Voltaire – The satirist:


This quote is a product of the mind of your everyday French satirist François-Marie Arouet. He is known to you as his pen name; Voltaire. Voltaire had brilliant wit and used it to analyze everything from your everyday problems to politics and law. Voltaire is by many regarded as the voice of the enlightenment.


When reading up on Voltaire I came across over hundreds of quotes said by this one guy, that I find amazing. How did this guy ever have the time to sleep?  He did not just say smart things, he did also write one of the most influential literary works in the history of time; Candide.


As the quote machine he was chose he sad many wise words but I found one quote more interesting than the rest of them. “Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers” he said. I think that it is a very reflecting quote, and I believe that he has a point. Think about Sir Isaac Newton and his discovery of gravity. He did not discover it because he had all the right answers; it was because he asked the right questions. Why do the apple fall down from the tree he wondered, and then he used his brilliant brain to work out a theory on universal gravitation. It all started with the question.


I see one limitation in Voltaire’s quote though, I do not believe in judging people. Do not judge one if you do not know the person in question, because you will almost certain get the wrong impression of the person. But as judging goes it is better to judge one by the questions rather than answers, because without the questions you have no answers. With questions come knowledge and with knowledge come the answers. That is why the questions say more about one than the answers he or she has.


What about Voltaire then? I said before that he was a satirist. You might ask what that is, what is satire? Satire is a form of literature, which holds up an object’s shortcomings with the intent of shaming individuals or maybe even society itself. Satire often involves ironic and sarcasm, often with wit, making it very funny. Today we often see it at television, two of the most prominent examples is the American cartoons; “The Simpsons” and “Family Guy.”  A Swedish example is the politic satire comedy “Parlamentet.”  Where comedians are divided into two political blocks and debate the issues of the day.


One might even say that Voltaire is an ancestor of “Family Guy”. That makes Voltaire in my mind a very cool philosopher. What about you, do you see the connection between the satiric quotes of François-Marie and today’s satiric comedy? What do you think of satire, do you enjoy it as much as I do when shows like Family Guy makes fun of celebrities?


Do you want to read up on Voltaire? Then check this link out!



Are you interested in the art of satire? Check out this summary on satire, and this  list of satires and satirists, I bet you will recognize a whole lot of them!




By: Andreas Larsson

The philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau



Rousseau was born the 28th of June 1712 in Geneva; he died on the 2nd of July 1778 in Ermenonville France. His political philosophy heavily influenced the French Revolution, as well as the American Revolution and the overall development of modern political, sociological and educational thought.


Rousseau criticized Hobbes for asserting that since man in the "state of nature . . . has no idea of goodness he must be naturally wicked; that he is vicious because he does not know virtue".

Rousseau wrote that morality was not a social construct, but rather "natural" in the sense of "innate", from man's instinctive disinclination to witness suffering, from which arise the emotions of compassion or empathy. These were sentiments shared with animals, and whose existence even Hobbes was familiar with.


“The first man who had fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.”

–      Jean-Jacques Rousseau


This quote reflects Rousseau’s philosophical thoughts perfectly that man kind is good but she is being destroyed by science, arts and society. To some degree I can agree with him in this because society can both have good and bad influences on people.


So if you want to read more about J.J Rousseau follow these links:







“One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.”

This was once said by Thomas Paine, an American who lived during the 18th century. He is called one of the Founding Fathers of the United States and had an impact on the American Revolution.


Thomas Paine was not a Christian; he belonged to the religion of Deism. This means he believed that God created the Earth, but was no longer in charge of its fate. That he was not a Christian maybe shows why he said something like this, but I understand his thoughts. It is better to have someone who can learn you the principles today’s society is based on, instead of teach you about Christianity. I would rather have one hundred teachers and one priest in one town, than the other way around. At least I feel that religion should not be tied up to one man’s thoughts, it should be something you explore for yourself. Do not get me wrong, I enjoy listening to others thoughts about everything, but mostly it should be about your personal relationship with God. And if you want to get deeper into Christianity, why not read the Bible? You do not have to have someone who is telling the stories for you.


