoy the latter). But before I begin my regimen, I decide to learn a little more about the credibility of Dr. Amen and Google him. My friends trust him because they saw him on PBS, and that is a point in his favor, but I've had a little too much experience with doctors on their crusades of one.

His books come up, but I can't find a PBS documentary. So I go to PBS and do a search on "daniel amen." Nope. Then I put in "Change Your Brain." The following link came up: http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2008/05/caution_that_program_may_not_be_from_pbs.html

It is fascinating reading. Turns out that this was not a PBS produced or vetted by PBS documentary. Many things our independent local PBS affiliates show us are not. Our assumption that the place we can get the straight scoop is PBS has a fatal flaw. There is no oversight of individual affiliates because it is a system rather than an organization as we understand it. As for Dr. Amen's credibility, the PBS columnist presents the comments of a respected neurologist who challenges the claims and is a columnist for Salon.com, an online magazine, and then quotes Dr. Amen's rebuttal. For the entire conversation in context we are referred to Salon.

So I've learned another new thing: PBS only vouches for those programs that have the PBS logo on them, even if a non-PBS program is used for fundraising and donor rewards. Unfortunately, though surprising, my brain isn't resisting this knowledge, so it looks like I'm going to have to dust off my Kant, Locke, Hobbes, Hume and Rousseau; dose myself with Modernist poets like Ezra Pound; try again to lower my embarrassing 12 minute-time for the easy level of online Sudoku; and make my list of languages I'll be learning. To be safe I better include a non-Indo-European language or two. Meanwhile, "Sut Mae! Pwy d'chi?"

Frases Célebres versión 5

nocixema — Thu, 29 May 2008 22:16:25 +0000

Esta ocasión las frases serán referente al Amor :D

Te amo para amarte y no para ser amado, puesto que nada me place tanto como verte a ti feliz

George Sand

Las cartas de amor se escriben empezando sin saber lo que se va a decir, y se terminan sin saber lo que se ha dicho

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

La mayor declaración de amor es la que no se hace; el hombre que siente mucho, habla poco

Platón

La decisión del primer beso es la más crucial en cualquier historia de amor, porque contiene dentro de sí la rendición

Emil Ludwig

Uno no se enamoró nunca, y ése fue su infierno. Otro, sí, y ésa fue su condena

Robert Burton

Jean-Jacques Rousseau on the Land of the Free

dektol — Sun, 18 May 2008 20:37:38 +0000

In the May 29th, New York Review of Books, there is a long piece based on a book by Anthony Lewis “Americans are freer to think what we will and say what we think than another other people.” Perhaps, but as Rousseau would know, we are not free. (I am reading Jean-Jacques Rousseau – Restless Genius, by Leo Damrosch (Mariner Books 2007)

How do we explain our recent history when virtually the entire “media” embraced the obvious lie, that our enemy had weapons of mass destruction? This was a very transparent reason to go to war, which, since the Romans, all law minded nations demand, and even a simpleton that paid any attention at the time could figure out. So how do you explain that the clearly intelligent, educated people that are the writers and reporters, all go for this? And that is followed by the support in the Senate, including most of the liberal Democrats, by the shameful vote for war, yet another low mark in our history.

Is this the Tyranny of the Majority that we have all studied but not always understood? It was fear that seized all these smart well meaning people; fear of each other. Almost none of them, expect poor old shaking Senator Byrd of West Virginia dared to stand up to the apparently torrential social pressure of their peers. The reporters were the worst. Because their jobs were not involved in any popularity contest, they are paid.

So the great free society proved itself neither Free nor Great. Yet we never tire of pointing out the flaws in how the Chinese govern themselves.
“Even while government and laws give security and well-being to assemblages of men, the sciences, letters, and arts, which are less despotic but perhaps more powerful, spread garlands of flowers over the iron chains that bind them, stifle in them the sense of that original liberty for which they seemed to have been born, make them love their enslavement, and transform them into what are called civilized peoples.” Jean-Jacques Rousseau 1750.

