Title: Project for the Perpetual Peace
Description: Rousseau and Abbe de St-Pierre
Description: Rousseau and Abbe de St-Pierre
Nikephoros - June 2, 2007 06:54 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE ("John Hope Mason") |
| The first work Rousseau undertook after his move to the Hermitage in 1756 was a selection from the works of the Abbe de St-Pierre. He had met the Abbe before the latter's death in 1743 and shown interest in his writing. The Abbe's nephew had therefore entrusted Rousseau with the task of editing 'twenty-three volumes of difficult, confused, long-winded and repetitive writings'.[1] Rousseau believed they contained 'treasures',[2] the only problem was that they were so badly expressed that they were very hard to read. In fact he discovered as he worked on them that they were of less value than he had supposed. A complete examination of his political works revealed only superficial views, projects which were useful but made impracticable by the one idea the author could never get rid of, that men were motivated more by their intelligence than their passions. The high opinion he had of modern learning had made him adopt the mistaken principle of perfected reason; it was the base of all the institutions he proposed and the cause of all his political errors. This rare man . . . perhaps the only man ever since the human race existed who had no other passion except that of reason . . . wanted to make men like himself, instead of taking them as they are and as they will continue to be.[3] Rousseau extracted two works from the Abbe's writing, his Project for Perpetual Peace and his Polysynody; to each extract he also attached a Judgement, a commentary of his own. The Polysynody was a system of government in which the business of administration was divided into eight councils, each devoted to a particular subject, overseen by a general council; the nine councils together formed the Plurality of Councils described by the title. It was put forward as an alternative to the arbitrary system of monarchical rule. Rousseau had many reservations about this proposal, not least the impossibility of putting it into effect with the monarchy in power; moreover, its implications made it too radical to publish in France. The Perpetual Peace, however, was published, and it also played an important part in the development of Rousseau's thought. The Abbe was one of the first people to tackle the problem of war in a rational way. Instead of lamenting it as endemic to the human condition, or condemning it as morally wrong, he applied himself to finding ways to overcome it. The Perpetual Peace, 'the most considerable and developed of all his works',[4] suggested a Confederation of European Heads of State. By uniting them in this common body, in which all would defend the common interest of maintaining peace, he hoped to prevent war. This idea of a confederation and the attempt to formulate policy in terms of a common interest were both developed by Rousseau. Some of the remarks he attributes to the Abbe are in fact clearly his own: 'Ideas of commerce and money [have] produced a kind of political fanaticism.'[5] 'There is a great difference between being dependent on another [person] and only [being dependent] on a body of which one is a member, and of which everyone is leader in turn; for in this latter case you are only making your freedom certain by the guarantees you give. [Freedom] would be alienated in the hands of a master, but it is affirmed in the hands of associates.'[6] In his Judgement, Rousseau praised the Abbe's proposal, and its cogent reasoning, but he criticized his poor knowledge of men. |
| QUOTE ("Rousseau") |
| Judgement on the Project for Perpetual Peace The whole occupation of kings, or of those who are charged to carry out their business, is devoted to only two objects: to extend their domination beyond their frontiers and to make it more absolute within. Every other consideration relates to either one or the other of these two, or serves as a pretext for it. Phrases like 'the public good', 'the happiness of the subject', 'the glory of the people', are never permitted in councils and are used so heavy-handedly in public pronouncements that. . . the people groan in anticipation when their masters speak to them of their paternal concern . . . It is easy to see that wars of conquest and the advance of despotism mutually encourage one another . . . That conquering princes make war as much on their subjects as on their enemies . . . [The Abbe had put forward as a reason for peace the fact that the cost of armies would be reduced and commerce would be uninterrupted.] It is a great mistake to reckon the gains or losses of princes in terms of money. The degree of power they have in mind is not counted by the millions they possess. The prince always makes his schemes rotate: he wants to command to be rich, and to be rich to command. He will sacrifice in turn one or the other in order to acquire whichever of the two he lacks, but it is only in order to possess them both in the end that he pursues each separately; for to be master of men and things he needs both empire and money. Let us add, on the subject of the great advantages for commerce which should result from a general and lasting peace, that while they are certain and indisputable in themselves, since they are common to everyone they will not be particular to anyone. Such advantages are only felt by their differences; to increase your relative power you should only look for exclusive gains. Constantly misled by the appearance of things Princes will therefore reject this peace; [that is] if they consider their interests themselves. What will it be