Emile, ou l'education
I've always admired the works of Pascal, not only because of his work on vacuums and science, but also for his thoughts on philosophy of life and religion.
I've also admired Rousseau for his thought on the chains that bind every man- that famous quote from the Social Contract "Man was born free and everywhere he is in chains". When I read it I thought, yes!! this is exactly how I feel: born to a life of freedom, yet the older I grow the more responsibilities weigh heavy on my shoulders until the point that I feel I cannot move from where I am without uprooting 23 years of my life and relationships with people I love and care for.
This is again Rousseau, although not the Social Contract. It is Emile, ou l'education (Emile, on education) and the whole book in French and English can be found online here.
LIVRE QUATRIÈME
(Book Four)
[...]
Je consultai les philosophes, je feuilletai leurs livres, j’examinai leurs diverses opinions; je les trouvai tous fiers, affirmatifs, dogmatiques, même dans leur scepticisme prétendu, n’ignorant rien, ne prouvant rien, se moquant les uns des autres; et ce point commun à tous me parut le seul sur lequel ils ont tous raison. Triomphants quand ils attaquent, ils sont sans vigueur en se défendant. Si vous pesez les raisons, ils n’en ont que pour détruire; si vous comptez les voies, chacun est réduit à la sienne; ils ne s’accordent que pour disputer; les écouter n’était pas le moyen de sortir de mon incertitude.
I consulted the philosophers, I searched their books and examined their various theories; I found them all alike proud, assertive, dogmatic, professing, even in their so-called skepticism, to know everything, proving nothing, scoffing at each other. This last trait, which was common to all of them, struck me as the only point in which they were right. Braggarts in attack, they are weaklings in defense. Weigh their arguments, they are all destructive; count their voices, every one speaks for himself; they are only agreed in arguing with each other. I could find no way out of my uncertainty by listening to them.
Je conçus que l’insuffisance de l’esprit humain est la première cause de cette prodigieuse diversité de sentiments, et que l’orgueil est la seconde. Nous n’avons point la mesure de cette machine immense, nous n’en pouvons calculer les rapports; nous n’en connaissons ni les premières lois ni la cause finale; nous nous ignorons nous-mêmes; nous ne connaissons ni notre nature ni notre principe actif; à peine savons-nous si l’homme est un être simple ou composé: des mystères impénétrables nous environnent de toutes parts; ils sont au-dessus de la région sensible; pour les percer nous croyons avoir de l’intelligence, et nous n’avons que de l’imagination. Chacun se fraye, à travers ce monde imaginaire, une route qu’il croît la bonne; nul ne peut savoir si la sienne mène au but. Cependant nous voulons tout pénétrer, tout connaître. La seule chose que nous ne savons point, est d’ignorer ce que nous ne pouvons savoir. Nous aimons mieux nous déterminer au hasard, et croire ce qui n’est pas, que d’avouer qu’aucun de nous ne peut voir ce qui est. Petite partie d’un grand tout dont les bornes nous échappent, et que son auteur livre à nos folles disputes, nous sommes assez vains pour vouloir décider ce qu’est ce tout en lui-même, et ce que nous sommes par rapport à lui.
I suppose this prodigious diversity of opinion is caused, in the first place, by the weakness of the human intellect; and, in the second, by pride. We have no means of measuring this vast machine, we are unable to calculate its workings; we know neither its guiding principles nor its final purpose; we do not know ourselves, we know neither our nature nor the spirit that moves us; we scarcely know whether man is one or many; we are surrounded by impenetrable mysteries. These mysteries are beyond the region of sense, we think we can penetrate them by the light of reason, but we fall back on our imagination. Through this imagined world each forces a way for himself which he holds to be right; none can tell whether his path will lead him to the goal. Yet we long to know and understand it all. The one thing we do not know is the limit of the knowable. We prefer to trust to chance and to believe what is not true, rather than to own that not one of us can see what really is. A fragment of some vast whole whose bounds are beyond our gaze, a fragment abandoned by its Creator to our foolish quarrels, we are vain enough to want to determine the nature of that whole and our own relations with regard to it.
Quand les philosophes seraient en état de découvrir la venté, qui d’entre eux prendrait intérêt à elle? Chacun sait bien que son système n’est pas mieux fondé que les autres; mais il le soutient parce qu’il est à lui. Il n’y en a pas un seul qui, venant à connaître le vrai et le faux, ne préférât le mensonge qu’il a trouvé à la vérité découverte par un autre. Où est le philosophe qui, pour sa gloire, ne tromperait pas volontiers le genre humain? Où est celui qui, dans le secret de son coeur, se propose un autre objet que de se distinguer? Pourvu qu’il s’élève au-dessus du vulgaire, pourvu qu’il efface l’éclat de ses concurrents, que demande-t-il de plus? L’essentiel est de penser autrement que les autres. Chez les croyants il est athée, chez les athées il serait croyant.
If the philosophers were in a position to declare the truth, which of them would care to do so? Every one of them knows that his own system rests on no surer foundations than the rest, but he maintains it because it is his own. There is not one of them who, if he chanced to discover the difference between truth and falsehood, would not prefer his own lie to the truth which another had discovered. Where is the philosopher who would not deceive the whole world for his own glory? If he can rise above the crowd, if he can excel his rivals, what more does he want? Among believers he is an atheist; among atheists he would be a believer.
[...]
This is regarding education, but not just academically but the whole personal education. A very interesting read. It is far more intense and philosophically provoking than any textbook on differentiation and mechanics (puke :p)
I wish I had discovered the philosophers before junior college. GP would have been so much more enjoyable.
