The History Of Ideas And Political Thought Reading Club Presents: Liberty Series, Rousseau.

This week's discussion will focus on Book 4 of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's The Social Contract. In this section, Rousseau delves into the complexities of the general will, the role of the sovereign, and the delicate balance between individual freedom and collective authority within the state. We'll explore Rousseau's arguments on the necessity of civil religion, the challenges posed by factions, and his provocative assertion that individuals may need to be "forced to be free." Our discussion will also consider Rousseau's thoughts on education, democracy, and the potential tensions between the majority's will and the rights of the minority.

Transcript

00:05 do you think we should wait for anyone
00:07 else or do you think I should just run
00:09 my friend hope will be here in a couple
00:12 minutes
00:17 origino if we made
00:20 start have you heard nothing from your
00:23 the other two no I mean it could be the
00:25 weather could be anything but um anyway
01:30 um so yes so this is our Liberty series
01:33 um the first uh Edition um focusing on
01:38 Russo from our University of
01:39 Buckingham's political thought reading
01:41 club I'm Samuel wood presenting uh this
01:44 talk and yeah I'm doing intellectual
01:46 history as a PhD at Buckingham um and
01:50 yeah we'll commence just with a little
01:52 bit of a overview on rouso and the
01:55 social contract so Russo was a Swiss
01:59 French philosopher writer composer um
01:02 wrote the opera leand
01:08 vage he he came up with his own scoring
01:12 system and everything which I think you
01:13 had heard of we discussed it once I
01:16 think but he came up with his own form
01:18 of notation I mean a real sort of
01:21 polymath um and yeah he is considered
01:25 one of the most influential figures in
01:27 Western political thought and yeah
01:29 particularly in the fields of both
02:30 political Theory and education so his
02:33 seminal work the social contract is what
02:35 we're going to be looking at today oh
02:37 that could be someone
02:47 now wonderful to have increased the
02:53 number wine Coke um flavored water
02:02 we
02:04 justed as I was saying um the seminal
02:07 work of russos is in 1762 the social
02:09 contract he induced the idea of
02:12 legitimate government which must be
02:14 based on the consent of the government a
02:15 concept that would shape modern
02:17 democratic theory Russo's critique of
02:19 contemporary Society also Advanced the
02:22 notion that humans are inherently good
02:24 but that societal structures corrupt the
02:26 natural goodness which may be a little
02:27 bit reminiscent of some I don't know
02:29 Christian
03:30 that uh a revolutionary stance that
03:33 challenged the prevailing belief in the
03:35 inherent selfishness of humans his ideas
03:38 about human nature Freedom Society they
03:42 all continue to inspire and provoke
03:44 debates particularly within feminist and
03:48 postcolonial studies the feminists being
03:50 rather
03:51 anti in contempary circles
03:56 um so just to quickly run through the
03:58 other texts that are sort of of
03:00 supplementary to what we've been looking
03:02 at you've got his initial work so he
03:04 submitted the discourse on the Arts and
03:06 Sciences as an essay um competition uh
03:10 uh at djon University um and Russo's
03:14 intellectual contributions are
03:16 recognized in various ways as Belin
03:18 highlighted the concept of the noble
03:19 savage as a key inspiration for
03:21 Romanticism which is what some writers
03:23 refer to roo as a protor romantic whilst
03:25 Jonathan Israel positioned him as a
03:27 precursor to the enlightenment so
03:29 actually sitting outside of the proper
04:30 Enlightenment emphasizing individual
04:33 freedom and equality Skinner on the
04:35 other hand explored Russo's impact on
04:37 the development of one democracy
04:39 particularly through his conception of
04:41 popular sovereignty and the social
04:43 contract Russo's critiques of modernity
04:45 were groundbreaking and in a discourse
04:47 on the Arts and Sciences he attacked the
04:49 moral Decay he saw in contemporary
04:52 Society particularly the pursuit of
04:53 status and wealth he argued that true
04:56 virtue cannot be learned through study
04:58 but must come from an authentic personal
04:00 commitment to moral living Russo also
04:03 critiqued the commercialization of
04:05 society lamenting the loss of shed
04:08 compassion in the face of early
04:10 capitalism's focused on materialism
04:12 again this is a feature that is uh being
04:14 investigated quite a lot at the moment
04:16 within Enlightenment studies Professor
04:18 Richard watmore at the University of St
04:19 Andrews has just last year released um a
04:23 book called the end of Enlightenment
04:24 which is all about how commercialization
04:27 of society killed off Enlightenment that
04:29 it kind of took the values from the
04:30 enlightenment to push forward commercial
05:32 and kind of more vain interests um
05:35 you've also got the discourse on
05:36 inequality where rth examined the rise
05:38 of inequality its destructive effects on
05:41 freedom he idealized a simple pre-social
05:43 state of nature in which humans were
05:45 free from the corruption of societal
05:48 conventions Russo's belief in the
05:50 fundamental goodness of humanity seen in
05:52 his Reflections on the natural world
05:54 contrasted sharply with the selfishness
05:57 and vanity he attributed to Modern
05:59 civilization
05:00 he believed that to overcome the ills of
05:03 society humans must return to the values
05:06 of Simplicity and mutual care Russo's
05:09 unique synthesis of reason and passion
05:11 particularly in his Reflections on
05:13 ethics further complicated the
05:15 enlightenment's focus on rationality he
05:17 posited that ethical decisions are
05:19 shaped by both our desires and our
05:21 reason and that compassion for others is
05:23 a natural and essential part of human
05:25 nature which then puts him into the
05:27 categorization for some historians of
05:29 counter enlightenment
06:30 um Russo's Legacy has been profound and
06:33 enduring shaping the intellectual
06:35 Landscapes of political Theory education
06:37 and moral philosophy and continues to
06:39 resonate across contemporary debates on
06:40 equality freedom and
06:43 Justice so this is the book of the
06:46 social contract that we're looking at
06:47 this week um the discussion will focus
06:50 on book four of Russo's social contract
06:52 in this section Russo delves into the
06:54 complexities of the general will the
06:56 role of the Sovereign and the delicate
06:58 balance between individual freedom and
06:01 Collective Authority within the state
06:03 would explore Russo's arguments on the
06:05 necessity of civil religion the
06:07 challenges posed by faction and his
06:09 provocative assertion that individuals
06:11 may need to be forced to be free our
06:14 discussion will also consider Russo's
06:16 thoughts on education democracy and the
06:18 potential tensions between the
06:19 majority's will and the right of the
06:23 minority and yeah so that's my
06:25 introduction done um and now we can
06:27 start I've got some prompt questions
06:29 there which are a little bit small but
07:31 um but yeah well I'll PCH myself down
07:33 and maybe Jack you might want to kick us
07:35 off with a pointer or yeah yeah
07:38 um I would a good place to begin was um
07:44 anthropology um the the particular
07:47 Vision he puts forward of um the you
07:50 know fundamental goodness of man um the
07:53 idea that comes in halfway through the
07:55 expert where man is born fre um the the
07:60 famous line is follows and every way in
07:02 chain but that's not what he actually
07:03 writes I don't know where that that one
07:04 come from but he said he said man born
07:06 fre M himself um and that the social
07:09 contract represents the most voluntary
07:12 act and he find it desirable that such
07:15 an act would be the foundation of of a
07:17 civil society and then then you also
07:20 have this this um idea that the general
07:23 will is self-evident to simple men I
07:27 find every one of the old proposition
07:29 problematic and so I wonder if that or
08:32 at least certainly wanting clarification
08:34 for my mind and so maybe that would be a
08:37 good place to start um okay um why is
08:42 the general will of
08:44 event what does he mean by the general
08:47 will um he seems to mean
08:50 um as far as I could
08:53 tell whatever would be in the best
08:56 interest of the it's a synonym of the
08:59 common good um so you get um phrases
08:03 like that we use so often now like you
08:05 know the general wellbeing
08:08 um and he he said that um in the very
08:13 beginning
08:14 that that
08:16 the the general will will pertain to a
08:19 corpse a political corpse though not all
08:22 political corpse will have one will yeah
08:25 um so it it seems to have something to
08:28 do with um perpetuating the the the best
09:32 possible version of the Court through
09:35 time I mean you could see it as simply
09:37 like a grounding of our sort of
09:40 majoritarian systems where Whoever has
09:43 the largest say that overrules any other
09:46 minorities say is heading in the correct
09:48 direction I think that I don't
09:50 personally think we were sort of
09:51 discussing this the other night I don't
09:53 personally think that that was
09:55 necessarily what he was driving at in
09:56 terms of just excluding any other voice
09:59 um because of some contextual factors
09:01 that we can raise in the discussion but
09:03 yeah I think one of the readings would
09:05 simply be that it's kind of like the
09:07 majority you know the majority he's not
09:09 he's not a Democrat he's certainly not a
09:11 Democrat no so he's kind of this kind of
09:13 belief that he somehow can touch what
09:18 the general will of the population
09:20 that's why kind of there's a sort of