Essai sur l'origine des langues

Roman Archive — Fri, 16 May 2008 11:54:05 +0000

La parole, c'est langage du distinction ou l'usage parlé et le besoin à apprendre du local au raison en quelque sorte soit la première des institutions aussitôt que causes formeés. Reconaissance que l'autre en termes des correspondences au sujet du désir a fait un besoin de communiquer dès médias ne pouvants que délivrer la signification pour l'expression à penser par l'instinct en conséquence originaire. Les modes en commun nous possèdons les sens du mouvement et voix par lesquels on correspondrait les gestes immédiatement, mais afin que transmettent dispersés à distance l'impressions. La langue d'action et parole de la voix ont les expressions figurées qu'ont dis en designant des verbes élection pour l'employer un mouvement des choses ou plaisir. Signification vocale et des gestes, celles la font à dire d'une sentence démenée une personne. Les gesticulations d'un parlant s'ont oubliées que la mimique des signes. L'objet d'argumenter ayant de produire un effet ébranle une lettre moins menaçante que ces afin de soulager signes. L'affaire en discussions courent des objects qu'ils ont eu de realité, plaisantes au plus horrible de long discours; mais l'absoudre une éloquence pour seule explication, il a pu défendre dont l'effet enfin demeure sa impunité. Et donc si tu parles des yeux que mieux fort qu'oreilles, même devrait tout des personnes à sentir la declaration du droit, pour raison cette vérité du discours le plus expressif à l'accord d'énergie en éloquence des images avec sons.—le fait des couleurs. Car lorsqu'il faisait valoir qu'aucune question successive du discours ne pouvant reposer sur autre émotion que la présence de un langage même déjà établi, reconnu et pratiqué, la seule pantomime il faut donc l'imaginer vous laissera presque fait le langage d'action confirmés des passion leurs accens on reçoit de la nature de quoi faire des signes pour dérober ceux qui vont être retenus afin que pénètrent y les valeurs qu'on leur reconnaîtra et portent les règles de leur usage avant de former nouveaux signes sur le modèle des premiers: Ergo, concluons que les signes visibles rendent l'imitation à choisir les signes sonores pour désigner des représentations proches de ceux qui s'excitèrent par les voisins sens. La genèse du langage me fait penser que si nous n'avions jamais eu que de l'alternative entre l'imitation naturelle et la convention arbitraire, nous aurions fort bien pu ne parler jamais les signes qui naissent spontanément à travers notre corps—que nous entendre parfaitement—il n'y a nulle ressemblance; par la seule utilisation des ressemblances, la nature découvre nous pûmes établir des sociétés et leur lie de force peu différentes de ce qu'elles sont aujourd'hui, parce qu'en matériel imposé d'une façon identique à tous les hommes: Nous aurions pu instituer des loix et faire en un parole, qui ne seront pas exactement superposables presque autant de la différence des mots et des choses que nous en faisons par le partage de la langue non moins compliquée et ce qu'au-dessous de lui il est chargé de désigner bien forces de leur apprendre auparavant un auteur à l'infini. Ce que prenant, en modifiant l'un a l'autre, l'analyse progressive plus poussée du langage qui permettent ainsi publiquement de donner mais en secret un seul non-mot à plusieurs choses qui montre que des deux sens par lesquels nous sommes actifs en suivant le fil de ces figures fondamentales que pour nous former un langage: synecdoque, métonymie et catachrèse (ou métaphore si l'analogie est moins immédiatement sensible). Il paroit encore par les mêmes observations que l'invention de la rhétorique de communiquer nos idées connaît bien dépend moins des organes qui nous servent à cette communication, que d'une faculté propre à la mobilité de tout langage dès qu'il est spontané fait employer les idées à cet usage bien quel si ceux-là lui manquoient, il aurait bien parvenu probable que les rapports de coordination et de subordination à l'homme avait modéré une organisation tout aussi grossiere qu'entre lui & ses semblables ne guèrirent l'occasion de bouger de leur place que les mots. Comme le dit Rousseau, il faut qu'on sans doute parlent de géants avant de désigné des mots des hommes; je serois curieux de voir cette explication.

gallanar.net/rousseau/originelangues.htm
foucault.50webs.com/books/1966_MC_Chap4.htm
www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/irvinem/theory/Foucault-Order_of_things-text.html
classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/Rousseau_jj/essai_origine_des_langues/essai_origine_langues.html

Cites i proverbis

Jordi Vallès — Sun, 11 May 2008 00:39:15 +0000

Sempre hi ha un llibre obert per a tots els ulls: la natura.

- Jean Jacques Rousseau 1712-1778 Filòsof francès -

Zitat des Tages für den 06.05.2008

Tina — Tue, 06 May 2008 06:16:43 +0000

Oh, beneidenswerte Kannibalen!
Ihr könnt eure Feinde auffressen und dann auch noch auskotzen!

- Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 1712 - 1778,
Schriftsteller, Philosoph, Pädagoge, Naturforscher und Komponist -

Schule ist wie Planwirtschaft...

andrethiele — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 16:22:51 +0000

Allgemeines zur Planwirtschaft:

Karl Marx, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Platon, Thomas More hatten eines gemeinsam: sie unterstützten alle die Ideen der Planwirtschaft.