if they are considered by their ministers, whose interests are always opposed to those of the people and almost always to those of the prince ? Ministers need war to make themselves necessary, to put the prince in difficulties which he cannot get out of without them, to lose the state, if necessary, rather than their position. They need it to harass the people under the pretext of public necessity. They need it to find jobs for their underlings, to make profits on the market, and create a thousand hateful monopolies. They need it to satisfy their passions, and mutually keep out their rivals. They need it when dangerous intrigues are formed against them, to occupy the prince and keep him away from the court. They would lose all these resources with a perpetual peace, and the public still asks why, if this project is possible, the ministers have not adopted it? To find a favourable moment to carry out this system [it would be necessary] for the sum of all the private interests not to be greater than the common interest, and for everyone to think he sees in the good of all the greatest good that he can hope for himself. Now that demands a concurrence of wisdom in so many heads, and a concurrence of direction in so many interests, that one should scarcely hope for the chance of such a fortuitous agreement . . . Let us not say then that if [the Abbe's] system has not been adopted it is because it was no good. Let us say rather that it was too good to be adopted. For the evil and the abuses, from which so many people profit, come about by themselves; but what is useful to the public scarcely ever comes about except by force, since private interests are almost always opposed to it . . . Let us admire such a beautiful plan, but let us console ourselves for not seeing it carried out; for that could only be done by violent means, terrible for humanity. We will not see federal leagues established except by revolutions, and on that principle which of us would dare to say whether this European League is to be wished for or to be feared ? It would perhaps do more damage in an instant than it would prevent for centuries. |
| QUOTE ("John Hope Mason") |
| Rousseau's writing on war was timely. A month after he had moved to the Hermitage Great Britain declared war on France and three months after this Frederick of Prussia invaded Saxony. The Seven Years' War had begun. At the end of it Britain had gained colonies in both Canada and India, while the European powers had incurred such debts that the resulting need to increase revenue also increased social tensions and hastened the end of the monarchies. Rousseau had written about war in another manuscript, which is sometimes connected with the works of the Abbe de St-Pierre, though it was probably written earlier. The work, which was left incomplete, is entitled That the State of War is Born from the Social State. As this titles indicates, it is principally a polemic against Hobbes. It is not merely a polemic, however. In these pages, as also in his incomplete writings on luxury and commerce, Rousseau delineates with chilling clarity the condition of men who have lost all sense of limit or humanity. He attacks both the philosophers who use their reason to justify intolerable conditions, and the men whose lust for domination puts them beyond the reach of reason. The condition where the whole universe becomes necessary to each person (see p. 233), because 'he who has much wants everything'. Living in Paris Rousseau had imagined the past history of natural man; living now in the country he suggests the future history of urban man. |
| QUOTE |
| The State of War If it were true that this unlimited and ungovernable greed would be developed in every man to the degree our sophist supposes, it would still not produce that state of universal war of each against all, the hideous picture of which Hobbes dares to draw. This unchecked desire to appropriate everything for oneself is incompatible with that of destroying all one's fellows; and the conqueror, who, having killed everyone, would have the misfortune to remain alone in the world, would enjoy nothing of it for the very reason that he did possess everything. What is wealth itself good for, if not to be communicated? What use will possession of the whole universe be to him, if he is the only inhabitant of it? What? Will his stomach devour all the fruits of the earth? Who will bring him all the products of every region? Who will tell him about his rule over the vast solitudes which he will not inhabit? What will he do with his treasures? Who will consume his provisions ? In whose eyes will he display his power ? I understand. Instead of massacring everyone he will put them all in chains, so that at least he has slaves. That immediately changes the nature of the question; and since it is no longer a matter of destruction, the state of war is abolished . . . Man is naturally peaceful and fearful; at the slightest danger his first instinct is to flee; he only becomes warlike through force of habit and experience. However, self-interest, prejudices, revenge, all the passions which can make him brave perils and death, are far from him in the state of nature. It is only when he has made society with some man that he decides to attack another; he only becomes a soldier after he has been a citizen . . . There is therefore no general war of man against man; and the human race was not formed solely to destroy itself . . . If natural law was only written in human reason it would be little capable of directing most of our actions, but it is rather engraved in the heart of man in ineffaceable characters and there it speaks to him more strongly than all the