09:22 resurgence of connection between Russ
09:25 and Trump yeah yeah the idea that
09:27 somehow the Maga movement is represent
09:30 America that's the general will but
10:32 there's no de well there's no
10:36 fundamental basis for that
10:38 and it's not Democratic in in the true
10:42 sense of the word I think no no what
10:45 would you say J
10:48 um yes Russell seems hostile to a
10:51 certain de kind of democracy because um
10:56 he's very anxious about debate he's very
10:59 anxious about conflicting
10:01 opinions um he he has this idea that the
10:07 longer these debates go on this this is
10:10 going to be indicative of of a Decay um
10:13 that there are old Behavior motives
10:15 because because he believes that this is
10:17 this is self-evident um and
10:21 so of course we know that debate can be
10:26 a a weapon to stifle democracy
11:30 and and to stifle public interest
11:33 however I also think debate quite
11:36 essential to figuring out the
11:38 complexities of the world now I
11:39 appreciate that there will be some
11:42 contextual factors here because you I'm
11:45 very ignorant of History so I'm glad you
11:47 both are here um and and just help you
11:49 assuming probably know more about
11:51 historical conduct than I do the M
11:53 philosopher but um you explained to me
11:56 Sam that he he's in a much smaller
11:58 Society you know much
11:00 government or at least his idolized form
11:03 of government is Geneva it is the canel
11:06 of Geneva that has a dire democratic
11:08 system rather than a large Mammoth State
11:12 like France which when it needs to it
11:15 needs to hold the um Estates General Etc
11:18 to try and push these decisions through
11:20 he sees that as just such a leviathan
11:23 state that is just not functional so for
11:25 him he's looking to Geneva his homeland
11:28 and thinking well a small St like that
11:30 seems to be able to function okay
12:32 because people can can actually interact
12:34 with one another in the in the body
12:36 politic on a very personal basis and
12:38 come to those conclusions together
12:41 rather than needing to rely on a large
12:43 assembly to be able to deliberate take a
12:46 lot of time to be able to get to those
12:48 conclusions so there is that there um
12:52 but yeah I think going back to your
12:53 original Point how does a general will
12:56 become self-evident I think I mean it's
12:59 a very sort of Enlightenment notion that
12:01 if you rationalize far enough everyone
12:04 of course will come to the same
12:05 conclusion but it's it's slightly
12:07 different in Russo because it's not
12:09 rationally self-evident it's morally
12:11 self-evident I think um so it's it's
12:14 it's self-evident to simple men men of
12:16 good conscience who not have competing
12:19 motives so they're well tempered I think
12:22 that's why the Swiss C Geneva sort of
12:25 idea was a much more religiously moral
12:29 Society
12:30 than the corrupt French and and so to
13:33 some extent I think that's partly why
13:36 yeah R had momentum with the revolution
13:39 because he kind of was seen as Moral
13:42 Moral Cent striving for that yeah that
13:45 moral and commentators in Britain in the
13:48 1740s are referring to because of you
13:51 know the uh the after the Glorious
13:55 Revolution commenta in Britain and
13:56 referring to The Virtuous clergy of
13:59 Geneva that that is what a real
13:01 Protestant country would strive after so
13:03 certainly yeah I think in that 1750s
13:05 1760s that is still the sentiment that
13:08 somewh like Geneva is the epitome of a
13:10 kind of moral
13:12 Society um but I still don't know
13:14 necessarily how it would yeah become
13:17 self-evident to an individual um and I
13:22 think I think there are two options
13:26 there is either the sort of yeah the
13:29 kind of moral characteristic idea but
14:31 then there is the darker side which is
14:34 that if if you don't come to that
14:36 conclusion you're excluded from what is
14:40 the body politics and that's where a lot
14:42 of sort of uh uh historians in the sort
14:46 of
14:47 1950s after the second world war and
14:49 looking to these dict dictatorial
14:51 regimes in the 20th century was saying
14:54 well you can see this in rouso you can
14:57 see that his idea of the general will is
14:59 it's compelling and we'll come to that
14:02 where he says you will know to compel
14:04 people to be free
14:06 essentially but yeah I
14:09 mean even just on a practical basis day
14:11 today to you
14:13 know I think I think you could also say
14:17 Lally not just talking about the idea of
14:19 reaching some sense of consensus some
14:22 sort of uh ultimate consensus which
14:24 probably wouldn't seem too drastic to us
14:26 it's only when we read into it that it's
14:28 kind of yet this more exclusionary
15:30 approach to political philosophy um
15:33 because also you could surely don't know
15:36 about yourself but when you hear the
15:37 term General will I wouldn't
15:39 automatically think that it feels kind
15:41 of too forceful I think it could come
15:43 across as quite kind of normal in our
15:45 politics today that we that we want to
15:47 reach some kind of General will yeah the
15:49 TR is the use of General
15:52 will NY
15:54 overt because that that was the idea of
15:57 Hitler was he represented the will of
15:60 the people yeah yeah and but I think you
15:03 can't I me this is where intellectual
15:04 history is you can't just
15:07 post um interpret because something
15:10 happens afterwards that somehow and I
15:12 think you need to go back to the his
15:15 pointed time there's danger in just like
15:19 interpreting him saying well he's like
15:21 Hitler or like Trump but he wasn't CU he
15:24 was of that he cuz I think there was a
15:27 big debate with him and Vol they they
16:31 they didn't uh well neither liked each
16:34 other and I think part of what R was R
16:38 was also doing was uh challenging the uh
16:41 apparent Corruption of the idea that
16:42 people would uh get on by competing and
16:48 over you know trying to outwit everybody
16:51 and whereas he com back to the kind of
16:54 Geneva count on the idea that there was
16:56 a society that was somehow
16:60 virtuous virt working together for the
16:02 whole exactly he was kind of very much
16:04 against that sort of um corrupt
16:08 commercialism I think exactly and about
16:11 the rides of faction in a commercial
16:12 society and as I was saying in the
16:15 discussion of the book that came before
16:17 the social contract which is the
16:19 discourse on inequality that is also his
16:22 argument about his sort of genealogy of
16:24 M essentially that in a pre-social state
16:27 we weren't competitive we were either
16:30 isolated and just satisfying ourselves
17:33 or if we saw another in need at some
17:36 point he's got this very sort of
17:38 romantic view of the pre-social man
17:40 which is that without those kind of
17:42 elements of corruption you would just be
17:44 supporting one another essentially so
17:46 that is ultimately his ideal society and
17:49 that's what he thinks Geneva is at least
17:51 closest to um but yeah um in terms of in
17:58 terms of the sort of discourse you have
17:60 got a lot of similar phrases being used
17:02 at the time because you've also got
17:03 Thomas Payne writing common sense and
17:06 again Common Sense is a very similar
17:08 sort of sort of concept but going off in
17:10 a different tangent in terms of in terms
17:13 of the idea that again if we if we
17:16 strive hard enough we can reach this
17:18 kind of ultimate state of understanding
17:20 of of rationalizing but the difference
17:23 with you so as you ra is that it's much
17:26 more of a moral characteristic I think
17:30 rather than just the r and in my view
18:34 politics should be some of both because
18:37 you know you can have all the good
18:38 intentions in the world but unless
18:40 you're informed yeah about all the
18:42 factors going on um in your state and
18:44 not in your state but also Beyond it or
18:47 the external relations your state has
18:49 you can't actually render effective
18:51 judgments um
18:54 so I think that's part of where I would
18:57 say that's why the the general will is
18:60 not self-evident but there has to be
18:02 quite painstaking research done um into
18:05 the lives of people within and without
18:09 your your
18:10 jurisdiction I suppose it also depends
18:12 on how specific his idea of a general
18:14 well is if you have I think you can make
18:17 a pretty plausible case that when you
18:20 abstract enough from ordinary life um
18:23 people generally have a very similar
18:25 view of how Society ought to work and
18:27 what things should should happen and so
18:29 on when you when you don't talk about
19:31 you know specific quantities of taxes or
19:34 things like that you just say well I
19:35 think public transport should run on
19:37 time and I think people should live
19:38 together in harmony and so like you can
19:40 get to a certain level where everybody
19:41 has the same ideas but the problem is
19:44 I'm not sure is is that all he's
19:46 claiming because if so I don't think
19:47 that's a very controversial thing if
19:48 he's saying that everybody actually
19:50 really has the same ideas about how many
19:53 taxes everyone should be paying what
19:54 stage of income or whatever it might be
19:56 it's just that we haven't really
19:58 realized it yet or some people intellect
19:59 are clouded that seems to be quite a
19:01 naive thing to
19:04 say I don't know whether it hasn't
19:07 connection but I think the link to the
19:09 idea of Education the idea that a child
19:13 was not um a black state or somehow
19:18 impure they were there was a purity of
19:21 childhood that could be could be brought
19:24 out and that was
19:25 essentially stifled by the corrupts
19:29 Society so to some extent there was a
20:31 sort of
20:32 inherent uh goodness and therefore that
20:35 that collectively was the the will I
20:38 think yeah and it was the fact that the
20:41 you know people weren't educated in the