Planwirtschaft zu verstehen ist ganz einfach. Ein Staat, der sein Wirtschaftswesen nach Statistiken und Analysen des erforderten Wirtschaftsgut richtet, folgt den Idealen der Planwirtschaft.
So sollen Rohstoffüberschüsse vermieden und mit einer perfekten Planung die Forderungen einer größerer Gesellschaft gedeckt werden.

Hört sich toll an, ist es aber nicht!
Was Marx und Co. in der Theorie ausreichend einkalkuliert hatten, scheiterte bisher bei jeder praktischen Anwendung (DDR, UdSSR, China).
Die Problematik besteht im aus mangelnder Flexibilität, Steuerbarkeit und fehlerhafte Planung.
Dazu ein simples Beispiel:

Der Staat XY legt Statistiken an und analysiert das Verbrauchsverhalten von Klopapier.

Heraus kommt, dass Jeder Mensch im Staat genau 1 Rolle Klopapier am Tag benötigt.

So werdwn nun genug Klopapier-Rollen für einen Tag hergestellt (in einem 100 Mann-Staat also 100 Rollen, logisch ;) )

Nachdem die 100 Rollen Klopapier hergestellt wurden, kann man die Herstellung auf andere Güter beschränken (zB. Klobürsten). Alle sind froh, schon einmal voraus geplant und so Rohstoffe und Zeit gespart zu haben.

Nun aber das große Problem.

Einer der 100 Menschen hat an diesem einen Tag etwas mehr Stuhlgang als sonst und benötigt anstatt der eingeplanten einen Rolle zwei.

Dadurch, dass dieser eine Mensch zwei Rollen hatte, kommt es am anderen Ende der Güterkette zu einem Loch. Eine Person bekommt nämlich kein Klopapier.

Und gerade bei diesem Loch liegt das Problem, je nach Verhältnis wird dieses Größer und umfangreicher.

Firma XY die nach der Klopapierproduktion auf Klobürsten umstieg, ist so gezwungen, nun wieder Klopapier zu produzieren, um den Anforderungen des Staates gerecht zu werden.

Klar, dass dieses Prinzip nach kurzer Zeit versagt, weil einfach die Flexibilität der Marktwirtschaft fehlt.

So viel zu Planwirtschaft.

Nun aber ein Aspekt der Planwirtschaft der so nie beachtet wird.

Schule ist wie Planwirtschaft...

Dazu wieder ein Beispiel:

Lehrer = Staat

Schüler = Bürger

Lehrplan = Statistiken über Verbrauch von Klopapier

Lehrer XY hat viel Erfahrung z.B. im Fach Biologie und weiß, wo die meisten Probleme eines Themas liegen.

Lehrer XY denkt sich, er müsse einen größeren Teil des Lehrplanes umstrukturieren, um mehr Zeit für das entsprechende Thema aufbringen zu können.

So geschieht es, daß der Lehrer 20 Stunden (statt 5) über das spezielle Thema unterrichtet.

Die Schüler bearbeiten das Thema und können dies nun perfekt bis auf eine Ausnahme (alle Menschen haben eine Rolle Klopapier bis auf einen, welcher zwei hat).

Nun widmet Lehrer XY sich dem neuen Thema, merkt aber, dass die Zeit, welche im Lehrplan eingeplant war, überhaupt nicht ausreicht, um das neue Thema zu bearbeiten (einer hatte keine Klopapier-Rolle und reißt nun ein Loch in das System).

Um den Lehrplan umzuändern ,ist es nun zu spät, und Lehrer XY ärgert sich, dass sein ganzer Plan sinnlos was.

Nun, man sieht: Planwirtschaft und Schule haben so einiges gemeinsam.

Dieses Erkenntnis sollte man anwenden, indem man sich nach der Fehlersuche auf Lösungssuche begibt.

Im Fall der Planwirtschaft überzeugte die Marktwirtschaft, welche sich nach den Anforderungen und Bedürfnissen der Menschen richtet.

Wenn man dieses Prinzip auf die Schule überträgt, kann man dafür sorgen, dass Deutschland mal besser als PISA-Letzter wird...

Denn wie gesagt:

Planwirtschaft mag in der Theorie ganz nützlich sein, in der Praxis aber scheitert es an den Unterschieden der Individuen.

Die Schule könnte sich so besser nach den Bedürfnissen und Anforderungen der Schüler richten, als nach einem Lehrplan, der letzten Endes sowieso nicht eingehalten wird!

Mi regalo una pervinca

Serena — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:05:06 +0000

Donare una pervinca significa voler lasciare e conservare un dolce ricordo.