I know you can read a lot of books and gain knowledge about the society as well, but many things are complicated, and it could be nice having someone to explain it for you. Common knowledge consists of raw facts; it does not include any deeper levels of religions around the world. So, despite I am a Christian, I agree with Thomas Paine. You need knowledge the Bible cannot teach you to get a job nowadays, that is a fact. Instead of putting money into preachers’ hands, give it to someone who helps children, and adults, to gain the knowledge they need to be able to get a job. In the developed countries around the globe, we have more teachers than priests, a lot more actually. In the developing countries, I am not so sure. Their source of inspiration to manage the day lies in the hands of their God, and therefore they have many priests and such. I think we should help them to get more teachers. If you have watched any show about raising money for children in needs, you may know that they often try to raise money for schools, and when they interview a pupil, the most common answer they get is: “I want to be a teacher when I grow up”. Within the next generation there will be more teachers, but we need to help them getting there by being their teachers for now. They are making progress.


/Sebastian Carlshamre

Thomas Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes was born in Malmsbury, England in 1588. He was educated in the finest school of England. When Hobbes became older he fled to France when King Charles time at the power almost was over and the parliamentarians was going to rule of the country and Hobbes was a monarchist. Hobbes left and he stayed for 4 years before the return to England.


His time in France was successful. There he wrote most of his books but not everyone liked them. Back in England his books was banned. And they even burned his books in Oxford. During the time in France he also wrote his most famous book, the Leviathan which was published in 1651. Leviathan is about the structure of the society. This book Is called one of the earliest examples of the social contract theory or the state of nature. Hobbes talks much about the state of nature in Leviathan and he describes it as “ war of every man against every man”. He means that a man is selfish in his natural state of mind. He also proclaims in the book that a single ruler is the best form of leading something.


I don not think everybody is selfish and only cares about themselves. If we would do that, we would not live together In packs like we do today. We all would be loners.



// Calle

Rousseau - opinion about females


Rousseau, religion and many other philosophers said that the man was standing above the woman and had the supreme role in the society! Rousseau believed that man and woman were born with different capabilities, but together they would complement each other. He meant that man should take care of the business outside the home while women on the other hand should take care of the home and the kids only because that women are naturally weak and therefore only capable of serving the male gender. For that reason, females have no need of any masculine qualities like education or physical strength.


-"What the brain wants isn’t always what your body is able to manage, that’s why men have the supreme role in the society!" – Rasmus Holmqvist, 2010.

(He was joking, so don’t be mad at him girls).


You could say that even the bible supports Rousseau’s opinion about the female role in the society at that time, "That Eve (female) was created to give Adam (male) pleasure when he was bored".



Rousseau said that the education of women should always be relative to the one of men. The duties of woman at all times towards man is to give him pleasure, be useful, making him love and esteem her, educate him when young and caring for him when grown up.


It’s really an absurd thought that women are made to please the male gender in different ways. Females should have the same rights as men when it comes to education, jobs, salary and even the general roll in the society! It must have been very hard for women during these periods of times, when philosophers and religion says that the female is standing below the male gender in the society. I'm glad that the society and the view towards the female gender has change during time and will continue changing so that women will become equal to the male gender.

// Nylund

Jonathan Swift

He is seen as one of the biggest satirist in the world literature. He questioned society, and he is the one who wrote Gulliver’s travels. It is his most famous work and it is a satire of society and it makes fun of the genre “travelers’ tales”. His work lives on in many forms of children’s books and TV-series. Did you watch Gulliver’s travels cartoons when you were kids? I didn’t miss an episode!

As you may know thoughts like this (disagreeing with society) were not appreciated in those times. Swift had to be secretive with his work and he had the manuscript copied so that his handwriting could not be evidence if a prosecution should arise. Later the manuscript was handed secretly to the publisher Benjamin Motte. Isn’t it convenient that we have our laws about freedom of expression?