20:43 right way and therefore we got to a
20:46 state where the society was somehow you
20:49 know going wrong like
20:51 France and needed to change and I think
20:54 that's partly why he was taken up I I
20:57 thought he was supported by
20:60 sort of more purist in the revolution I
20:04 know Rob Rob oh very much
20:08 so I hear that all the great
20:10 revolutionary regim like Len
20:13 and the 1848 revolution definitely
20:18 yeah when I read that concerned
20:21 me I think there's also what is quite
20:24 Enlightenment about him rather than
20:25 counter Enlightenment is also that there
20:27 is a very sort of logical end to this
20:29 idea of the German world as well which
21:30 is it almost is a little bit platonic in
21:33 the kind of you know the sort of psyche
21:34 State binary where the the psyche is
21:37 supposed to match the kind of
21:39 composition of the state and he is
21:41 essentially saying you know he writes
21:43 about how can the opponents be both free
21:46 and placed in subjection to laws that
21:47 they haven't consented but you can't
21:49 have a free and good Society if there's
21:51 someone who disagrees and it's it's
21:53 almost like a kind of just a logical
21:55 conundrum for him which is like well
21:57 well if they're not agreeing and they're
21:59 not then then they're being compelled
21:01 which means they're not free which means
21:03 that they have to be excluded because
21:05 otherwise the state can't be free itself
21:07 because there's someone there who's
21:08 disagreeing with what everyone else is
21:10 wanting to uh Advocate to be free um so
21:15 there is quite a kind of logical element
21:17 freedom is predicated on the unity of
21:20 the political C exactly yeah right W
21:23 almost because he's saying you know
21:24 because otherwise a minority wouldn't
21:26 feel free so this is where the counter
21:28 argument to the kind of uh line towards
22:32 a Hitler or Stalin can come which is
22:35 that well he's not saying that they
22:37 should be oppressed or forced he's just
22:39 sort of saying well you know and this I
22:43 suppose going back to your point Peter
22:45 in terms of education does come to his
22:47 final book which I didn't mention
22:48 because it's after the social contract
22:50 but ail and the idea of re-educating
22:52 society that um you know ultimately if
22:55 there are elements that think that
22:57 they're not not um part of the general
22:01 will then ultimately what needs to
22:03 happen again this sounds very STL this
22:05 but a
22:06 reeducation of society going forward to
22:09 enable them to think fre and their kind
22:11 of more contented General will but I
22:12 think it I think fundamentally at least
22:14 from an intellectual history perspective
22:16 in terms of the context there is this
22:17 thing about states are just too big at
22:20 the moment and you can't have you know
22:22 you can't have a general will in in a
22:25 massive State and that's where we kind
22:26 of need to read it as he is very much
22:28 looking at Geneva yeah um I find the
23:32 context of Geneva very interesting what
23:34 he's writing because on one hand you can
23:36 say Geneva embodies his perfect State
23:39 and that you know there's not that much
23:42 corruption it's fairly small sort of a
23:44 lot of Harmony um generally speaking
23:47 things seem to go pretty well on the
23:49 other hand the whole of his political
23:50 philosophy is predicated on this idea
23:51 that humanity and it state of nature is
23:54 fundamentally good and if just left
23:56 their own devices if not educated not
23:57 corrupted by Society human beings
23:59 flourish and yet the whole system of
23:02 government of the state of Geneva is
23:03 predicated on Calvinism which includes
23:06 in itself the idea that humanity is
23:08 inherently and D it has to be saved kind
23:11 of not because of Any element of good in
23:13 its own existence but a purely external
23:15 thing and I wonder whether that's an
23:17 example of I mean there's this famous
23:20 bit in herous which is now kind of very
23:23 common it's one of the things that
23:24 people quote that you know um uh um
23:29 whatever it is like tough men create
24:30 good times good times create weak men
24:33 weak men create bad times bad times
24:34 create tough men that kind of thing the
24:37 if you start from an assumption that
24:39 actually human beings are inherently
24:41 pretty flawed and we have to design
24:44 Society in a way that include safeguards
24:45 against this you end up with a pretty
24:47 harmonous Society such that anyone
24:48 growing up in that Society could have an
24:51 idea that human beings actually are
24:52 inherently very good because look
24:53 everybody treats each other well and
24:56 then that consequently has the effect
24:58 that that Society then disintegrate I
24:60 wonder if you could make that claim as
24:01 well that's is it an psychosis or the
24:04 sort of puses kind of thing about bit
24:06 like with the tyrannical government will
24:08 then result in
24:09 a democracy and then the Democracy will
24:11 fall into oligarchy and go back to
24:13 tyranny exactly um but I was going to
24:16 say on that point and it's gone now so
24:19 someone
24:19 might going to say yeah all step it yeah
24:23 the context of his life is also very
24:25 interesting because obviously his father
24:27 is kicked out of
24:29 Geneva and he's kind of got this ow it's
25:32 constant owed to Geneva to almost accept
25:34 him again but then when this is
25:36 published they're throwing it on the P
25:39 they're burning
25:40 his because they think that he's kind of
25:44 they think he's essentially saying well
25:46 no society's good enough even though
25:47 he's wanting to do it as an old ter to
25:50 say please accept me back and they think
25:54 oh no no he's he's far too kind of
25:57 infused by this idea of uh you know um
25:00 the general will and uh creating this
25:03 kind of extremely harmonious society and
25:05 actually they think oh wait he's
25:07 suggesting that no societies like this
25:08 at the moment so away it goes onto the
25:11 onto the burning pile um so yeah so I
25:16 that's quite interesting as well um but
25:18 that conflict is that sort of inherent
25:21 conflict is thinking and what he did was
25:25 also represented in the way that volter
25:27 criticized his treatment to his own
25:29 children yes who he had five children
26:32 with fairly oring woman who was um sort
26:38 of socially inferior I think and but
26:41 they were put in some kind of U boarding
26:45 school home and so but he wrote about
26:47 what was good about education and in
26:49 fact you know had no connection whatever
26:52 with his own children yeah and to try
26:54 and vindicate himself with say in
26:55 letters that um oh well I just didn't
26:58 think that I would would be the good
26:59 enough father that I've written
26:02 about I won't live up to the own
26:04 standards of what I've written for a
26:05 good
26:07 education but yes um so should we turn
26:12 to maybe we've sort of covered the first
26:14 question I wrote with one of Ja the idea
26:16 of sovereignty um that it can't be
26:19 represented or delegated in book four
26:22 yeah what would you say ja
26:26 um sorry
27:35 this is probably where I at my weakness
27:37 cuz my political philosophy quite po
27:40 but he was very careful I quite admired
27:43 but this might be my ignorance of the
27:45 political philosophers maybe he would
27:46 have did it better he was very careful
27:48 to to put balances on
27:52 everything um even at the point of um he
27:57 obviously recognized is that there a
27:59 place the state goes where you have
27:03 to
27:06 um as it were a point for a temp you
27:09 know for a brief moment someone above
27:11 the Sovereign yeah
27:14 um
27:17 so um I guess it might be Sim to what's
27:20 going on in France at the moment
27:22 when with uh you know you you get to
27:26 these places where it's all just gone to
27:27 stagnation so we keep going through
27:30 people and it's not going on so do we
28:31 end up choosing someone who can sort of
28:34 come in by force and fix it yeah but
28:36 make sure it doesn't go on for too long
28:39 you know the case study of Rome for this
28:42 um yes yes um I don't know um I don't
28:46 know much about Roman history how how
28:49 how faithful he is to the to the event
28:52 like Roman
28:54 Bally um yes um he's obviously very
28:01 aware that
28:03 there's there's something in the
28:04 Sovereign which ultimately
28:08 is ineffective for Liberty you know the
28:11 final analysis of libert what Liberty is
28:13 and how it's going to be enable C rest
28:15 on um a sovereign even if the Sovereign
28:19 is elected the I never understood if the
28:21 Sovereign in this foro is he an elected
28:24 figure or is he like a prince or a king
28:28 he he he um he he refers to the prince
29:32 as well yeah he talks quite a lot
29:35 about so this is like a a dynastic yeah
29:39 feature of the state so it's not an
29:41 elected feature not really no so yeah so
29:45 in that case it's comparable then to the
29:49 English situation yeah post Cromwell and
29:53 you know thinking about the Glorious
29:55 Revolution um that The Sovereign himself
29:58 is in a sense bound to a law yeah and
29:02 there is a independent body that can
29:05 make sure that is enacted yeah in even
29:08 in the um in the face of a sovereign
29:10 who's unwilling to do that himself so
29:12 it's an interesting idea um very modern
29:16 um but I think that that was one of the
29:18 persistent challenges in that coming out
29:21 of England and and then what the idea
29:26 the original idea was that you know God
29:29 God vested his time on Earth Through The
30:33 Sovereign yeah and and it seemed to me
30:35 that um part of the you know the
30:39 Protestant religion was sort of changing
30:41 the idea that people could talk to God
30:45 yeah without necessarily the
30:47 intervention of a priest or Sovereign
30:50 was important but he was there it wasn't
30:53 it wasn't like a big pyramid with the