Mi regalerò una pervinca ogni volta che vivrò una gioiosa esperienza:
per trattenerla e sentirla dentro di me, come una fonte che si rinnova e da cui potermi dissetare perennemente.

Mi regalerò una pervinca anche quando l'esperienza sarà difficile e dolorosa:
per trarne sempre insegnamento, per saperne scorgere il significato entro il mio cammino di crescita.

_________________________

Vagando in rete... potrebbe essere interessante.

Pier Giorgio Gosso
La signora delle pervinche
Madame de Warens e Jean-Jacques Rousseau
2006, FirenzeLibri

I know you are, but what am I

robnesvacil — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 05:56:15 +0000

Ironically, in attempting to make a well-reasoned argument for why people such as yours truly are "totally naked, totally dependent, totally selfish, totally ignorant and totally emotional and irrational," Illinois Review contributor George Kocan ends up basing his polemic on rationales that are completely dependent on other partisans' thoughts; absolutely selfish in their self-serving, holier-than-thou attitude; utterly ignorant of reality (though perhaps willfully so); and, clearly, based entirely on irrational and emotional claims rather than facts.

Do I personally think all conservatives are full of such schlock? No. I know a good many very thoughtful, honestly compassionate conservatives who try to ignore the baloney that Ill Review and their brand of conserv-o-partisans regurgitate each day. The sort of crass chicanery Mr. Kocan and his comrades peddle reflects poorly on them and they know it ... and they are disgusted by it.

Similarly, despite Mr. Kocan's baseless, wily claims, I also know numerous liberals who are "responsible adults, knowledgeable, self-controlled, generous, and independent" which is clearly more than one can say for this propaganda-driven charlatan.

(And how truly bizarre that Mr. Kocan would even post such elitist malarkey about his opponents being "emotional" and "irrational" on a blog hosting ads for Dennis Miller's "rant" of a conservative radio show and whose ~~Publisher~~ Editor has claimed liberals have 'dripping fangs' ... among other choice sandbox put-downs from Ill Review contributors.)

Ill Review commenter Erasmussimo takes Mr. Kocan to task:

This is truly a preposterous essay! It is based on two huge mistakes: first, the assumption that conservatives are smart, virtuous, mature, and logical, while liberals are stupid, evil, immature, and illogical. This kind of gross generalization, coming from a conservative, is just parochial. If a liberal were to claim that liberals were wise, caring, intelligent, and insightful, while conservatives were foolish, selfish, dumb, and obtuse, I would regard such claims as self-serving claptrap. Gee, George, don't hurt your arm patting yourself on the back.

The second gross fallacy in this essay is the use of anecdotal evidence. Our author presents us with four case histories of liberals turning into conservatives. [...] But even so, a grand total of four examples doesn't prove much when you're talking about millions of people.

Ah, but those partisan blinders Mr. Kocan is wearing prevent him from seeing his own "emotional" and "irrational" hypocrisy.

[Adults Only Warning for these next two links...]

Or, perhaps Mr. Kocan is simply projecting... It wouldn't be the first time some hypocritical, diaper-wearing conserv-o-partisan did so (no, really, "diaper-wearing").

Mr. Kocan, most the rest of us graduated kindergarten. Why haven't you?

Equality - but not uniformity

Abu Zaynab — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 03:48:16 +0000

We said that Islam has a special philosophy concerning the relations and rights of men and women within the family which differs from that which was current fourteen centuries ago and does not conform either with what is accepted in the world of today.

We have already explained that according to the Islamic view it is never a matter of dispute as to whether a man and woman are equal as human beings or not, and as to whether their family rights should or should not be equal in value with each other. According to Islam, a woman and a man are both human beings and both are apportioned equal rights.

That which has been kept in view in Islam is that woman and man, on the basis of the very fact that one is woman and the other is a man, are not identical with each other in many respects. The world is not exactly alike for both of them, and their natures and dispositions were not intended to be the same. Eventually this requires that in very many rights, duties and punishments they should not have an identical placing. In the western world they are now attempting to create uniformity and identicalness in laws, regulations, rights and functions between women and men, while ignoring the innate and natural, differences. It is here that the difference between the outlook of Islam and that of western systems is to be found. Thus the dispute between, on the one hand, those sections of the people who support Islamic rights and, on the other hand, those who support western systems is about the identicalness and exact similarity of rights of women and men and not about equality of rights. ‘Equality of rights’ is a counterfeit label which the followers of the west have stuck on as a souvenir of the west.