I think that he was right to contradict society. I also think that he was very brave to release the work that he did, risking jail for spreading his thoughts. It is kind of like the freedom-fighters in today’s society, for example in Asia, the ones that risk jail time because they want to help people think from a new perspective. I think they need to do that in communism North Korea, it is not easy because just like Jonathan Swift the new thinkers risk jail. Should they stand up to the government for their rights and risk their lives? I hope that they could, but it is easy for me to say because I live in peaceful Sweden. If I lived in North Korea I don’t think I would be that brave.

What do you think?



Jonathan Swift

Kimia Rezaei

“If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.” – Descartes

This quote was made by Rene Descartes also known by “father of modern philosophy”. I think a lot of Descartes quotes are interesting but this one caught my eye, you can’t always go with something someone told you. Sometimes you have to doubt the information given to you and find out the facts for yourself.

Descartes thought since we all come from different backgrounds and have different beliefs and judgments; it is hard to come to an agreement on things. So in order to come to an agreement on issues such as truth, we have to avoid the problem of who is right and why, Descartes tries to come up with a method that can be used by anyone. If we begin with principles that we all acknowledge as correct, we can use this method to come to an agreement about what is true.

I think that if people didn’t doubt, then a lot of people would get ripped off and we wouldn’t have the right of freedom. Because if nobody doubted anything then we’d still be living in the Middle Ages, when the pope was head of the church and was very powerful. Because of doubt, we found science, and with science we’ve accomplished so much. What do you think?


The Categorical Imperative by Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher. He lived his entire life in the city of Königsberg (today Kaliningrad) and was a professor at the local university. He is most famous for the categorical imperative.

The categorical imperative is a moral law, at least according to Kant. He received the idea as he was on a summer walk and saw a couple of young swallows which had been thrown out of their nest, and consequently had died, by their mother. The mother had done this to prevent the others from starving (there were few insects that summer). Kant was astonished by this instinct and called it a rational cycle of nature. After this experience, Kant was convinced that the human could create a law of reason which would lead her in the same infallible and lucid way as the instinct which made the swallow kill her kids. Thus he created the categorical imperative. It is absolute, rational and universal. In other words, it is governed by reason, there is no room for feelings, typical enlightenment thinking.  It is based on rational thinking and asks for the motivation of our deeds. There is also a hypothetic imperative which is purely practical, as opposed to the moral categorical imperative.


There are several formulas for the categorical imperative:

There is the basic formula: “Act according to those maxims which you want to be a universal law”

The natural law formula: “Act as if thy deed was to become, by thy will, a law of nature”

The mankind formula: “Act so you use mankind, including you as a person and also everybody else as an end, and never simply as a means“

The Kingdom-of-ends-formula: “Act so that you, by your maxims, always serve as a legislative link in the common Kingdom of Ends”

Let us try an example on which we can apply the categorical imperative to see if it is morally wrong:

A man in need of money thinks about borrowing money and realizes he will have to promise to repay even though he knows he cannot.

Now first we must rearrange this into a maxim, as we are not interested in the deed itself but rather the motivation. So if we rearrange this into a maxim, it will look something like this:

“Every time I need money I lie to enable myself to lend money from others.”

Now if we apply any of the formulas, say the natural law formula, we evoke a question:

Do I want that there shall be a law that says that people, every time they are in need of money, should lie to enable them to lend money from others?

If I ask myself this question, I will by rational thinking come to the conclusion that if this is to become a law than I would be asked and to lend people money, and consequently lied to. Besides, nobody would lend anybody money anymore.  



We could also apply the mankind formula: Consequently, we would have to ask ourselves if this behaviour is using the person as a means or an end. Clearly, it is using the person as a means, because had he known that the borrower would not be able to pay back the sum, he would hardly have parted ways with his money.  Using somebody as a means would be when you steer a person towards an action which she normally would not have carried out

What if we use another example?

A married woman is strongly attracted to a man other than her husband (we can formulate it vice versa as well of course) and considers adultery.

Rearranging into maxim:

“Whenever I feel attracted to someone else than the other part of my marital relation, I yield to infidelity”

Natural law formula:

Do I want that there should be a law that says that people in a marital relationship should yield to infidelity whenever they feel attracted to a person who is extramarital?