precepts of philosophers. There it cries out to him that he is not allowed to sacrifice the life of his fellow-man for the preservation of his own, and it makes him horrified to spill human blood without [being carried away by] anger, even when he sees himself obliged to do so . . . There can have been fights and murders, but never, or very rarely, long hostilities or wars . . . There is no war between men; there is only war between states . . . Man has a period of strength and greatness fixed by nature, which he cannot pass. However he thinks of it, he finds all his faculties limited. His life is short, his years are finite. His stomach does not grow with his wealth; his passions increase in vain; his pleasures have their measure; his heart is like all the rest; his capacity for enjoyment is always the same. In vain does he have an elevated idea of himself, he always remains small. The state on the other hand, being an artificial body, has no determined measure; it has no definite size suitable to it, it can always increase; it feels itself to be weak when there are stronger states than itself. Its security and its preservation demand that it makes itself more powerful than all its neighbours. It can only augment, nourish and exercise its strength at their expense . . . The inequality of men has limits set down by the hands of nature, but that of societies can grow constantly, until one alone absorbs all the others . . . People have worked hard to reverse the true ideas of things. Everything leads natural man to rest; to eat and sleep are the only needs he knows; and only hunger overcomes his laziness. Out of this he has been made into a madman, always ready to torment his fellows by passions which he does not know. These passions do not exist there; on the contrary, they are aroused in the midst of society by everything which can inflame them. Thousands of writers have dared to say that the body politic is without passions and it has no reason to be, except reason itself. As if we did not see the opposite: that the essence of society consists in the activity of its members and that a state without movement would be a dead body . . . I open the books on right and morality, I listen to the scholars and jurists, and moved by their persuasive words I deplore the miseries of nature. I admire the peace and justice established by the civil order, I bless the wisdom of public institutions and console myself for being a man by seeing myself as a citizen. Well instructed in my duties and my happiness I close the book, leave the classroom and look around me. I see wretched peoples groaning beneath a yoke of iron, the human race crushed by a handful of oppressors; a starving crowd, overwhelmed by hunger and suffering, their blood and their tears being drunk by the rich, and everywhere the strong armed against the weak by the terrible power of the laws . . . I raise my eyes and look in the distance. I see fire and flames, the countryside deserted, towns ransacked ... 1 hear a terrifying noise. What a tumult! What cries! I approach them. I see a scene of murder, ten thousand men slaughtered, the dead piled up in heaps, the dying trampled underfoot by horse, everywhere the image of death and agony. This then is the outcome of these peaceful institutions! What man is there whose very entrails would not be moved by these sad sights? But it is no longer permitted to be a man and plead the cause of humanity. Justice and truth must give way before the interest of the most powerful; that is the rule . . . Who could have imagined without trembling the mad system of the natural war of each against all ? What strange animal is it who would think his good attached to the destruction of his whole species! And how could anyone imagine that such a monstrous and detestable species could last more than two generations ? This is where the desire, or rather the fury, to establish despotism and passive obedience have led one of the finest geniuses* who has lived . . . I have already said, and I cannot repeat too often, that the mistake of Hobbes and the philosophers is to confuse natural man with men whom they have in front of them, and to transpose into one system a being who can only survive in another. Man wishes his well-being and all that can contribute to it. That is indisputable. But this well-being of man is naturally limited to physical need; when he has a healthy soul and his body does not suffer, what does he lack to be happy according to his constitution ? He who has nothing desires few things. He who commands no one has little ambition. But superfluity awakens greed; the more you get, the more you want. He who has much wants everything . . . This is the course of nature, this is the development of the passions. A superficial philosopher observes souls refashioned a hundred times, fermented in society, and believes he has observed men. But to know man well you have to be able to unravel the natural gradations of his feelings. It is not among the inhabitants of a great city that we must look for the first features of nature in their imprint on the human heart. So this analytic method produces only horrors and mysteries, where the wisest understand the least . . . They only know what they see and they have never seen nature. They know very well what is a bourgeois of London or Paris, but they will never know what is a man. |
* Although Rousseau disagreed radically with Hobbes' view of man, and detested his defence of absolutism, he admired his ability. It is probable that he owed some elements of his own concept of sovereignty and of the artificial nature of political society to his reading of Hobbes.[7]
All page numbers refer to Pleiade, iii.