In my writings, conferences and lectures, I always avoid the use of this counterfeit label, and the use of this phrase, which comes to mean nothing but uniformity and identicalness of rights for women and men, in place of genuine equality of rights.

I am not saying that nowhere in the world did or does the claim for equality of rights for women and men have any meaning, nor am I saying that every past and present law in the world concerning the rights of men and women was passed on the basis of equality of worth and estimation and that it is just identicalness which was eliminated.

No I have no such claim. Europe, before the twentieth century is the best evidence. In Europe before the twentieth century, woman legally as well as practically lacked all human rights. Neither did she have rights equal to those of man nor the same as his. In the sudden development of the movement which sprang up in less than one century in the name of woman and for woman, she acquired rights almost the same as those of man. However, considering her natural build and her physical and spiritual needs, she never acquired rights equal to those of man. For if woman wishes to acquire rights equal to the rights of man and happiness equal to the happiness of man, the only way to get that end is for her to forget about an identicalness of rights with man and have faith in rights suitable for herself. Only in this way can unity and real sincerity between man and woman be achieved, and only then will woman obtain happiness equal to or better than man’s.

Man then, out of sincerity and without any derogatory thoughts, will be ready to concede to her equal and at times better rights than their own.

Similarly, I am not at all claiming that the rights that have in practice been the lot of women in our seemingly Islamic society are equal in value to the rights that men have had. I have many times said that it is essential to hold a thorough inquiry into the plight of women, and that many rights that have been given to women by Islam and have in practice been ignored should be restored to them; but not that we should blindly follow and imitate the ways of the west, which have brought thousands of misfortunes for them, and give a pretty name to an erroneous principle and thus encumber women who already have misfortunes of the eastern type with misfortunes of the western type as well. Our point of view is that dissimilarity in the rights of man and woman should be observed to whatever extent nature has differently moulded and created them. This is in better accord with justice and with natural rights; and will both secure good will in the family and also result in the better development of society.

It must be completely understood that we claim that justice and the natural and human rights of man and woman call for dissimilarity in certain rights. Thus, our discussion has a completely philosophical orientation: it is linked to the philosophy of rights and linked with a principle which is called the principle of justice, which is one of the vital pillars of Islamic theology and jurisprudence. The principle of justice is the same fundamental principle which brought into existence the rule of the harmony of reason and religious law in Islam. It means that according to Islamic jurisprudence — or at least Shi’ite jurisprudence — if it can be established that justice demands that a particular precept should be such-and-such and not something else, then if it is something else it will be an iniquity and against justice; thus we are obliged to say that the ruling of religious law is what reason and justice tell us it should be. For Islamic religious law, according to the fundamental principle which it has itself taught can never leave the axis of justice and intrinsic, natural rights.

By expounding and elucidating the underlying meaning of justice, Islamic scholars have laid upon it the foundation of the Philosophy of rights. As a result of the occurrence of regrettable historical events they could not continue the work they had started, At any rate, preoccupation with the idea of human rights and the principle of justice as being something essential, in accordance with the order of things and beyond conventional law, was first of all propounded and put forward by the Muslims. They laid the foundation of the rights that are both natural and also required by intellectual considerations.

However, it turned out that Islamic scholars could not carry on that work, and, after a gap of about eight centuries, European thinkers and philosopher’s continued it, and took upon themselves the credit for that task. On the one hand, they worked out social, political and economic philosophies, and, on the other hand, they informed individuals, societies and nations and explained to them the value of life and their rights as human beings. They started movements, instigated revolutions, and changed the face of the world.

In my opinion, besides historical reasons, psychological and geographical reasons also played their part in creating this situation whereby the Islamic east did not follow up these rights which are intellectually indispensable and whose foundations they had laid This is one of the differences in mentality between the east and the west, that the east has a tendency towards ethical thinking, while the west is inclined towards the idea of rights. The east is under the spell of morality, and the west is in love with rights. The easterner by virtue of his eastern nature conceives of his humanity as consisting of behaving with kindness and toleration, in being friendly towards his fellow men and in conducting himself the generosity towards them. On the other hand, a westerner takes pride in the realization of his rights, and in safeguarding them, and will not allow anybody to intrude upon the sacred territory of his rights.

Humanity needs ethics, as well as rights. It is linked to rights as well as to morals, and neither of the two, rights or morals, is in itself, the criterion of humanity. The sacred religion of Islam has the great privilege of having approved both rights and ethics. In Islam, as was mentioned before, sincerity and right action in the moral sense is considered a virtue; and knowledge of rights and defending them is also considered a virtue and to be human. This matter has details which cannot be gone into here.