Now, this is especially interesting as this adds culture as a variable. But in a western culture, I would say:  No I do not. Because, when rationally thinking, I must ascertain that others would have to commit adultery towards me, whenever they are attracted to another person. Do I want this? No I do not, as, in a relationship, it would not matter how faithful I am.



A thing one must consider when reading about the categorical imperative is that is based upon Kant’s moral views, which were very similar to the general moral view of the time and the place he lived in. If the categorical imperative would have been created by someone else, in a different age and in a different location it most certainly would have looked very different. A question remains though:

Is the categorical still applicable to us in these modern days?

I would partially say “yes” and partially “no”. “Yes” because you can always be aware of it when making a decision. “No” because it has never been entirely applicable to us, humans. We have feeling and we are rarely the masters of them, but rather slaves. You cannot simply assume that everyone will act rationally as there are feelings which always will prove to be superior to rationality when making decisions.

What do you think?


//Baloo Peinkofer




”You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself”

I have chosen to reflect upon the quote by Galileo Galilei, a pretty famous Italian physicist, mathematician and astronomer (a bit to early for the enlightenment though, hope no one minds).

”You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself”

I think Galileo meant that everyone has to learn things thereon, and that we cannot tech anyone something just by telling.


I both agree and disagree with this quote.

I think the quote is true because I believe that it is hard to learn by only listening to others. We can remember what others tell us but is it not then just a memory? I think we have to absorb the knowledge and reflect upon it to really learn it (to learn semantically) and find answers an conclusions ourselves, therefore I think no one can teach anyone else something only help him/her learning. In all sorts of learning people can try teaching us but it is always us in the end making ourselves learn.


“within himself” – it sounds a bit like we already possess all knowledge, which reminds me a bit of Socrates’ teaching that we from birth possess all knowledge and that we will get to the knowledge through the right questions. Maybe we already have all answers inside us. We just need others helping us to find the right questions.  Which supports the quote; that we cannot teach anyone anything only help him or her find the answers.


On the other hand I have difficulties to see the difference between helping someone to find the truth and teaching them. To find out if it is true or not I think we need to define teaching. Because helping someone to find answers could not that be to teach, what is really the difference? And must the person learn so that we can call it teach?


What do you think? :)


Bushidō – The way of the warrior

Bushido is a philosophy, mainly used for the Japanese samurai. It could be hard for western people to understand this philosophy. Honour is something valuable, and to prove your honor you had to show your loyalty to the Shogun. Death went before dishonour. So basically, they had to protect their honour with their lifes. If unrest happened, it was considered a human failing and a dishonour to the ancestors. This is why the Samurai could not accept defeat. If they would have no chance to fight, to show their true strength, they would prefer to perform seppuku. This was something which the western people during the world war II couldn’t understand. Bushidō philosophy is a very deep philosophy. Would you like to find more about it, please visit: http://dragonintuitive.com/bushido-philosophy/


Bushidō, doesn't it sound a bit like brainwashing? Well, it is actually a bit similair to the today's militaries. I mean, when we talk about "offer yourself for your country" and things such as that. People wont offer their lifes for free, that's why mighty people created their own, quite valuable thing to give: honour. Honour was something everybody wanted, more or less. So now, they could risk their lifes, for honour. Honour will always be something for the human to seek for.


Am I right?
What do you think about Bushidō? Do you disagree with my thoughts or not?

Shogun - A hereditary commander-in-chief in feudal Japan. the shogun was generally the real ruler of the country until feudalism was abolished in 1867 – Google Dictionary


seppuku – Also known as harakiri: ritual suicide by self-disembowelment with a sword. wordnetweb


"Character is the result of a system of stereotyped principals"

The quote "Character is the result of a system of stereotyped principals" is written by David Hume, a Scottish philosopher. That I really agree with. Society has created these stereotypes that everyone lives by and thinks it's OK, but it's not. Here are a few things to think about. Do 'you' even exist? Are ‘you’ really you? If all these characterizations that make you ‘you’ are actually based on stereotypes made by society, does that really make you unique or just another face in the crowd? Think of it like this, you heard this new song on the radio but you don’t like it, after you heard it 5-6 times a day, it’s starting to sound better. Now, do you start to like it because you just do because after you heard it a few times it just started getting better and better and it’s now your favorite song or do you start to like it because the stereotypes about the song made by society is telling you that you should like the song. So is this really your choice, or a brainwash for you to like what other people seem to like. So you can think about that and I would love to hear your opinions.