30:55 people at the bottom and uh so I just
30:58 wondered where
30:59 the again you mentioned about Sparta but
30:02 I thought Sparta was a model for him I
30:04 don't know enough about
30:06 Sparta I he wasting SP to criticize it
30:11 um um from memory the the SP model was
30:15 quite complicated they had two royal
30:17 families basically um and they had
30:20 representatives in a parliament and then
30:22 overseeing all that they had five fers
30:24 who I think were elected once every two
30:26 years um and the F's role was to ensure
31:31 that the state was fundamentally
31:33 conservative um and the the mo the
31:37 motive to make sure that was that was
31:39 the case was that the next series of
31:41 five FS did a review of the prior series
31:44 and would execute them if the state
31:46 hadn't been sufficiently conservative um
31:49 he had a few things to say about the
31:50 effers in the in the chapter um I can't
31:55 off the top I can't remember what and
31:57 whether it was but I thought the
31:58 impression he was he was B spart to be
31:01 critical he was talking about what led
31:02 to their demise there was something in
31:04 this this system which contain the seed
31:07 of its own destruction um poal
31:10 adaptivity um were other things
31:13 um
31:15 yeah Rome is a much better into where my
31:19 detail with wrome um St
31:23 there of which you probably know is is
31:26 Alex yeah yeah I mean the Roman system
31:30 was quite idealistic I think and ended
32:32 up failing with the establishment of the
32:34 Empire um the sort of the Roman Republic
32:36 was very much this idea that not too
32:39 dissimilar from Russ which is why I
32:40 think it influence figures and family
32:42 fathers and so on but that if you have a
32:45 perfectly balanced Harmony Society where
32:47 the aristocracy and the fans have just
32:49 about thanks please have just about
32:52 enough kind of power and they're not
32:54 like the aristocrats are slightly more
32:56 powerful than thean but actually there
32:58 checks and balances on everyone um
32:05 think thank
32:09 you so I mean essentially the way that
32:11 that worked was you you have the Senate
32:13 which was pretty much a parliament uh
32:15 which was semi- elected with the
32:18 election process was kind of very
32:20 convoluted and then from the Senate
32:23 every year you'd elect
32:26 two consuls but every I think it's every
32:29 three years or something but anyway
33:31 every so often you'd elect two consuls
33:32 who would be the two prime ministers and
33:34 they would keep each other in Balance to
33:36 make wantep Authority and then sort of
33:38 take precedence at different points and
33:41 whatever and um anyway so yeah that was
33:46 that was also an election but again
33:47 quite a convoluted one everybody
33:49 everybody every Roman citizen had the
33:51 right to vote but then they vote
33:52 according to their tribe and some tribes
33:55 had many more votes than others in a
33:57 sense almost like the American kind of
33:58 state system yeah like put the
33:01 presidency but they had also this this
33:03 very interesting idea of talking about
33:05 going above the sov um they had this
33:08 very interesting idea of the uh dictator
33:11 is get dictator from who would be who
33:13 could be elected by the senate in time
33:15 of need by some percentage of the Senate
33:18 I think it was 2/3 yeah um to basically
33:21 take absolute power for a period of 3
33:23 years or 5 years or and the idea was
33:27 that if anything needs this needed doing
33:28 the dictator would take the power and
34:30 then would exercise his power and then
34:32 would just go back and get on with his
34:33 life and the famous example of this was
34:35 this General cinus who semi mythological
34:39 we don't really know much about him but
34:41 pretty much did this he was a a Roman
34:43 general who retired went up to his farm
34:45 in southern Italy um time of you know um
34:48 great disaster and War he was called in
34:50 became dictated for 3 years then went
34:52 back to his CL um the problem is that
34:54 Artis an arst about you know 200 BC
34:57 pretty pretty much every other dictator
34:59 didn't behave like that so you end up
34:01 with a string of very kind of bloody
34:04 dictators like s and so until you get to
34:06 Caesar who then is the kind of ultimate
34:09 example of this and finally um at the
34:12 death of Caesar you get this whole Civil
34:14 War facts falling out and then you get
34:16 the establish the empire under Augustus
34:17 where basically you have a de facto
34:20 although they keep the institutions of
34:22 the state you have a de facto autocratic
34:24 government so I actually although Rome
34:26 is very much beloved by in Enlightenment
34:28 thinkers as a sort of great example of
35:30 checks and balances I actually don't
35:31 think it's a very it's a very good way
35:33 for show that this works because it
35:34 clearly didn't right but I think he's
35:37 quite wary of that I'm only making a
35:38 very quick interjection but I think his
35:41 point is and this comes back to the
35:42 obsession about massive states that he
35:44 thinks that
35:46 unchecked the great ideas as much as
35:49 he's a counter Enlightenment figure in
35:50 many ways the great ideas that are
35:52 coming from Enlightenment these visions
35:54 of a republic of and yeah it could be um
35:58 the Roman Republic he sort of discusses
35:01 the kind of English
35:03 republicanism
35:05 and what was again that it's the fear
35:09 that this kind of idea of yes dictator
35:12 but also just expansionism will snuff
35:15 out that kind of Republican or also
35:18 what's often tied in with republicanism
35:20 is also again the idea of virtue and the
35:23 idea of you know The Virtuous society
35:25 that was just going to be my quot very
35:26 quickly there is a weariness so even if
35:28 he's using it as an example there is
35:30 awareness of the context I think for him
36:33 in terms of that that that could happen
36:35 exactly what you just described Could
36:37 Happen yes but ultimately he he he he
36:41 does say in principle that in his State
36:43 at least in his system it would
36:46 be the it would be so cons that by by by
36:50 their own nature people would not want
36:51 to hold on to the dictatorial powers any
36:53 longer than was necess he on about 6
36:55 months I think and that's yeah did put
36:58 about um safeguards and yeah that's
36:01 exactly that terms of terms of that
36:04 element but the safe guards are
36:06 primarily internal the idea is that
36:08 these people have kind of educated
36:10 informed so well that they will want to
36:12 do this naturally yes which is quite
36:14 optimistic view of human nature he had
36:17 all the way down he had a very
36:18 optimistic I think optimistic view of
36:20 human nature but one thing I would put
36:22 to Russ is I I don't understand
36:25 precisely where it is the viic actually
36:27 originate from
36:29 um if if man is fundamentally good you
37:31 say Well it comes into being um with a
37:35 sufficiently complex society but we the
37:38 level there is a primitive society in
37:40 which everything's fine what is the what
37:43 is the addition which tilts things over
37:44 the edge and if that is a potential
37:47 truly that indicates that the potential
37:51 is is is is nent in man and that would
37:53 that would lead us to make an
37:55 alternative judgment than that he's
37:57 fundamentally yeah I thought he sort of
37:60 Saw commercial world as something that
37:04 introduces the idea that you want in
37:07 some way to be better than somebody else
37:10 so the sort of the kind of
37:13 modern modern world as he saw it was
37:15 somehow a
37:17 corrupting idea that you would sort of
37:19 want to have more money or more which
37:23 goes back to the Geneva you know Swiss
37:26 thing where there was a more settle
37:28 stable Society where you know you had
38:31 people who were wealthy but they were
38:32 helping other
38:34 people he sort of has in his um
38:38 genealogy of man he sort of has three
38:41 stages which is where he differs from
38:44 say Hobs who simply sets up the bioner
38:47 of nonsocial and social or the state and
38:51 not you know say um and for for Russo
38:55 there's kind of three there's kind of
38:57 the state of nature which is obviously
38:60 what hogs refers to as R and you know
38:04 nasty British and Sha but for Russo
38:08 hobbs' state of nature is in what he
38:11 kind of calls like the second stage
38:12 which is that man has begun to socialize
38:15 man has begun to compare himself to
38:18 others attributes and he's obsessed with
38:19 this period where everyone would be
38:21 comparing each other's natural
38:23 attributes which is when everyone's sort
38:26 of starting to realize that they can
38:28 work together to help each other because
38:29 as I said at the start his view is that
39:31 in a state of nature you'd either be
39:33 disinterested in anyone else or if you
39:36 saw them in pain you'd kind of be like
39:38 oh well why why why are you suffering
39:41 but it's when after that stage that you
39:43 start to live alongside them even in a
39:46 forest or whatever this kind of
39:47 iteration is um that someone says oh
39:50 well you know I can go out and forage
39:53 and you could like stay and build our H
39:56 or whatever and then when you learn who
39:59 has expertise in certain Fields you then
39:01 St up to think well yeah that's great
39:03 we're working alongside each other but
39:04 actually I wish that I was able to build
39:08 a Hut and make a nice Hut rather than be
39:10 the one out steering animals or whatever
39:14 um or I wish I was able to have even
39:17 like just natural attributes that oh
39:19 he's got really big muscles or you know
39:21 he's much better at doing this and
39:22 that's when yeah that's when he thinks
39:25 that man falls into this kind of
39:26 competitive sort of
39:28 uh
39:30 uh sort of vein kind of mirror um that
40:34 he sees that then intensifies massively