However, the particular mentality of the east set to work. In spite of the fact that in the beginning the concept of rights and the insistence on morality had both been acquired from Islam, the east gradually let go of rights and focused its attention on morals.

Our point is that the problem with which are at present confronted is a problem of rights, a philosophical and intellectual problem, a problem based upon arguments and reasoning. It is closely connected with reality of justice and the nature of the rights. Justice and rights were in existence before any laws were passed in the world, so the enacting of a law cannot change the reality of justice and the human rights of mankind.

Montesquieu said: “Before man created laws there seem to have been relations founded on law and upon justice between creatures. The existence of these relations itself was the cause of the creation of laws. If we say that apart from the actual first laws, consisting of orders and prohibitions, nothing else just or unjust exist, it is as if we say that before man drew a circle, the radii of that circle were not all equal”.

Herbert Spencer said: Justice is associated not with the sentiments, but with something else which is the natural rights of individuals. For justice to have external reality it is necessary to have regard for rights and innate differences”.[1]

The European philosophers who upheld, and still do hold this view, are in large number. The manifestos and proclamations that were drawn up, and the material that was incorporated under the heading of Human Rights has as its source this very theory of natural rights. In other words, it was the theory of natural and innate rights which reappeared in the form of the Proclamation of Human Rights.

Once again, what Montesquieu, Spencer and others have said concerning justice is, as we know, the very same thing that theologians have said concerning the inborn intellectual capacity to determine ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ and the real meanings of justice. Amongst Islamic scholars there were some individuals who refused to accept the idea of instinctive rights and considered justice as something conventional. Amongst Europeans also such a belief existed. The Englishman Hobbes refused to accept justice as having real existence.

The Declaration of Human Rights is philosophy and not law:

The absurd thing is that they say that text of the declaration of Human Rights has been approved by the two Houses (of the Iranian Parliament), and, as the equality of rights for men and women is included the text of the Declaration, so, under the law approved by the two Houses, men and women should have equal rights. As if the text of the Declaration of Human Rights is something which is within the competence of the two Houses to approve of or reject. The contents of the Declaration of Human Rights is not the kind of thing which can be put up for the legislative assemblies of countries to approve of or reject.

The Declaration of Human Rights deals with the innate undeniable and unrelinquishable rights of mankind. It refers to rights which, as the Declaration claimed, are prerequisites of man’s humanity and which the hand of the All- mighty Creator established for them. In other words, the Source and Power which provided upon men with intellect, volition and human dignity also bestowed upon man, as the Declaration Claims, human rights.

Human beings cannot make the contents of the Declaration of Human Rights law for themselves, and neither can they cancel or depart from those rights on their own. Then what is the sense in saying that it had been approved by the two Houses and the legislative power?

The Declaration of Human Rights is philosophy and not law. It should be presented to the philosophers for their approbation and not for the approval of members of parliaments. The Two legislative Houses cannot determine philosophy and logic for people by taking a vote. If legislative work is to proceed like this, then they should take the Einstein’s Theory of Relativity to Parliament and present it to the members to have it approved by them. The hypothesis that there is life on other planets should also be sent for their approval. The laws of nature cannot be approved or rejected just like conventional laws. It is as if we were to say that both the Houses of Parliament have passed an act saving that if we graft a pear onto an apple, the graft will be successful; but if it is grafted onto a mulberry it will not.

If such a declaration is issued on behalf of a group of persons who are themselves thinkers and philosophers, the nations should entrust it to the hands of their philosophers and campaigners for rights. If in the opinion to the philosophers and thinkers of that particular community the matter can be confirmed, then it is the duty of all the members of that community to consider what they say as a truth above law. It is binding upon the legislative power also not to enact any law against what they say.

As for the other nations, they are not obliged to accept any declaration until it has been established and discovered in their eyes that such rights exist in the same state in nature. Besides this, these questions are not experimental matters which require equipments, laboratories and so forth which Europeans have but others do not, it is not a question of breaking the atom, the secret of which, and the necessary equipment for which are with a limited number of persons: it is philosophy and logic, and for this the tools are the brain, the intellect and the power of reasoning.

Even if other nations are obliged to follow others in questions of philosophy and logic, because they do not consider themselves competent in philosophical thinking, we Iranians should not think like that. In the past we reached a high standard of ability and showed our worth in philosophic and logical investigations. Why should we follow others in their solutions to philosophic problems?

It is strange that Islamic thinkers gave so much importance to the question of justice and the essential rights of man when it arose that, without any hesitation, in accordance with the law of the harmony between reason and Islamic law, they used to say that the law of Islam was indeed this. That is to say they did not see the necessity of ancillary corroboration by an Islamic law. Today we have been reduced to the level where we seek confirmation for these matters in approval by members of Parliament.