1. Conf., i. 408
2. Conf., i. 422
3. Conf., i. 422
4. Conf., i. 423
5. Projet de Paix Perpetuelle, iii. 572
6.Projet de Paix Perpetuelle, iii. 584
7. See the article by G. Davy in Etudes sur le Contrat Social, (Publications de l'Universite de Dijon, 1964). This collection also contains an article by S. Sterling-Michaud on Rousseau's debt to the Abbe de St-Pierre
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is kind of hard to read with the quotes; but I wanted to signify what writing was Rousseau's and what the editor John Hope Mason wrote.
The source:
The Indispensible Rousseau. edited by John Hope Mason; Quartet Books (New York; 1979) pp. 103-109.
Also the spirit of Rousseau and Abbe de St-Pierre is totally opposite to the state worshipping of the Turks.
These two architects of Western international law inherently distrusted the state and its inclinations to avoid warfare. So it is no surprise worshippers of the Turkish state known as Kemalists do not respect the spirit of international law since it was architected in an opposite direction to Kemalism.
D.E.A - June 2, 2007 04:00 PM (GMT)
Isn't Kemalism the Turkish translation for Nationalism? Remember why Nationalism was invented.
KOKORO - June 4, 2007 05:35 AM (GMT)
it is difrent !.
kemalist way of nationalism is diffrent. than the international way of understanding nationalism.
basicly it is not like 1 american = 10 german . and 1 german = 10 frech
1 turk = 10 kurdish and 1 kudish = 100 monkeys .
not like this.
explaning is very had in english here but way of nationalism here is difrent.
also we have rasits but they are few but un fortunatly numbers are getting higher.
and the pictures you put here my friend demosntrations agains the Akp ruling party of turkey rıght now.
they use democracy to bring darkness here. it is our problem right now nothing else.
to be a modern country or a un educated islamist managed sheeps.!
well when are u coming to visit here ?? ;)
kaan!
kemalist way of nationalism is diffrent. than the international way of understanding nationalism.
basicly it is not like 1 american = 10 german . and 1 german = 10 frech
1 turk = 10 kurdish and 1 kudish = 100 monkeys .
not like this.
explaning is very had in english here but way of nationalism here is difrent.
also we have rasits but they are few but un fortunatly numbers are getting higher.
and the pictures you put here my friend demosntrations agains the Akp ruling party of turkey rıght now.
they use democracy to bring darkness here. it is our problem right now nothing else.
to be a modern country or a un educated islamist managed sheeps.!
well when are u coming to visit here ?? ;)
kaan!