40:37 with the industrial kind of uh of the
40:40 early kind of industrial period that the
40:42 enlightenment Sparks in terms of
40:44 Commerce Goods coming from the colonies
40:47 from overseas um and he sees that as
40:49 massively intensifying so yeah um
40:52 certainly certainly on that side um but
40:56 before we go to any more japanize
40:58 questions did Peter or Alex yourself
40:01 have anything in particular from this
40:02 chapter that you thought that was a
40:05 particular note for either of you that
40:06 you'd like to raise I mean it was
40:09 similar to what you said I think this
40:11 whole idea of the the true state of
40:13 nature so yeah having come across Hobs
40:17 state of nature before I wonder what the
40:19 justification for positing this like
40:21 preh Hoban nature state of nature where
40:24 before the red do the stuff starts
40:26 Happening Here people are uh uh all so
40:29 disinterested in each other isolated of
41:31 I wonder where he gets that from because
41:34 that doesn't seem to be I suppose the
41:36 the only kind of parallel I can think um
41:38 to it is is the Garden of Eden um but
41:42 there even that is sort of um within
41:45 sort of within Christian thinking
41:47 there's never any
41:49 real uh kind of um conception of going
41:53 back to the Garden of Eden the idea is
41:55 that you know the fults happened now now
41:56 we got to work out live in a society in
41:58 a post with Russo it's almost that it
41:01 feels almost that canre exactly the
41:03 things that made the state of nature
41:05 good are things that we shouldn't have
41:06 be striving to implement into society
41:08 again and it just seems like a sort of
41:10 Fairly yeah it's it's I've never really
41:12 understood where he got that idea
41:14 from I think I think there was also an
41:17 interest in because of the exploration
41:21 of the what was the new world and and
41:24 Americas the sort of um interest
41:27 indigenous population in North America
42:30 and whether they represented somewh that
42:33 middle that that so they they were sort
42:36 of exploring the kind of they were at
42:38 some extent like a noble savage but they
42:41 were also they saw something
42:45 uh an emotional way that they would
42:49 think about the society I think there
42:51 was a sort of intellectual interest in
42:54 in that sort of that group of people to
42:57 see that they may be uh there may be
42:60 this second state before this corrupting
42:04 yeah
42:07 world Jack you were going I I know there
42:10 were it might not be a fully
42:12 satisfactory answer to your question but
42:14 I know there were biographical details
42:16 which led him to think a certain way I
42:18 read an account of R which of um uh ran
42:22 in in parel for
42:25 Aus Aus um
42:29 and and Sam H help me I don't know if R
43:33 did actually write his own
43:35 confessions uh in terms of in terms of R
43:38 confession yeah yeah yeah sorry yeah
43:41 yeah
43:42 so fight a number of instances in his
43:46 life which make him come to this
43:49 realization him a realization that he
43:52 had a fundamentally good motive at the
43:54 beginning but because of the
43:55 intervention of someone else or the
43:56 intervention of Society it had all gone
43:59 wrong so he he said he was asked to get
43:04 he supposed to go to and get some more
43:05 machine from the shop or something from
43:07 the market
43:10 and whatever he he'd have to do that he
43:13 couldn't he didn't have the funds
43:14 whatever um he stole the
43:17 overv um and and he and he reflected on
43:20 it if they I had a fundamentally good
43:21 motive to to
43:23 obey what been asked of me but because
43:26 of someone got I remember folks think
43:28 someone got in the way I didn't have
43:29 enough fund I had to resort to to steing
44:33 so so that the the imposition of of
44:35 foreign circumstances caus me to sin um
44:39 he has little reflection the other
44:41 encounter with a prostitute and for
44:43 somehow come um for some reasoning in
44:46 that
44:48 moment she he finds something ugly about
44:51 her and then decide that that Society
44:54 has made her that way it's very
44:56 interesting um
44:58 there's also in that pass Reflections on
44:60 an essay competition
44:04 where theth question was to what extent
44:07 had scientists contributed to the moral
44:09 formation of well that is the essay that
44:11 is the Arts and scientist yeah great
44:14 yeah yeah so obviously he he's I guess
44:16 he's skeptical um the discourse on the
44:19 moral effects of Arts and Science yes
44:22 yes so it was it was sort of the the
44:25 moral effects of rationalism
44:28 yeah exactly and um and also he gets
45:32 quite obsessed about um Applause he and
45:36 um trying to create art for the status
45:40 quo which he sees as in the
45:42 enlightenment the thing that the
45:43 enlightenment is doing to harm itself
45:45 which is that everyone's applauding one
45:47 another for these great inventions and
45:49 these great masterpieces of kind of
45:52 Autistic or yeah scientific Endeavor but
45:54 actually they're sort of um they're only
45:57 looking the artists and scientists as
45:59 far as Russo is concerned is only
45:00 looking to satisfy the contemporaries
45:04 they're not looking in a proper what he
45:06 sees as a proper Enlightenment Vision to
45:09 be Beyond
45:11 thetive he thinks all we're doing is
45:13 satisfying and this then comes back to
45:15 this whole idea that oh if you get
45:18 glorified by a pier you're going to feel
45:21 much better about yourself and therefore
45:23 it comes back to this competition idea
45:24 again that actually what the 18th
45:27 century doing is just this sort of self
45:30 satisfaction self glorification yeah um
46:34 I got in this article he said he saw um
46:38 England's political and economic might
46:41 is a bogus
46:42 Liberty the English people think it's
46:45 it's free it greatly deceives itself it
46:47 is free only during the election of
46:48 members of parliament as soon as they're
46:51 elected the people are enslaved and
46:52 count for nothing so there's kind of
46:55 a it's is parking back as you said to
46:58 some earlier
46:00 state state of more Purity which goes to
46:05 the essence of Mankind's way of really
46:09 how they would be unless before they
46:11 were uh you know trapped by this
46:14 commercial system yeah so R was saying
46:18 that yeah this
46:22 he I think it's in the third chapter he
46:25 references Montes yeah Montes says murky
46:28 murky democracy across the channel yeah
47:31 but I I I didn't
47:34 understand why Russo was dissatisfied
47:37 with Mones I thought Mones made a very
47:40 so they both they both like the idea of
47:42 what um uh
47:46 called um they made the distinction vote
47:49 but for vote for I read it in the French
47:52 and I translated it back probably
47:55 inappropriately um vot by faith versus
47:58 vote by choice yeah um so basically what
47:02 it means is you're voting for your MPS
47:04 and then they get on with it rather than
47:06 rendering everything down to will vote
47:08 on every matter or the that would think
47:11 Montes thought that the for was better
47:14 and so does Russ yeah yeah Mones
47:16 Justified it because he said it gave
47:18 everyone an opportunity to participate
47:21 in the service of of the Fatherland
47:24 um didn't like that but he never said
47:26 why and then he gave he just he made a
47:29 practical argument which is perfectly
48:30 valuable never anyway but I thought that
48:33 so when you read that out Peter I
48:35 thought that was what Russo
48:36 would to say that you elect your MP and
48:39 then you enslaved but he advocates for
48:42 that kind of a system in that page I
48:44 think unless he feels he's got
48:46 sufficient um
48:49 alternative uh avenues for individual to
48:52 participate in the state that the
48:53 English didn't have for example the the
48:55 uh the censure M yes
48:00 yeah
48:02 Peter yeah I don't know I don't really
48:05 know enough beyond that really it's kind
48:08 of um but I think it's the context seem
48:12 to be all kind of working through what
48:14 what a society should look like yeah and
48:18 I think the historical context of when
48:21 he was writing um it
48:25 was again I think France was so dominant
48:28 as a as a as a and then you've got the
49:31 alternative which was Britain yeah Eng
49:34 and I think he was kind of somehow
49:37 arguing against both trying to say and
49:40 that's maybe the Swiss
49:42 example I think he wouldn't like Britain
49:45 partly for the reason faction which
49:48 obviously comes back to the general will
49:50 but the he sees political parties in
49:53 Britain which quite a lot of commentates
49:55 in Britain see them as as simply faction
49:57 you know John Brown the chap who I'm
49:59 looking at from my PhD who's compared to
49:02 Russo in an English context you know he
49:04 sees the formation of party as simply
49:07 the formation of vested interest so when
49:09 he's talking about electing MPS yes they
49:11 are enslaved because ultimately you vote
49:13 for a wig or a Tory or the wigs and
49:15 tories both drop their political
49:17 attributions and become kind of like the
49:18 country party and that sort of thing but
49:20 ultimately you're still only voting for
49:22 a vested interest within that kind of
49:24 corporate commercialized sphere and then
49:28 nothing else a lack of accountability a
50:31 lack of accountability but also probably
50:33 just a lack of choice like um like these
50:36 factions
50:37 ability yeah for Russo or brown I
50:40 wouldn't say that those parties
50:41 represent as even if they did represent
50:44 differing ideas they don't represent the
50:47 extent of thought to which giving a
50:51 voice to people like in Geneva allows
50:54 you to work through ideas you're remove
50:57 moving you're kind of uh your uh um
50:01 you're sort of exporting your agency out
50:04 and therefore simply by the act of doing
50:06 that you can't say that a society is
50:08 truly free because you've
50:11 already um sort of outsourced your
