7 Matching Annotations
  1. Mar 2017
    1. as men cannot engender new forces, but only unite and direct existing ones, they have no other means of preserving themselves than the formation, by aggregation, of a sum of forces great enough to overcome the resistance. These they have to bring into play by means of a single motive power, and cause to act in concert.

      Rousseau gives enormous emphasis in the unification of the people. This displays an inclination to collectivism, very different from other great thinkers such as, John Locke. In the following excerpt, “as men cannot engender new forces, but only unite”, he seems very passionate about this idea to the level of making it seem that it would be needed for survival of mankind; we must act in concert. This document made me aware of the need of collectivism in today’s world and carved my political perspective. The theory of Individualism versus collectivism was a big deliberation when restructuring modern politics.

    2. Now, a man who becomes the slave of another does not give himself; he sells himself, at the least for his subsistence: but for what does a people sell itself? A king is so far from furnishing his subjects with their subsistence that he gets his own only from them; and, according to Rabelais, kings do not live on nothing.

      On this passage, Rousseau, seems to be against “slavery”. On the section where he says, “king is so far from furnishing his subjects with their subsistence that he gets his own only from them; and, according to Rabelais, kings do not live on nothing”, Rousseau seems to take an adverse stand against the royal family model and the monarchy system that existed during that era. He reshapes the term “Alienation” and turns it into a movement for a modern individual. He is taking a political stance against slavery.

    3. This formula shows us that the act of association comprises a mutual undertaking between the public and the individuals, and that each individual, in making a contract, as we may say, with himself, is bound in a double capacity; as a member of the Sovereign he is bound to the individuals, and as a member of the State to the Sovereign. But the maxim of civil right, that no one is bound by undertakings made to himself, does not apply in this case; for there is a great difference between incurring an obligation to yourself and incurring one to a whole of which you form a part.

      In this passage, Rousseau’s views envisions the Sovereign as all inhabitants acting collectively. I interpret this passage as the people, together voicing the decrees and laws of the state. In this section, Rousseau’s political view is that of “mutual undertaking” contrasting a collectivist ideology. In this section of the passage, “as a member of the Sovereign he is bound to the individuals”, speaks that only the people as a whole can be sovereign opposing those of Communism for example.

    1. Meanwhile, since this devilish state of things is not only an open robbery, deceit, and tyranny of the gates of hell, but also destroys Christianity body and soul, we are bound to use all our diligence to prevent this misery and destruction of Christendom.

      I’m glad that Martin Luther used religious adjectives such as “Devilish” to describe what his opponent’s actions; just as they do with everyone else. The church always identifies something they differ to as demonic or devilish. They spiritualize everything they do not agree with. Back then a woman was not able to speak in the church or be in ministry, it was considered not Biblical, devilish. Today, is a norm in the Christian church. It shows how dangerous extremist religious perspectives could be.

    2. Therefore it is better to prevent priests from being at one with each other; they should rather, as they have done hitherto, sow discord among kings and princes, and flood the world with Christian blood, lest Christian unity should trouble the holy Roman see with reforms.

      I believe many wars have started because of religion. Religion has created discord and disagreements between presidents, countries and nations. In this passage Martin Luther is well aware of this and literal blood has been shed because of the church. Even the ones that may not be as noticeable, like blood of innocent Christian homosexuals that have committed suicide. We even have wars today because of religion affecting government and countries.

    1. No one ought to answer a priest that he is contrite, nor should the priest inquire

      This places a priest on a pedestal. A priest or the Pope should all be subject to be questioned, by the people and even by our court system. They are not above the law. It reminds me of President Trump and his travel ban. He noticed that even him as a President, should answer to a court system. By all means, a priest or Pope should be contrite or apologetic if wrong and be subject to questioning by our government and if found wrong, repent.

    2. We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication

      In my opinion, terminologies such as to “restrain”, “penalty” or “excommunicate” have a connotation to power and a very dogmatic sentiment. The excommunication process was a censorship and an exclusion. Since it is a penalty, it suggests guilt. To me, religion has always wanted to add guilt in people to have power over them.