D.E.A - June 5, 2007 01:36 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (KOKORO @ Jun 4 2007, 07:35 AM) |
| it is difrent !. kemalist way of nationalism is diffrent. than the international way of understanding nationalism. basicly it is not like 1 american = 10 german . and 1 german = 10 frech 1 turk = 10 kurdish and 1 kudish = 100 monkeys . not like this. explaning is very had in english here but way of nationalism here is difrent. also we have rasits but they are few but un fortunatly numbers are getting higher. and the pictures you put here my friend demosntrations agains the Akp ruling party of turkey rıght now. they use democracy to bring darkness here. it is our problem right now nothing else. to be a modern country or a un educated islamist managed sheeps.! well when are u coming to visit here ?? ;) kaan! |
well forgive me dear kokoro but you're very far from a democracy there...In my opinion it is more of a coup you have there..
the definition of nationalism
Nationalism
KOKORO - June 5, 2007 06:45 AM (GMT)
ehh nearly !! ;)
democracy must be given to societies who has high intelectual standarts . who respects others way of life and high educational standarts.
so if u ask me we dont deserve democracy. because we cant aply it.
look 10 years ago in all istanbul has populatıon of 7 million . and nearly no car stealıng no thiefing no burglary. it was very limited.
now we have new rules eu rules and changing very fast . and we see thiefs who has been caught 40 times and because he is at the age of 17 police relice him.
Or the last demostrations millions gather againt the ruling party ! (democraticly elected party ). why ?? the demostrators are unıversty gradute well educated people !! why ?? did you thınk !
this party is like nazi party in germany . they control most of the things give job to jobles un educated ones use religion , change the educatıon system .
AND USE DEMOCRACY TO CHANGE TURKEY İTO UN DEMOCRATİC STATE.
so of their words.
our mescids ıs our baracks our hocas is our comanders.! nice democratıc word ha. ;)
as for the army we dont want a millitary coupe he had enougf of ıt as u suffered it we suffered alot too. but if i have to choose to be a country like iran or a undemocratıc secularıst country . i prefer un democratıc one.
it is seen very difrent from out sıde but from here it is very coplıcated.
kaan
democracy must be given to societies who has high intelectual standarts . who respects others way of life and high educational standarts.
so if u ask me we dont deserve democracy. because we cant aply it.
look 10 years ago in all istanbul has populatıon of 7 million . and nearly no car stealıng no thiefing no burglary. it was very limited.
now we have new rules eu rules and changing very fast . and we see thiefs who has been caught 40 times and because he is at the age of 17 police relice him.
Or the last demostrations millions gather againt the ruling party ! (democraticly elected party ). why ?? the demostrators are unıversty gradute well educated people !! why ?? did you thınk !
this party is like nazi party in germany . they control most of the things give job to jobles un educated ones use religion , change the educatıon system .
AND USE DEMOCRACY TO CHANGE TURKEY İTO UN DEMOCRATİC STATE.
so of their words.
our mescids ıs our baracks our hocas is our comanders.! nice democratıc word ha. ;)
as for the army we dont want a millitary coupe he had enougf of ıt as u suffered it we suffered alot too. but if i have to choose to be a country like iran or a undemocratıc secularıst country . i prefer un democratıc one.
it is seen very difrent from out sıde but from here it is very coplıcated.
kaan
D.E.A - June 5, 2007 10:10 AM (GMT)
It's like choosing the lesser evil...Well dear kokoro democracy can be earned only through struggles and bloody ones..neither islamidiots nor militaridiots are good so get rid of them both...But be careful not to end up having professional politicians as we do...We must be the only country in the whole wide faking world that is rulled by professional democracy.... :P
KOKORO - June 5, 2007 10:56 AM (GMT)
oooo
we have them too
they dont die :lol:
like Suleyman Demirel . military stoped democracy 2 tımes just for hım.
when we were sending throops to korea he was ın parliament. 1956 :blink:
he become prime minister like 10 0000 times . still he is alive !!!!!
his job is profecional politician. ;)
kaan
we have them too
they dont die :lol:
like Suleyman Demirel . military stoped democracy 2 tımes just for hım.