50:13 agency to something else to make those
50:16 decisions for you um so what precisely
50:20 is the solution for him in his state of
50:23 Geneva to to that State of Affairs in
50:26 England or is he
50:28 could would it be reasonable to say he
50:30 he sort of got an inappropriate
51:31 comparison you know the factions
51:33 emerging England it's
51:35 England where you know Geneva yeah yeah
51:39 very
51:40 small
51:42 so if it just a matter that there's
51:45 more local represent naturally there's
51:47 more local representation in in in in
51:49 the state of Geneva than in England or
51:52 or do they actually have some something
51:53 quite decisive
51:56 here I I don't quite
51:60 remember I would say
51:05 that I'd say that he probably first of
51:08 all um would see britan not only in
51:14 terms of not only in terms of England
51:17 but in terms of the kind of Mammoth sort
51:19 of uh yeah Empire essentially by then
51:23 that it's becoming that he can't like he
51:27 can't work out how England would ever be
52:30 like Geneva so yeah in terms of just
52:33 scale break it up and decentralized I
52:35 mean yeah if you add I don't think he's
52:38 interested I don't think he's interested
52:39 enough in actually addressing the issues
52:41 of England really um unfortunately I
52:45 don't I don't think he would be
52:47 necessary I think yeah if we were to
52:49 read outside of his text a huge um a
52:53 huge problem because there are nations
52:56 you know big Nations as well as small
52:59 Nations um and I mean if we if we do
52:01 just take his point he thinks you know
52:04 regardless of you know ultimately he
52:06 sees a virtuous small state as being
52:08 good and by his definition a good State
52:11 Should Thrive and ultimately if we do
52:13 look historically he was just wrong but
52:15 if we are going to look at this in terms
52:17 of like practical how ideas played out
52:19 he was just wrong small states couldn't
52:22 be kind of you know these uh little hubs
52:25 of kind of beautiful democracy who and
52:27 also his sort of like the idea of like
52:29 being Artisans and maybe a small state
53:31 could be unique and they kind of sit
53:33 alongside each other quite happily his
53:35 idea doesn't come to fruition his idea
53:37 of a general will doesn't come to
53:39 fruition factionalism does rise so I
53:42 mean I'm only saying this because I
53:44 don't think he sees that at the time as
53:46 what's going to happen uh I think he is
53:50 is simply trying to address his
53:52 contextual problem which then turns out
53:55 not to essentially work even obviously
53:57 the canons of Switzerland become a
53:59 bigger State ultimately so that's PR
53:02 fairly autonomously in some I think if
53:05 he's pointing to Geneva as a success we
53:07 look at the you know past 300 years of
53:11 what life in Geneva has been like seems
53:13 fairly successful compared to B oh no
53:16 I'm not saying I'm not saying Geneva
53:17 wasn't but in terms of the idea that
53:19 this would be something taken up and as
53:21 sort of Jack was saying like ultimately
53:23 if you read what he's trying to suggest
53:24 he is ultimately saying or should a
53:26 large St break up and become smaller
53:28 states that doesn't happen most Empires
54:30 expand and take over smaller states in
54:33 the history of his own country France
54:34 was very fragmented for most of its
54:36 history you know and and lots of centers
54:39 of autonomy know Paris as a as a capital
54:42 emerged very late yeah very late and so
54:45 this this this fragmentation has been as
54:48 much a cause for competition yeah as the
54:52 big state which seem in his view maybe
54:55 reasonably stifle authentic
54:57 representation at the local level yeah
54:00 it's very complex fact going on is there
54:03 a difference
54:04 between um uh what Russo was arguing for
54:07 never ended up working out because
54:09 nowadays we have much bigger stakes and
54:10 the kinds of things he was claiming for
54:12 and lots of small states unified into
54:13 Empires and you have good examples like
54:15 you know Germany and Italy and well I
54:18 suppose a cont example might be somewh
54:19 like austri Hungary but then you could
54:20 make a geal why that broke up and so but
54:24 um that's a fair point to say that
54:26 actually things didn't Russo was not on
54:29 the side of history that ended up being
55:31 right as the way things would go does
55:33 that mean he was wrong about the way
55:34 things should have gone no certainly not
55:37 yeah yeah that's and that's why I think
55:38 we still find him interesting today
55:40 which is that his vision of society and
55:43 the morality that Society should be
55:47 inculcating is certainly um I would say
55:50 an adorable one I think Jack you would
55:52 probably have some questions over
55:54 that I mean
55:57 yeah I mean I've enjoyed spending the
55:59 time with them because it's not easy to
55:01 to argue with sers um when when I give
55:04 you a whole book but my my sense is that
55:08 he fundamentally goes wrong because
55:11 um I don't think there is a pure state
55:15 of goodness in any form of society
55:18 because I I think that the is there from
55:21 the beginning I wouldn't go as
55:22 pessimistic as the calvinist and I
55:24 wouldn't you know in Hobs and so forth
55:26 but but if you you know if you just
55:29 reflect on yourself and you know watch
56:31 yourself through the day you find all
56:33 these vies and it's you know you know
56:35 what if it mean to to put put all that
56:38 on society where where do where does
56:40 moral accountability go if if all of our
56:44 vies are attributable to the the the
56:48 this this Emeral entity which is so the
56:50 abstract body politic yeah you know um
56:54 you know you can you can it do take much
56:56 ation to think of the kind of it that
56:58 can exist in the most primitive society
56:00 and and I don't think all of them are
56:02 reducible to commercial activities I
56:04 mean even the things that you were
56:06 describing earlier with regard okay yeah
56:08 well You' got the different um you know
56:11 he's doing house building he's doing
56:12 hunting and then Envy introduces but
56:15 it's not it's not obvious that that's
56:17 economic in motivation at all it's um
56:21 have a lot to do with um with with with
56:25 vanity with um
56:27 uh you know different attitudes about
56:29 what constitutes say you know a strong
57:33 man and maybe you know you want to
57:34 represent that for people um so the you
57:37 know the commercial factor which he
57:39 quite big on I believe
57:41 is I don't feel the force of that that
57:44 comes a bit later for me um NB know a
57:48 good argument for that but again it's
57:50 like that's really there really early on
57:53 um and and and also what about
57:54 resentment yeah yeah and and and and
57:57 like and you know you know state of
57:60 nature all that you know nature a nice
57:02 place to be I mean Nature's
57:04 vicious um horrifying um goodness uh you
57:08 know it's only Pleasant once you've got
57:10 the um the the economy to sustain you so
57:13 you can enjoy nature and it Pleasant
57:15 then you can be an artist that it wasn't
57:17 so in the beginning um
57:19 so that would be my my critique for that
57:23 that anthropological all naivity that's
57:27 why you don't see it playing out in
57:28 theory see I I you could argue against
58:30 it you taking a very kind of
58:32 liberal um view of and you said history
58:36 is not with
58:37 it of course the counter to Russo is a
58:40 kind of you know Lial democracy and
58:43 everything why wouldn't that work and
58:45 yet if you look at the forces that play
58:48 today with Trump and uh sort of um I
58:52 don't know
58:53 uh uh in Afghanistan things well you've
58:57 got the even in China the idea that
58:00 there is some kind of fundamental
58:04 society that uh avoids the excesses of
58:09 these kind of commercial ravages and
58:12 actually let boil it down to what is
58:15 around what what the general will is and
58:19 so you could you could argue that he was
58:22 he wasn't a liberal yeah uh but he does
58:26 represent some form of uh view which is
58:29 a sort of from from a liberal point of
59:32 view quite a ridiculous view impossible
59:35 Vision but yet some of the forces that
59:38 are going playing out in the world today
59:40 are predicated on some kind
59:43 of understanding of the will of the will
59:46 of the population not through democracy
59:49 and and it's not the the it's not a
59:52 small state but it's somehow some you
59:55 know some view of the world of a state
59:57 which is better than the liberal
59:59 democracy that we've been living with
59:02 and he that's why I think he rankles a
59:04 bit
59:05 with me I would say you know Liberal
59:08 Liberal democracy type person he kind of
59:11 think well it doesn't he doesn't seem
59:13 doesn't seem to fit logical but actually
59:15 if you look at some of the other views
59:18 around the world he kind of makes maybe
59:20 he's got a lot of
59:21 sense as opposed to in the sort of um
59:27 contemporary political rhetoric whenever
59:28 you hear this kind of concept of the
60:31 general will or the will of the people
60:32 or whatever it's it's usually used to
60:34 bolster factionalism rather than to
60:36 overcome it it's usually used as a kind
60:38 of as a further argument in your list of
60:41 why your particular s is better
60:43 thans by many many different um you know
60:46 branches of of uh of politics you know
60:49 very much used by um uh directly
60:53 opposing um political forces and I
60:57 didn't I'm I'm really not sure that
60:59 Russo would have any idea of that I
60:00 think I think it's almost just a kind of
60:01 parenting of that I didn't think it
60:03 really has very much substance to it uh
60:05 and I think Russ would probably say
60:06 actually people just using the term I
60:09 mean it's it's like the word common the
60:11 words common good you see that all time
60:12 start talk about the common good but
