Availability and Properties of Passive and Active Fire Protection Systems (Offshore Technolo... Book

1. got the feeling that there was more rhetoric than substantiation (perhaps it was the style of essay-writing back then)
2. quite a few generalisations/motherhood statements which are pretty hard to agree with (for example, his thesis is that the pursuit of arts and sciences/knowledge in general invariably leads to decadence, idleness, civilisational decline but I'm not convinced; it could be just a correlation but not causation.)
3. disagreed with him quite a lot
- he's a proponent of 'ignorance is bliss' in this essay and keeps describing pre-Enlightenment Europe in idyllic terms; claims that the Europeans would be better off ignorant and content with their lot, and wouldn't be less peaceful, less governable, less thriving but isn't that only valid from the perspective of the privileged? surely few people, if any, in the post-Enlightenment era wanted to go back to the days of being a peasant with little stake in society
- the pursuit of arts and sciences by a mature civilisation leads to the neglect of the military -> warriors less respected etc.; a really conservative refrain that is probably still uttered by many in the world today but it's pretty dated don't you think? war should be a thing of the past and while soldiers deserve to be respected for defending the country, the priority in the modern world should not be to secure borders or prepare for the next war -- with advancements in the arts and sciences (the empowering of civilian knowledge and power) and diplomacy with neighbouring countries, we can better preserve peace and allow society to thrive. I get that Rousseau was writing in a time when European states had no qualms about starting wars but yeahhhh it's just pretty dogmatic
4. it's also pretty ironic that Rousseau, a philosopher himself, was attacking amateur philosophers as idlers who do not contribute to the country. He also encourages the lay person to "leave to others the care of instructing people about their duties, and limit ourselves to carrying out our own well. We do not need to know any more than this."; frankly I don't think Rousseau heeded his own advice, and while I agree that most people should leave governance to the politicians, there's still a strong argument for an engaged citizenry.
5. "We no longer ask if a man has integrity, but if he has talent, nor whether a book is useful but if it is well-written. The rewards for a witty man are enormous, while virtue remains without honour." Well I do agree with this! Even today, there's so much emphasis on one's merits and abilities, we seem to no longer care if a person is decent. That reminds me also of a CNN anchor who said that Biden's victory sent a message to children that 'decency matters'. But then again, how has this anything to do with the pursuit of the arts and sciences? I think the problem isn't with the pursuit of knowledge during the Enlightenment but its most dramatic implication -- the birth of modern capitalism. So yes, there may be a correlation but there isn't causation per se. Just because something malignant came out of intellectual inquiry and discourse does not mean that we should all stop thinking and go back to the good old days of being ignorant. Anyways, with any society, there will be some people with more knowledge than others and that was why most people in the past accepted oppression without thinking.

thought-provoking I guess but didn't teach me anything new