Philosophy cannot be proved by questionnaires:

More ludicrous than this is that when we want to make a study regarding the human rights of women, we refer the matter to young boys and girls, print questionnaires and try to find out by the way which they are filled in what human rights and whether the human rights of women and men are the same or different.

Anyhow we are seeking to make a study in a scientific and philosophic manner about the human rights of women on the basis of intrinsic human rights, and we want to see whether those same principles which require that human beings, as a general rule, have a series of natural and God-given rights, also affirm, that women and men should have the same kind of rights or not. So, I request the scholars, thinkers and jurists of this country, who are the only persons who really matter and should put forth their opinions in such matters as this, to look into our arguments critically. I would be highly obliged if they gave their opinions together with their reasons for or against what I have written.

In order to study this point, it is necessary that we should firstly look at the basis and the roots of human rights, and then consider specifically the rights of men and women.

It would not be out of lace to briefly refer in the first place to the movements in the present age to do with rights which culminated in the call for equality of rights for men and women.

A glance at the history of women’s rights in Europe:

In Europe, from the seventeenth century onwards, voices began to be raised in the name of human rights. Writers and thinkers of the 17^th and 18^th century propagated their thoughts in respect of the natural, inherent and undeniable rights of man with wonderful perseverance. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire and Montesquieu belong to this group of thinkers and writers. The fist practical result of the propagation of the ideas of the supporters of natural human rights occurred when in England a protracted struggle took place between the rulers and the ruled. In 1688 AD, the people succeeded in moving for some of their social and political rights according to a manifesto of rights [2] and had them restored.

Another practical result of the propagation of these ideas was manifested in the War of Independence of America against England. Thirteen British Colonies in North America, due to the strains and difficulties imposed upon them, rose in disobedience and rebellion and at last gained their independence.

In the year 1776 AD, a Congress was formed in Philadelphia which declared its complete independence and published a document [3] to that effect. In the introduction that document they wrote, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

However that is well-known in the world under the name of the ‘Declaration of Human Rights’ is that document which was issued after the Great French Revolution. This declaration [4] consists of a series of general principles which are prefixed to the French Constitution, and it is considered an inseparable part of it. This proclamation consists of an introduction and seventeen clauses. The first section states that “Men are born, and always continue, free and equal in respect of their rights.”

In the 19^th century new changes and new thoughts occurred in the field of economics, sociology and politics which culminated in the advent of socialism and the resultant requirement of the allocation of a share of profits to the working class, and the transfer of government from the hands of the capitalists to the workers.

Till the early part of the 20^th century, all the controversies concerning human rights were connected entirely with the rights of the people before their governments, or with rights of the proletariat and the working class before the employers.

It was in the 20th century for the first time that the question of the rights of woman before man came to the fore. Britain, which is considered to be the oldest democratic country, only acknowledged equal rights for men and women in the beginning of the 20^th century. The United States of America, in spite of their generally admitting the rights of all human beings in the 18^th century in their Declaration of Independence, passed the act giving equal political rights to men and women in the year 1920 and France also approved this matter in the 20^th century.

Anyhow, in the 20^th century, many groups all over the world favoured a profound change in the relations of men and women concerning their rights and duties. According to these people, the change and transformation in the relations of peoples with their governments, and in the relations of the labour class and the proletariat with the employers and the capitalists did not suffice for social justice, so long as the relations of rights of men and women are not reformed.

Accordingly, a Universal Declaration of Human Rights was issued for the first time after the Second World War in 1948 [5] on behalf of the United Nations Organization. In its introduction it was stipulated:

Whereas the people of the United Nations have once again proclaimed their belief in human rights and the status and worth of an individual human being and equality of the rights of men and women…

The crisis of change due to mechanization in the 19^th and the 20^th century and the eventual unfortunate condition of craftsmen, especially women, exaggerated the situation all the more, demanding that the matter of the rights of women should be especially attended to. In his Nouvelle Histoire Universelle (vol.4, p.387) Albert Malet writes: “Since the State no longer interfered in any way between the employers and the workers, except to forbid the latter to group together and strike, the employers were able to enforce a real economic despotism’….in France, in 1840, in the Ronen region, cotton mill workers laboured up to 16—17 hours a day… The exploitation for work of women and children was particular obnoxious......mortality in the working districts was horrifying.”