60:13 what does that mean what does that look
60:14 like and if it's self-evident then why
60:17 does everyone disagree about it you can
60:18 say either Russo got it wrong and it's
60:21 very much not self-evident and so even
60:23 introducing the term is problematic
60:25 because as soon as you start talking
60:26 about the general will everybody going
60:28 to have an argument about it or um Russo
61:31 is right but people just aren't looking
61:33 at the general will in the right way and
61:36 in both scenarios he's basically
61:40 failed I'll get down to that um he in a
61:44 passage way he said that he he a common
61:47 good old player player will all have
61:49 have a vote in in my system and if I get
61:53 out voted I didn't I didn't have the
61:55 general will made know it um and for me
61:59 that that move makes the general will
61:02 lose its
61:03 Transcendence because then it's not
61:05 obvious to me what the general will is
61:08 is anything distinct
61:10 from
61:13 um what do you
61:15 say the the the historical process yeah
61:21 um with with finite men um on the basis
61:24 of the knowledge they have
61:27 voting there's nothing about the common
61:29 good that seem to go beyond that because
62:32 you know you might think the common good
62:34 is some insight into the longevity but
62:36 the problem is just in that way Russo
62:39 described it you
62:40 know next year you'll have a vote and
62:43 maybe the consensus will uphold what was
62:46 previously permissible on the general
62:47 world there's no obvious reason why that
62:49 wouldn't be the the cas he he makes it
62:51 an axium
62:52 that the common will General is pure
62:57 um and you know unchanging but in
62:01 practice you know that's not what any
62:03 democracy would look like you know we'll
62:05 go back and forth on an issue and what
62:07 does that mean yeah for that reason you
62:10 know saying oh well the common good is
62:12 just voting I think he completely
62:15 undermined the deification of of the
62:17 common good that he is quite openly
62:19 striving for I mean it
62:21 clearly um like what you say saying
62:25 great at the bottom of the system but
62:28 it you can't fit it into a real world
63:32 yeah yeah and I think that sort of
63:33 perennial un altering element does also
63:35 come across when he talks about that
63:37 perfect Society of true Christians which
63:39 he says are Christians of today he says
63:42 are these kind of Christians of the
63:44 Gospel that that would be the perfect
63:46 Society those who would be um yeah uh
63:51 was it um yeah this sort of holy Sublime
63:56 TR true religion of men um in being the
63:59 children of the same God all acknowledge
63:01 one his brothers I mean he's sort of
63:03 defying really defining this um as kind
63:06 of I mean you need a Civic religion to
63:09 bind those elements so I think in terms
63:12 of in terms of the voting part but I
63:16 think what I'm trying to say on top of
63:17 your point is that um that you do need
63:22 to have a kind of there is a sort of
63:24 taught moral um um element to to I think
63:28 what he suggested it's not just the
63:29 voting there is there is something else
64:32 embedded in what he sees as fundamental
64:35 to creating a successful state which is
64:38 a bit like as he's saying a bit like
64:40 these children of the Gospel kind of
64:43 that's fair yeah but maybe that's a good
64:45 place to term you look quite extensively
64:48 on religion you put three alternative
64:50 versions of religion forward um a like
64:54 an a religion of pure interiority
64:56 that gospel like all what the gospel
64:59 says in my opinion
64:02 but um the external where you frame
64:06 every political decision as a as a
64:10 religious interdict so you you you you
64:13 impose the religious language on top of
64:16 politics and they become one that's
64:18 extrinsic and then the Third Kind was um
64:23 was what he felt CU he become history
64:27 where there had been a separation of the
64:28 two Kingdom the kingdom of Earth and the
64:30 kingdom of heaven and then an attempt to
65:33 square them yeah but one couldn't wait
65:35 to make out the magistrate the
65:37 prince he said that that divided people
65:41 internally now um but then he proceeds
65:45 to find faults with all three of those
65:48 and even even the first one which is
65:50 obviously most amable to what he likes
65:52 he obvious enjoys this version of the
65:55 Gospel of PS and it it feeds into his
65:58 version of the state of nation it
65:59 becomes what shell would call the um of
65:03 the inct of the PO to be the the of
65:05 legislators of the world the more
65:07 legislators of the world
65:09 um but he he he warns not even one just
65:13 concedes that because of it Purity
65:16 because of Purity it it's not obvious
65:18 what the relation it has to the state is
65:20 because it seems to draw it purpose is
65:22 to draw people's hearts away from the
65:24 state as it would draw have any other
65:27 object he says so I I don't know what
66:31 his religious view is like in terms like
66:34 it's relevant to to this um Discerning
66:37 the the common good he doesn't leave us
66:40 with a solution in the end um I don't
66:42 know if he has it anywhere else um like
66:46 like maybe propos it a fix to this in
66:47 other writings but um this
66:50 is big problem for him I think he sees
66:54 relit I don't know about CH but sees
66:56 religion very much just as The Binding
66:58 force of a common bond between so that
66:01 that um you have that internal sense
66:04 because it sort of is formative in
66:06 creating a citizen and therefore
66:08 everyone has a kind of because he's not
66:10 talking about any specific religion
66:11 obviously in terms of in terms of what
66:13 he sees as being useful he sort of
66:15 obviously is associating with
66:17 Christianity and there are a lot of
66:19 Scholars who very much say Russo was
66:21 just in a line of kind of like counter
66:23 Enlightenment romantically kind of
66:26 uh sort of Scholars looking back to
66:28 Christianity and trying to pick out what
66:29 could work um moving forward but I would
67:32 say that it's very much just The Binding
67:34 force between men within the society to
67:37 give that grounding oh to then build up
67:41 from as a state I don't know pet Alex
67:46 that yeah I
67:48 mean the whole that whole time is there
67:50 sort of what was how was religion
67:53 related to the state and it was just s
67:55 of AR would be coming up with various
67:58 different theories
67:59 of yes of
67:03 alterate religion I mean like Thomas
67:06 carile was similarly sort of working
67:10 out what what what was a relationship
67:12 and but somehow I think the risk is I my
67:17 limited interpretation is the risk is
67:20 we're kind of looking at
67:22 his um uh conversation in light of what
67:25 we we think of now as the state and what
67:27 we think as religion he was it it's
67:30 distilled into something kind of purer
68:33 which is the the moral authority of that
68:37 community and it works in a small
68:40 organization yeah somehow we and kind of
68:45 believe each there's a sort of basic
68:48 moral truth that's pervades and I think
68:52 he's kind of wanting to get back to that
68:53 not to a I didn't get
68:56 person he was trying to alter have a
68:58 different alternative religion it was
68:00 more the kind of moral idea
68:06 important yeah yeah yeah um I was
68:11 certainly yeah slightly confused by by
68:14 his whole his whole approach to to
68:17 religion partly for similar reasons Jack
68:18 mentioned that yeah and also you mened
68:22 people that I think he's not really
68:23 engaging with the same kind with the
68:25 kinds of discussions that we're
68:26 expecting him to engage with about what
68:29 what religion is or how it operates or
69:30 anything like that he's just talking
69:31 about religion as a almost from a
69:33 sociological point of view yeah yeah um
69:36 which I think
69:38 is quite um counterintuitive I I think
69:42 it's nobody Embraces a religious
69:44 Viewpoint or engages in religious
69:46 practices or participates in a religious
69:47 community because of the perceived good
69:51 for society or a case some people might
69:53 do um but it's it's very much a uh a
69:56 minority uh position I think
69:59 um and even so I think those kinds of
69:02 people I know people for example who
69:03 might um go to church on Sunday because
69:06 they think it's good for society but
69:07 they don't actually believe in any sort
69:08 of metaphysical truth to to to to the
69:10 religion they practice uh but even so
69:13 they probably wouldn't describe
69:14 themselves as being of that religion or
69:15 part of that religious community they
69:16 they just kind of they do it as an sort
69:18 of exterior action but so as not to be
69:21 hypocritical they say well I'm a
69:22 Christian well no I'm not a Christian
69:24 but I think it's a good thing to go to
69:25 church yeah yeah so I think yeah it's
69:29 and and the fact that not only is he
70:30 analyzing it from a sociological point
70:32 of view but then sort of fails to really
70:34 reach any conclusions he sort of just
70:36 looks at various instantiations of
70:38 religion and ends up kind of
70:40 stomped what's the what was the point of
70:42 that well I didn't really know something
70:44 there's a certain amount of intellectual
70:45 humility there that I appreciate and
70:47 sort of like it's sort of remarked about
70:50 how if we do have one it should have not
70:52 too much
70:53 Dogma it should have not too much Dogma
70:55 not too much so that people don't need
70:57 to like spend too much timear it just
70:59 something nice and
70:03 simple yeah yeah I wanted to ask um of
70:07 maybe bring it back to the question of
70:09 Liberty which is the theme this
70:18 what implication Liberty in the text but
70:22 what does his his views on religion
70:24 actually mean for for for Liberty and
70:26 for you know he framed that chapter the
70:28 question of religious tolerance and
71:31 because it was inconclusive I