The measure of right and wrong


Jeremy Bentham who is born in London during the 18th century often spoke about society from a philosophical perspective. The three basis of Bentham’s moral and political philosophy was the greatest happiness principle, universal egoism and the artificial identification of one’s interests with those of others. One of his quotes states:

“The said truth is that it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong.”

This in my opinion isn’t completely wrong but neither is it fully true. Depending on from whose perspective you see from you’ll have several “rights and wrongs”. For example when it comes to private life, does the right always have to be what is better for the majority? And despite the fact that we could follow this as a measurement for what is right and wrong. Is it always right to listen?
In a society today, in a school where bullying is a problem, imagine the idea of that a whole school would bully one single person, since it makes them feel good having someone to bully. Should that, according to this quote mean that it is right to bully someone? Discussing it further there is another quote: “The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation”. If the majority feels pleased with what’s going on, that’s the foundation of morals and legislation.
In The Lottery there is one pupil and one pupil only who has been chosen not to be talked to for a whole year. If you see the school as the “society” and the majority would be everyone who hadn’t been put out with it, or been a close friend to the victim it would be right to ignore and bully the victim and also, according the second quote, would suggest that if the majority is okay with it is not morally wrong and there should not be a law saying it is illegal.

Whereas if you apply his quotes to a democratic society the majority would not want people that killed others to walk around there. You would say that it’s wrong to murder people because the majority says so, probably partly because someone you know might be put out of life. It is a clear example and we wouldn’t question it today since this is something we’ve considered wrong for a very long time. As the second quote says; “The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation” we already consider it wrong and since we do, and since they started to consider it fully wrong, its is morally wrong to kill someone as for when legislation became a part of society it as also been illegal to murder someone. Even though this is a very clear example it is a very good one as well. If we look at Sweden’s laws we can see that only a couple of centuries ago it was against the law to be unfaithful to your husband/wife. You could up until 1779, in Sweden, be doomed to death for cheating on your wife/husband and even though it still is wrong to be unfaithful today we do not consider it a crime as serious as on the 18th century. But why don’t we have a law that says you mustn’t be unfaithful to your wife/husband today?

It happens oftener than it did back then and having it as a law, imagine how many would be punished for it. We should also consider that the rate on how many get married today, is lower than it was in the 18th century. Because of the lower rate of it they might see it unnecessary to have a law for it and see it as your own problem if it happens, rather than the society’s problem where we have to put time on a punishment.

“Every law is an infraction of liberty” is also a quote of Bentham that may explain why we had that law removed. This quote is one that I fully agree with. We have laws to keep a safe society, but for the minority, those who not follow the law will have a decreased amount of liberty. Also laws are changed over time because what we find moral and right changes and that changes the laws.


If you want to read more quotes from Bentham click on this link:



By: Sandra Åkesson

Thomas Paine and Common Sense


Thomas Paine (1737-1809) was born in Britain, but was later convinced to move to America in 1774 by Benjamin Franklin, which was right before the American revolutionary war started in 1775.

   In 1776, Paine published a pamphlet called Common Sense, in which he argued for the independence of America, instead of being under British rule. In this pamphlet, he discussed the difference of a society and a government, amongst many other things. He used this argument against the British rule of America.

   Thomas Paine thought that a society is “everything constructive and good that people join together to accomplish”, meaning pretty much every good cause that people help each other with.

   However, according to Paine, government is very different to society. A government’s sole purpose is to protect life and property, and is a necessary evil. Paine thinks that if everyone acted morally a government would not be needed, as there would be no need of rules etc to make sure that life and property were protected. However, in today’s society not everyone acts morally, and therefore we need a government which decides laws etc. in order to protect life and property. However, this is at a cost at people’s liberty, as you’re no longer free to do whatever you wish to do, e.g. murder someone, when you have a government.