This is a short and cursory history of the human rights movement in Europe. As we know all the matters contained in the Declarations of Human Rights, which have novelty for the Europeans, were anticipated fourteen century ago in Islam. Some Arab and Iranian scholars have compared (the position of) Islam with these declarations in their books. Of course, there are differences in some parts between what the declarations say and what has said, and this is itself an absorbing and interesting matter. One of these differences is the problem of the rights of men and women, in which Islam approves of equality, but does not agree with identicalness, uniformity and exact similarity.

Notes:

[1] Both translated from the Persian. Originals untraced. (Tr.)

[2] The author refers to the Persian translation of Albert Malet’s Nouvelle Histoire Universelle where mention is made of the “Declaration of Rights” presented to William and Mary of Orange in the presence of the entire British Parliament on 13th February 1689. (Tr.)

[3] Actually called “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America”, made on 4th July 1776. (Tr.)

[4] The “Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizens.” This was promulgated by the French National Assembly as a preamble to the constitution in 1789, and subsequently popularized by Thomas Paine’s “The Rights of Man”. (Tr.)

[5] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted and proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10^th December 1948. (Tr.)

By: Shaheed Murtada Mutahhari - source

Escritores

Javier — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 19:27:01 +0000

Son gente rara. Escriben y lo suelen hacer bien, se les ocurren historias y saben expresarlas en palabras, son raros. Además que decir sobre una actividad que requiere más o menos un trabajo intelectual, aunque a alguna, más bien no le supone ninguna. Por mi biblioteca personal (va, en algún libro que tengo por ahí) encontre estos datos que lo demuestran:

Conde de Buffon: Tenía que escribir vestido de etiqueta, con puños de chorreras de encaje y espada al cinto.

Alejandro Dumas: Se ponía una especie de sotana roja con mangas anchas y sandalias.

Pierre Loti: Escribía vestido con trajes orientales y en un despacho decorado a la turca.

John Milton: Escribía envuelto en una capa de lana.

Chateaubriand: Dictaba todo a su secretario, paseándose con los pies descalzos por la habitación.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Prefería escribir en el campo y al sol, y en el mayor silencio posíble.

Montaigne: Se encerraba en una torre abandonada para escribir.

Schiller: Solo escribía cuando tenía los pies metidos en un barreño con agua helada.

Lord Byron: Llevaba siempre trufas en el bolsillo porque su aroma le inspiraba (lo que no se que tipo de trufas :P).

Gustav Flaubert: Antes de escribir, siempre se fumaba una pipa.

Victor Hugo: Le entregaba su ropa a algún criado y le decía que no se la devolviera pasado un tiempo, así no salía y se obligaba a escribir.

Honoré de Balzac: Se acostaba a las 6 de la tarde y la criada lo despertaba a medianoche. Inmediatamente se vestia con una túnica de monje blanca y se ponía a escribir entre doce y dieciocho horas seguidas. Siempre tenía a mano una cafetera para mantenerse despierto y según él para inspirarse también. Así escribió más de cien novelas y relatos cortos :D

Si soy así de raros, ya sabeís, quizas tengaís algo que contar al mundo. ;)

sun secrets — Sun, 24 Jun 2007 12:09:27 +0000

When I was in college, I had the fortune of taking an ancient philosophy class, with a professor, an Irishman, named Andrew O'Connor.

I never turned back.

I fell in love with Socratic thought, platonic dialogue and ethics.

You see, when you couple the ingredients of an excellent teacher like O'Connor[1] , a good circle of friends, and a ravishing flame whose Celtic eyes enchanted me for evermore, then you season with time and can only but develop a love of life and all good things, while a disdain for the unethical, the unwelcoming ; in other words the slime that eventually makes its way towards its ultimate destiny, that of dripping in a gutter.

So you usually have, in an orchestra, your first violin. The first violin is unique and can only be replaced by another first violin. Sometimes, the first violin doesn't see eye to eye with the conductor (el maestro si queren), and has to leave. Woe to those that try to assign the work of the first violin to the second violin (the way things are turning out in our planet as a leading indicator points to the tendency of this happening more and more).

The second violin may approximate the work at hand, but to the connoisseur (and there are many) the result is nothing more than an artificial, superficial, cheap imitation.

Two very, very strong first violins!

[1] Being an Hellene (or Greek, to use the vulgar Roman word) has nothing to do with race, nation or bloodline. It has to do with the way one thinks, and acts. When you value liberty, enlightment, education,common sense, rationality (as opposed to hocus pocus) and awareness (as opposed to ignorance) then indeed you are Greek. So Einstein, Martin Luther (and Luther King), Gandhi, Shaw, Rousseau etc… and of course my teacher O’Connor, were as much Greek as Socrates was. So are you Belgarion and its time you understood it!