71:34 just he was religiously in but that
71:37 might be too uncharitable of me
71:40 um but yeah I I I know you you're
71:43 writing up PhD on this subject on
71:46 religious toleration you've talked to me
71:48 a bit about um some of those pervasive
71:51 contradictions in their life think on
71:53 this very subject I don't if you
71:55 thoughts on on where Russ done on this I
71:58 think you could probably take it two
71:59 ways in the sense that um we'll say a
71:02 couple of things first of all this is
71:03 obviously coming out of a massive debate
71:06 in what is sort of terms political
71:08 theology where you have car bellamine in
71:11 the previous Century discussing the
71:13 state and religion and and essentially
71:16 actually the hammer of Heretics car
71:19 bellamine essentially in his track kind
71:21 of separates the state and the spiritual
71:25 and to you know and creates that
71:28 division um so for Russo I
72:31 suppose for the Civic
72:34 religion it's sort of both intolerant
72:37 and tolerant in the sense that I don't
72:40 think he'd exclude anyone on the basis
72:42 of you know in a but I suppose he
72:45 wouldn't exclude anyone on the basis of
72:48 sort of religious background in the
72:51 sense that um it almost wouldn't matter
72:55 because as soon as you came into the
72:57 state you would sort of be encompassed
72:59 into a bit like what Alex said something
72:01 that's kind of a sociological religion
72:03 so I mean I suppose if you were kind of
72:05 putting his ideas in
72:07 action the reality would be that you'd
72:09 kind of have the religion sort of um
72:13 sort of beaten out of you and sort of
72:17 kind of kind of like secularizing way if
72:20 you were to like impl it but I don't
72:23 think it would be exclusive in the sense
72:24 of I think his is quite tolerant in the
72:26 way that he's looking at it which is
72:28 that you can't like simply on the basis
73:32 that he does see merits in various
73:35 faiths I mean he does see merits in
73:37 Muhammad and the muhammadans he does see
73:39 merits I don't think it's exclusive and
73:42 thereby intolerant however I just don't
73:45 think different sects and different
73:47 faiths would ultimately be functioning
73:49 because that would obviously be
73:51 religious faction and because he wants
73:54 to see religion unlike what bellamine
73:56 did which was separate these spiritual
73:58 temporal Realms what as we just
73:60 discussed he wants to reintegrate the
73:02 spiritual in a sense back into the state
73:05 you would therefore have to kind of
73:07 wordily beat out the religion from
73:10 someone by telling them that you're now
73:12 part of the state you don't need that
73:14 Faith you've got the Civic religion so
73:16 thing but that would be Universal be
73:18 fair everyone I think I think at the
73:22 time I think got to one was going to
73:24 recognize that the Catholic
73:26 Church was uh I think my understanding
73:29 he
74:30 was uh unlike volte who was very
74:33 critical of the Catholic church and
74:36 therefore a religion I thought Russo
74:39 sort of was critical of the Catholic
74:41 church but but was kind of looking at
74:44 the underlying morality yeah of religion
74:47 and trying to say that that was still an
74:51 important factor exactly and I think
74:53 this whole the whole role of the
74:55 Catholic Church in in Europe was such a
74:57 sort of dominant theme which which may
74:59 come back to the Swiss example where the
74:02 Catholics were not part of that and that
74:05 sort of pervading of pollution of
74:10 religion by the Catholic church was
74:11 something that was kind of part of the
74:14 force of the Revolution itself in would
74:16 it certainly and I do think that
74:18 Catholics would probably that was
74:20 something I didn't say but his hatred of
74:24 the Catholics as a political for for in
74:26 terms of things like the Catholic League
74:28 which you writ about would be something
75:31 that would probably exclude them on a
75:32 practical basis but in relation to your
75:34 point Peter yeah know I completely agree
75:36 in terms of the morality side I think
75:38 what I was saying was that they have to
75:41 if they were integrating into Russo's
75:44 ideal State whether you're a mohammadan
75:45 a Protestant a Catholic a Jew you would
75:49 have to probably forgo your faith if you
75:52 integrated into Russo's ideal State
75:54 because I suppose he's saying that
75:56 there's merits in all of them and at
75:57 some base level you can access that
75:59 morality from any of those walks I think
75:02 um essentially but you would be told
75:05 probably you need to let go of your
75:07 particular Faith because of faction
75:10 because he's so afraid that it could
75:11 cause
75:15 faction I wondered if I
75:18 could we could probably conclude yeah
75:20 maybe maybe concluding question I wanted
75:22 to bring back to the the beginning
75:26 um where he says that
75:29 the the the social contract is the um
76:35 the most voluntary act you can make and
76:39 and that and for that reason it ought to
76:41 be the foundation of society I want to
76:43 put the question
76:45 whether that is
76:48 a a good foundation for
76:51 Liberty um whether that makes Liberty
76:54 unreliable because
76:58 because there's something about that
76:59 volunteerism to participate which also
76:02 is a volunteerism to to pull back and I
76:07 guess the conservative idea used to be
76:09 that if you rather made your
76:13 foundation for society some kind of Duty
76:15 or
76:16 obligation there was something about
76:18 that bind there which
76:21 then really did enable Liberty because
76:25 now you really had to sit there and work
76:27 it out together yeah
76:30 um the game was well defined and would
77:32 be
77:33 consistent um and people just abandon
77:36 right yeah yeah um the project when it
77:39 Fe to be going their way um is there
77:43 something um
77:46 of a liability to undermine the
77:49 Liberties of of people if if if all
77:52 that's at the bottom of this is
77:53 voluntarism
77:56 you've got his go
77:58 first yeah I agree and I think um it it
77:02 um allows for the possibility of opting
77:04 out of the social contract while at the
77:07 same time living in its shadow so to
77:10 speak which I think is particularly I
77:12 mean you find this with um I suppose you
77:14 find this to some extent with the
77:15 American Revolution um or with any other
77:17 the revolutions really um but I remember
77:20 at the time of the coronation uh last
77:22 year two years ago now
77:25 there was a a um thing where where um I
77:29 think the AR of cter be put up in the
78:31 social media um at the same time as I'm
78:34 making the the oath of allegiance to the
78:36 king I'd like to invite all Patriots to
78:38 make this oath to the king as well um
78:41 and uh lots of people sort of put out on
78:43 social media say well as a point of
78:45 principle I'm not going to be making
78:46 this oath because he's not my king
78:48 whatever and I remember the the arish
78:51 being criticized for this a lot the now
78:54 for or I don't know if he's is he G yet
78:56 any he um but semi
78:02 State
78:04 apology but I
78:07 apology but I remember there being a lot
78:09 of criticism at the time the the the
78:11 idea being that um a bit like people can
78:14 go around saying not my president
78:16 because I didn't vote for him when in
78:17 fact once someone has been properly
78:19 voted in as president of a country he is
78:21 now your president of your citizen of
78:22 that country similarly to to say well I
78:24 didn't make a note of believe to the
78:25 king therefore he's not my king when you
78:27 hold a British passport and as such you
78:29 sort of have a certain obligation of
79:31 allegiance to the king as kind of figure
79:33 ahead of your nation uh and that was an
79:35 interesting kind of point and I think
79:36 that's what Russo's idea for was trade
79:38 to this idea that uh well I'm currently
79:40 a British Citizen and availing myself of
79:42 the social contract at some point I
79:45 might choose not to do so um what does
79:47 that look like does that mean I have to
79:50 fee the country around to my citizenship
79:51 and Avail myself of another another
79:53 social contract can I just kind of uh
79:55 live in an asocial Way by finding some
79:57 desert island well finding Savage in the
79:00 tribe
79:01 exact what that mean for other people to
79:04 what extent they can depend upon you
79:07 Society there isn't that guarantee of
79:08 being able to depend on people yeah so
79:12 another naive optimism perhaps Peter I I
79:16 don't really other than I think the
79:18 recognition that he wasn't talking about
79:21 society as in the whole depth of society
79:25 you it was like the
79:26 American everybody had a vote it was a
79:29 very elitist
80:31 group talking
80:33 about yeah and bit like a bit like ran
80:36 example it wasn't you know not everybody
80:38 lives in Rome it was only the people who
80:40 were non
80:42 slaves yeah and I was just going to say
80:44 because Segways nicely into the next
80:47 session which is that there's a lot of
80:49 on tcid and S about idea that you are
80:52 participating but and thereby you're not
80:54 Happ to declare that you're consenting
80:57 to be part of it but by by the very
80:60 nature of you participating within the
80:01 society you therefore consented a Tac it
80:04 or yeah um yeah which is what um Lo
80:09 talks about and where a lot of these
80:11 ideas we haven't sort of done it
80:12 chronologically because we wanted to put
80:13 lock and pain together in the next
80:15 session on the 19th of December so we do
80:18 hope we'll see you both for get this was
80:21 our first session we were test running
80:23 it and we we're very pleased to have a
80:24 couple of
80:28 thank you thank you very much for having
80:30 us super yeah the next one will be on
81:32 the 19 we look a lot in pain we'll be
81:34 looking at exactly that it cons
81:38 ter thank you
81:43 very I guess are we going to the Lial
81:46 club for a drink