   In conclusion, Thomas Paine thought that society was a good thing, and government was a bad, but necessary, thing.

   I somewhat agree with Paine. Society is usually a good thing, since it involves many people becoming connected and thus helping each other with various things. However, society may also be a bad thing, even if the people in the society mean to do well. What if a society would, e.g., decide that the world would be a much better place if all children were to be killed? They might think that this would be a good thing to do, but we all know that it’s a fairly bad thing to do.

   Well, that’s where government’s needed. If society gains too much liberty, we’ll have people doing terrible things, even if they mean well. With a government, we can decide laws that forbids these things, and make sure that if someone would do this they would be punished, thus preventing other people from doing the same thing.

   However, a government could decide horrible laws, e.g. that all children under a certain age or so should be killed. Then government would not be a good thing, would it?

   I think that we need a government in order to make sure society remains somewhat moral, although if a government gains too much power it’s just as bad as if we didn’t have any government at all.

   Do you think that government is needed in today’s society? Or would you prefer a society where you would be free to do whatever you wished to do, even if this would be at the cost of someone else?


For more info on Thomas Paine and Common Sense, please go to:




“Behind every successful man stands a surprised mother-in-law"



This is a quote from a famous philosopher called Voltaire. I found this on a site with quotes from Voltaire and this quote really catches my eye. What I like with this one is that it makes you laugh but it is still some truth in it. When I first saw this quote I just thought that it was a fun quote but I think that it’s fun because it has a truth in it. I think that a lot of parents are a bit of suspicious against the man that comes into their daughter’s life, so therefore do I think that it’s a good quote. You don’t want your child to get hurt and maybe you can get a little bit hard against the person that want to marry your daughter/son. You might think the worst about this person just because you want to protect your child and therefore you might get surprised when your son-in-law or daughter-in-law get successful. But of course this isn’t how all mothers- and fathers-in law act when their child/children is getting married. But I think about what I’ve written could be an explanation for what he meant by this quote.


But I have no idea what Voltaire really meant by this quote. Maybe something had happened to him that gave him this apprehension. That mother-in-law always had very low expectations of their son-in-law, and if they succeeded, they got surprised just because they hadn’t expected it of them.

For more quotes from Voltaire, check this site out:



By Ebba Jakobsson van Stam

“I hate books, they only teach us to talk about things we know nothing about “

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

I have chosen to look at a quote from the Swiss philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778).

“I hate books, they only teach us to talk about things we know nothing about “

Do I agree with this? No, I do not. Books are very important to us. We learn much from them. Just think how hard it would have been in school if we did not have any books at all. I know that we use physical books less and less every year, but we still read them, just in different forms. We use our computers or listen to audio books.

Back to the quote, I think we learn so much from books! Of course we learn very much from reading a scientific book, but we learn much by reading a novel as well. When we are reading a novel, we have to think in a different way. We have to think how the persons in the novel think and why they do the things they are doing. This is useful in our daily life when we meet persons. We have to know that all persons do not think in the same way as we do all the time. Of course learn this from other places than books too, but they are very good “teachers”, don’t you think?


Rousseau said that books make us talk about things we know nothing about…Then I wonder, why do we have to know everything we are talking about? Of course we have to learn information from a biology book for example, but do we really have to know the text in a novel? Isn’t it enough to know what feeling you got from the book when you read it? And isn’t it nice to discuss books, even though the whole story is imaginary?


Another thing, if it wouldn’t for the books we would probably know nothing about Rousseau! Somebody has to have written down information (in a book) about his life and his opinions. He probably didn’t think about that =)







/ Hanna

“Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices.” – Voltaire

This quote is about if you have someone that has power to make you believe in absurdities has the power to make you do unfair thing to yourself.

I have one example of this; men who abuse their lovely partners. This is a rather common problem in the world and it is totally wrong in my opinion, and I think that it is more than me think that way? I hope that everybody thinks that that is wrong of course.