I've also admired Rousseau for his thought on the chains that bind every man- that famous quote from the Social Contract "Man was born free and everywhere he is in chains". When I read it I thought, yes!! this is exactly how I feel: born to a life of freedom, yet the older I grow the more responsibilities weigh heavy on my shoulders until the point that I feel I cannot move from where I am without uprooting 23 years of my life and relationships with people I love and care for.
This is again Rousseau, although not the Social Contract. It is Emile, ou l'education (Emile, on education) and the whole book in French and English can be found online here.
LIVRE QUATRIÈME
(Book Four)
[...]
Je consultai les philosophes, je feuilletai leurs livres, j’examinai leurs diverses opinions; je les trouvai tous fiers, affirmatifs, dogmatiques, même dans leur scepticisme prétendu, n’ignorant rien, ne prouvant rien, se moquant les uns des autres; et ce point commun à tous me parut le seul sur lequel ils ont tous raison. Triomphants quand ils attaquent, ils sont sans vigueur en se défendant. Si vous pesez les raisons, ils n’en ont que pour détruire; si vous comptez les voies, chacun est réduit à la sienne; ils ne s’accordent que pour disputer; les écouter n’était pas le moyen de sortir de mon incertitude.
I consulted the philosophers, I searched their books and examined their various theories; I found them all alike proud, assertive, dogmatic, professing, even in their so-called skepticism, to know everything, proving nothing, scoffing at each other. This last trait, which was common to all of them, struck me as the only point in which they were right. Braggarts in attack, they are weaklings in defense. Weigh their arguments, they are all destructive; count their voices, every one speaks for himself; they are only agreed in arguing with each other. I could find no way out of my uncertainty by listening to them.
Je conçus que l’insuffisance de l’esprit humain est la première cause de cette prodigieuse diversité de sentiments, et que l’orgueil est la seconde. Nous n’avons point la mesure de cette machine immense, nous n’en pouvons calculer les rapports; nous n’en connaissons ni les premières lois ni la cause finale; nous nous ignorons nous-mêmes; nous ne connaissons ni notre nature ni notre principe actif; à peine savons-nous si l’homme est un être simple ou composé: des mystères impénétrables nous environnent de toutes parts; ils sont au-dessus de la région sensible; pour les percer nous croyons avoir de l’intelligence, et nous n’avons que de l’imagination. Chacun se fraye, à travers ce monde imaginaire, une route qu’il croît la bonne; nul ne peut savoir si la sienne mène au but. Cependant nous voulons tout pénétrer, tout connaître. La seule chose que nous ne savons point, est d’ignorer ce que nous ne pouvons savoir. Nous aimons mieux nous déterminer au hasard, et croire ce qui n’est pas, que d’avouer qu’aucun de nous ne peut voir ce qui est. Petite partie d’un grand tout dont les bornes nous échappent, et que son auteur livre à nos folles disputes, nous sommes assez vains pour vouloir décider ce qu’est ce tout en lui-même, et ce que nous sommes par rapport à lui.
I suppose this prodigious diversity of opinion is caused, in the first place, by the weakness of the human intellect; and, in the second, by pride. We have no means of measuring this vast machine, we are unable to calculate its workings; we know neither its guiding principles nor its final purpose; we do not know ourselves, we know neither our nature nor the spirit that moves us; we scarcely know whether man is one or many; we are surrounded by impenetrable mysteries. These mysteries are beyond the region of sense, we think we can penetrate them by the light of reason, but we fall back on our imagination. Through this imagined world each forces a way for himself which he holds to be right; none can tell whether his path will lead him to the goal. Yet we long to know and understand it all. The one thing we do not know is the limit of the knowable. We prefer to trust to chance and to believe what is not true, rather than to own that not one of us can see what really is. A fragment of some vast whole whose bounds are beyond our gaze, a fragment abandoned by its Creator to our foolish quarrels, we are vain enough to want to determine the nature of that whole and our own relations with regard to it.
Quand les philosophes seraient en état de découvrir la venté, qui d’entre eux prendrait intérêt à elle? Chacun sait bien que son système n’est pas mieux fondé que les autres; mais il le soutient parce qu’il est à lui. Il n’y en a pas un seul qui, venant à connaître le vrai et le faux, ne préférât le mensonge qu’il a trouvé à la vérité découverte par un autre. Où est le philosophe qui, pour sa gloire, ne tromperait pas volontiers le genre humain? Où est celui qui, dans le secret de son coeur, se propose un autre objet que de se distinguer? Pourvu qu’il s’élève au-dessus du vulgaire, pourvu qu’il efface l’éclat de ses concurrents, que demande-t-il de plus? L’essentiel est de penser autrement que les autres. Chez les croyants il est athée, chez les athées il serait croyant.
If the philosophers were in a position to declare the truth, which of them would care to do so? Every one of them knows that his own system rests on no surer foundations than the rest, but he maintains it because it is his own. There is not one of them who, if he chanced to discover the difference between truth and falsehood, would not prefer his own lie to the truth which another had discovered. Where is the philosopher who would not deceive the whole world for his own glory? If he can rise above the crowd, if he can excel his rivals, what more does he want? Among believers he is an atheist; among atheists he would be a believer.
[...]
This is regarding education, but not just academically but the whole personal education. A very interesting read. It is far more intense and philosophically provoking than any textbook on differentiation and mechanics (puke :p)
I wish I had discovered the philosophers before junior college. GP would have been so much more enjoyable.