when we were sending throops to korea he was ın parliament. 1956 :blink:
he become prime minister like 10 0000 times . still he is alive !!!!!
his job is profecional politician. ;)
kaan
Nikephoros - June 13, 2007 07:40 AM (GMT)
My intent in this thread was to highlight how Rousseau and St-Pierre had a different vision than the Kemalist and Islamic thought:
| QUOTE ("Rousseau") |
| The whole occupation of kings, or of those who are charged to carry out their business, is devoted to only two objects: to extend their domination beyond their frontiers and to make it more absolute within. Every other consideration relates to either one or the other of these two, or serves as a pretext for it. Phrases like 'the public good', 'the happiness of the subject', 'the glory of the people', are never permitted in councils and are used so heavy-handedly in public pronouncements that. . . That conquering princes make war as much on their subjects as on their enemies . . . Constantly misled by the appearance of things Princes will therefore reject this peace; [that is] if they consider their interests themselves. Ministers need war to make themselves necessary, to put the prince in difficulties which he cannot get out of without them, to lose the state, if necessary, rather than their position. They need it to harass the people under the pretext of public necessit |
As you can see from the above Rousseau was critical of the monarchist states feeling that peace was against their interest.
Most Kemalist Turks identify with the Turkish state, specifically the pasas. They try to justify to Greeks that the Turkish state's actions are made toward increasing peace. Such thinking as in Project for the Perpetual Peace(which is one of the forebearers of European developed international law) contradicts the muslim system of inter-state relations which are meant to increase Islam through war. It also is a contrast to the Kemalist state worship which is fundamentally opposed to this European Enlightenment tradition that is highly critical of the state and its authority.
KOKORO - June 13, 2007 04:08 PM (GMT)
my friend kemalist was of thinking has no binding with islamist thinking belive me ! and our country is managed by islamist idea president but still
goverment business seperated from islamist way. we are a secularist country.
we want ıt to stay lıke that . ıf it changes than we and every body will have huge problems. <_<
Rousseau and St-Pierre did these guys knew Mustafa Kemal Atatürk !
probably no !
kaan
goverment business seperated from islamist way. we are a secularist country.
we want ıt to stay lıke that . ıf it changes than we and every body will have huge problems. <_<
Rousseau and St-Pierre did these guys knew Mustafa Kemal Atatürk !
probably no !
kaan
D.E.A - June 19, 2007 03:01 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (KOKORO @ Jun 13 2007, 06:08 PM) |
| we want ıt to stay lıke that . ıf it changes than we and every body will have huge problems. <_< Rousseau and St-Pierre did these guys knew Mustafa Kemal Atatürk ! probably no ! kaan |
I think that there are many who like the islamidiot idea too though..
Nope Rousseau and St-Pierre didnt know kemal but he knew them ;)
KOKORO - June 19, 2007 06:07 AM (GMT)
yes if they were in same times they would knew hım ;)
and about islamist idea it so rapidly increasing you cant belive !!!! <_<
one of the reason for that is Usa . against Ussr they created green belt in 1960 afganıstan turkey pakıstan. so as a result they have to face with this monster..
kaan
and about islamist idea it so rapidly increasing you cant belive !!!! <_<
one of the reason for that is Usa . against Ussr they created green belt in 1960 afganıstan turkey pakıstan. so as a result they have to face with this monster..
kaan
123-t - June 22, 2007 09:32 PM (GMT)
Really how is Peace defined ?
And assuming that we arent in this condition:
Why arent we ?
So: Does a human motive work against it ?
And assuming that we arent in this condition:
Why arent we ?
So: Does a human motive work against it ?
123-t - June 24, 2007 03:33 PM (GMT)
Why is the maintenance of a certain condition considered desirable ?
That is to say, why do the majority of human beings have mostly positive connotations related to a certain state of being/standstill?
So why is peace something that people deem as something desirable ?
That is to say, why do the majority of human beings have mostly positive connotations related to a certain state of being/standstill?
So why is peace something that people deem as something desirable ?