When a woman gets abused, they first of all feel very sad, angry and have a very low confidence. The man says that he is very, very sorry and then the woman starts to think again. Thoughts like; “it were my fault that he became angry”, “he don’t do it again” and “he actually says that he love me”. Now, the women do the totally wrong thing, they forgive their men and take them back. This process keeps going on and on forever. Instead, the woman should leave the man directly! If a man abuses his partner once, will it happen again.


I don’t understand why women don’t leave the men. The men makes the women feel very low ,and in the society we live in today when women have a lower status than the men, it makes them feel any more stupid, bad, and on top of that, they get a very low confidence.


Another thing that I think you can link with this is peer pressure. If you hang out with some friends and they want to do something stupid that you maybe don’t think it is an absurdity, when it actually is it. This is also a big problem in the world, such as the men who abuse their partners.


To remove these really bad things I think that the women first of all should report the abuse to the police. Then should all the men realize that women are equal to them. Women should also stand up for themselves.



“Women, in general, are not attracted to art at all, nor knowledge, and not at all to genius.”

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

“Women, in general, are not attracted to art at all, nor knowledge, and not at all to genius.”

That is one of many quotes of the famous philosopher Rousseau. Rousseau was one of the great philosophers during the enlightenment. He was a man that saw the male sex as the dominant. The female sex was according to his opinion not very smart, that they had one only thing that they could use. There weakness. Woman used there weakness to get help from men.

Maybe that is true? Maybe it is not. I say that that a woman is as independent as a man could be, after all the both sex are humans.

Rousseau’s opinion about women could be affected of the lost of his mom. Rousseau’s mum died shortly after his birth and he was raised by his father until he was ten. His father left him with his aunt and uncle and he was raised by them.

Rousseau did not get raised by a female role model in the younger stage and maybe that could have contributed with his sight on women. Did Rousseau had something against women or could it be that he in some way, that the history forgot to write had been dumped or had he been knocked over by a smarter women? There could be a lot of things that made him to think that a woman was not really smart. But I think it is most of his mother. He was not raised by a female model and maybe he thought that he was a great man and people new who he was, he had become a great man without a women. If he had a woman who was standing in his way he could not been this successful.

I also wonder how his ankle treated his aunt. Maybe he was a lovely husband and Rousseau thought that it made him weak or the ankle treated his aunt like she was useless. I do not think that we ever will know why Rousseau saw the female sex as an underdog. But we can learn something about it. Woman’s today had contributed with a lot. Rousseau would faint if he saw what a woman today could contribute to.

I am sorry Rousseau but after you died a woman actually dashed your theories about women in rubbles. Her name was Mary Wollstonecraft and she also made a book about it “A vindication of the rights of woman”.

There is still up to each individual how they want to interpret the quotes and no one can tell you that it is wrong or right it is just your own opinion.





Jean-Jacques Rousseau


The Swiss philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712- 1778) believed that man is essentially good, when in “state of nature”. By that he meant that it is the creation of the type of societies and civilizations that we have today has turned the good people bad. He thought that our experiences in the society have made us corrupt, and we will continue to be unhappy if we continue to live like we do.

Instead he wanted small self –contained societies. He believed that in a smaller group you are more likely to help each other than if you live in a bigger society. By learning your children that they should help others before they help themselves the whole society will be better.  He also thought that no man alone should rule, you should take turn ruling. No man should be superior to another.


I think Jean Jacques is right when he says that it is easier to help someone we know then someone that we don’t know. You feel more compassion and empathy for someone when you know their story and background. To teach your children that they should help others before they help themselves is a nice thought, but not much likely to work in today’s society. We are selfish, and even though we often help others we don not wan to sacrifice our own happiness or wellbeing.


In a group I think you need a strong leader and somebody to look up to, and that no man should be superior then becomes a problem. In a crisis situation we need someone to take fast decisions, but we also need the mass to have a saying as well.


Self-contained societies are almost impossible today. We can not produce everything we eat on our own, we can not have a doctor or other specialist in every small society as Rousseau wanted. Our world today is too globalized and we are too dependent on others outside our community. For example Skara would not manage to “survive” on its own today without help and gods from the rest of the world. We could survive, but we would have to change our standard of living because we wouldn’t have all the products we have today.


What do you think about self-contained societies, would it be a good idea today?



If you want to read more about Jean- Jacques Rousseau click this link:




/ Kajsa

The law of nature vs. the law of love

“From this basic idea it is clear, that women are especially created to delight men.  That also men please women, however, is not directly necessary. His merit lies in his power and strength, man pleases in that he is strong. This is not the law of love, I admit that, but it is the law of nature and that one is older than love itself” Rousseau


In our society of today, based on the idea that men and women are more or less equals, I guess most people find it hard to agree with Rousseau’s point of view when it comes to love. At least I have and in my opinion his way of love is not only boring but also very sad. Not only because women generally were unfairly treated as nothing more than objects for joy and lust. Some of them might have been satisfied with that, and been pleased by the strength their men could provide, but I doubt that they were really happy. Of course, that was all they knew and they probably thought that this was the way it was supposed to be. No matter how it actually was, I feel sorry for them because they weren’t respected for being humans like everyone else. And in the same time, was this really what men in general wanted? Didn’t they need love just as much as men do today?


Even though I strongly disagree with Rousseau I do not find it hard to understand why he thought like this. As a child, he never experienced the tender love of a mother since his mother died when giving birth to him. At the age of only twelve years old he was then virtually abandoned by his father, which I think implies that his father didn’t give him very much of love to talk about either. Rousseau was brought up with the instinct to survive without love and had to find out what else was important in life, and he found that the law of nature was more reliable than the law of love. He learned that in order to survive you don’t need love in the way most people want it today. He was given no love and no affirmation that anybody would care about him. He might never have learnt to love for real. I believe that we are all born with some kind of basic instinct of love, but to be able to actually love we have to work on it, learn how to use it. Maybe Rousseau never had the opportunity to use it.


Only the fact that we’ve gone from a society like Rousseau’s to a society where relationships actually are based on some kind of fondness for each other proves that the law of love actually is stronger than the law of nature. But this could, of course, be further discussed.

And for the record, why should what is the oldest be the better? More than once old knowledge has been proved false, and things in general are seldom developed into the worse. God, or whoever you may believe is responsible for all of this, might have created nature before he created love (if not because of his love for humans, beauty of nature, or something else). But obviously he wasn’t satisfied with nature and therefore he created love. As an addition to his nature he created love because world would not be complete without it.


Even though there are a lot of reasons why Rousseau’s ideas are not the best, they are still up-to-date. I mean even though the gap between men and women in general has decreased, at least in some parts of the world, women still do about 80% of the work at home. And that is just how it is and how it has always been since humans went from living as nomads to settling down. How come that even though these thoughts are ancient, and not really liked, we still live like this today? Do women show love by taking care of their husbands? Then Rousseau maybe has a point anyway? Is that the law of nature and is it impossible to do anything about it?


Victoria Gunnerek

Carl von Linné

I have chosen Carl Linnaeus as my philosopher even that he was a great scientist and biologist when he lived. A lot of great scientists and philosophers sent him letters, the famous philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau sent him the message: "Tell him I know no greater man on earth”. Carl Linnaeus once saidLivet är en vacker såpbubbla, i döden ser du hur tom människans bubbla är” or
Life is a beautiful soap bubble, in death you see how empty peoples bubble are”. I think that he meant that when we gets old we don’t have the exuberance that we had as young, the beautiful colorful bubble losing its colors and the only thing is the grey shell and it misses the spark of life.
It could also mean that when we are young we decorate our lifes whit travels and items, but when we gets old we think back on our lifes and realize that it wasn’t as we wanted it to.
I thinks there’s a lot more ways to interpret this few words.

Anyway why did I take a scientist as a philosopher?
Because it is not a big difference and that small difference is a great example of different views at life.
Also a lot of scientists have great philosophical opinions but we only learn about them as scientists.

Tidigare inlägg
RSS 2.0