Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité ( PT, EN ) por Pedro Estadão
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, na abertura da segunda parte do Discurso sobre a Origem e os Fundamentos da Desigualdade entre os Homens, escreveu o seguinte:
"O primeiro que, ao cercar um terreno, teve a audácia de dizer isto é meu e encontrou gente, simples o bastante, para acreditar nele, foi o verdadeiro fundador da sociedade civil. Quantos crimes, guerras e assassinatos, quantas misérias e horrores teria poupado ao gênero humano aquele que, arrancando as estacas e cobrindo o fosso, tivesse gritado a seus semelhantes: "Não escutem a esse impostor! Estarão perdidos se esquecerem que os frutos são de todos e a terra é de ninguém."

O lema da República Francesa, Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité, que foi, pouco tempo mais tarde, adoptado pelos Maçons Livres do Grand Orient de France, como divisa, não foi sempre uma incontestável e evidente afirmação da raiz daquilo a que nós chamamos, hoje, os Direitos Humanos e o Republicanismo Democrático. A fórmula resultou das ideias que originaram durante o período da Revolução Francesa, que se reflectiram no texto da Primeira Declaração dos Direitos do Homem e do Cidadão, escrita em 1789, reconhecendo que: todos os homens nascem e permanecem iguais em direitos.
A primeira vez que são unidos os três conceitos, Liberdade, Igualdade e Fraternidade, é num discurso, no qual, Maximilien de Robespierre, falando sobre a organização da Guarda Nacional, propõe que se grave o lema nas bandeiras e nos uniformes dos oficiais. A proposta não é aceite, todavia, o Grand Orient de France inscreve-o no seu documento fundador, em 1773, que também afirma a existência de Deus e a imortalidade da Alma como bases intangíveis da Maçonaria. Vinte anos depois, em Junho de 1793, o Maire de Paris, manda gravar em todos os edifícios públicos: Unité, Indivisibilité de la République, Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité ou la mort. A decepção causada pelo nacionalismo Napoleónico faz então cair a primeira parte da expressão e origina a divulgação mais generalizada da fórmula que hoje conhecemos, L:.E:.F:. .
As ideias que deram origem a este tríptico, no entanto, não nasceram do brilhante Robespierre, mas de um dos maiores pensadores da História, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, que, ao longo das suas publicações e culminando na sua obra Do Contrato Social, formula estes três conceitos, em oposição às ideias de Hobbes e de Locke, partindo da ideia do Homem no seu estado natural. O conceito nasce da sugestão de Rousseau de que o homem natural não é capaz de se distinguir de outro homem e que este também ignora o que é comum entre ele e outro ser humano.
Ainda segundo Rousseau, a Vontade Geral não representa, nem o consenso, nem a vontade da maioria e muito menos a soma das vontades individuais. Um exemplo seria que cada indivíduo tem pelo menos duas vontades: as vontades de longo prazo; e as imediatas. Cada uma se sobrepõe à outra, e a intersecção de todas essas vontades, constitui, então, a vontade geral a que todos se devem submeter. Afirma ainda que a sociedade não tem objetivo estabelecido. Sendo auto-determinante, a vontade geral não seria constrangida por nada, levando a que o "Todo" se submeta a ela, recebendo cada um parte individual deste "Todo".
À questão do direito do mais forte defendida pelos outros dois filósofos referidos, Rousseau responde que: ceder à força constitui acto de necessidade, não de vontade; quando muito, acto de prudência. Em que sentido poderá representar um dever? Presume que a força difere do direito porque se pode impor, mas não obrigar. Assim, para este autor, Força é diferente de Direito, sendo, este último, um conceito moral, fundado na razão, enquanto a força é um facto. Por isso, não há direito (nem contrato) na submissão de um homem pela força. Nenhum homem aliena sua liberdade gratuitamente a um outro - tampouco um povo a um indivíduo.
A Filosofia Política de Jean-Jaques Rousseau foi determinante no movimento do Iluminismo na Europa, na alegação da Revolução Francesa e no desenvolvimento dos pensamentos políticos, económicos e educacionais posteriores, apesar de bastante crítica e refutação posterior, própria do debate de todas as utopias.
Este lema: "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité", deve servir, a todos nós, de reflexão, tanto nas suas causas argumentativas, como nas suas consequências, cuja validade, importância e acuidade aumenta em espaços digitais onde não existem formações humanas definidas, as regras de boa convivência estabelecidas são meramente genéricas e a liberdade de acção e discurso são apenas limitadas pela capacidade individual de cada um dos actores. Em minha opinião, é destes fundamentos básicos que deve partir qualquer discurso, debate ou movimento num meio que se pretenda aceitável para todos, no qual não hajam domínios nem coutos privados nem utilizadores que se arrogam virtudes superiores às do "resto".
Tenho dito. E, com esta, desejo-vos a todos um extraordinário final de semana, cheio de Liberdade, Igualdade e Fraternidade.
Abracinhos fraternos,
Pedro Estadão
@hefestus 14.03.25

ENGLISH VERSION
Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, at the opening of the second part of the Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality among Men, wrote the following:
"The first one who enclosed a piece of land and had the audacity to say this is mine and found people simple enough to believe in him, was the true founder of civil society. How many crimes, wars and murders, how many miseries and horrors, would have been spared to the human race, if someone, pulling out the stakes and covering the moat, had cried out to his fellow men: "Do not listen to this impostor! You will be lost if you forget that the fruits belong to everyone and the land belongs to no one."
The motto of the French Republic, Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité, which was, shortly afterwards, adopted by the Freemasons of the Grand Orient de France, as their own, was not always an incontestable and evident affirmation of the root of what we call, today, Human Rights and Democratic Republicanism. The formula resulted from the ideas that originated during the period of the French Revolution, and were reflected in the text of the First Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, written in 1789, recognizing that: all men are born and remain equal in rights.
The first time that the three concepts, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, are united is in a speech in which Maximilien de Robespierre, speaking about the organization of the National Guard, proposes that the motto be engraved on the flags and uniforms of the officers. The proposal was not accepted, however, the Grand Orient de France inscribed it in its founding document, in 1773, which also affirmed the existence of God and the immortality of the Soul as the intangible bases of Freemasonry. Twenty years later, in June 1793, the Mayor of Paris ordered the engraving on all public buildings: Unité, Indivisibilité de la République, Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité ou la mort. The disappointment caused by Napoleonic nationalism then dropped the first part of the expression and gave rise to the more widespread dissemination of the formula we know today, L:. E:. F:. .
The ideas that gave rise to this triptych, however, were not born from the brilliant Robespierre, but from one of the greatest thinkers in history: Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who, throughout his publications and culminating in his work On the Social Contract, formulates these three concepts, in opposition to the ideas of Hobbes and Locke, starting from the idea of Man in his natural state. The concept arises from Rousseau's suggestion that the natural man is not capable of distinguishing himself from another man and that the latter is also ignorant of what is common between him and another human being.
Also according to Rousseau, the General Will does not represent either the consensus, nor the will of the majority, much less the sum of individual wills. An example would be that each individual has at least two wills: the long-term wills; and the immediate ones. Each one superimposes the other, and the intersection of all these wills then constitutes the General Will to which all must submit. He also states that society has no established objective. Being self-determining, the General Will would not be constrained by anything, leading the "Whole" to submit to it, each one receiving an individual part of this "Whole".
To the question of the right of the strongest defended by the other two philosophers mentioned, Rousseau replies that: yielding to force is an act of necessity, not of will; at most, an act of prudence. In what sense can it represent a duty? It presumes that Force differs from Right because it can be imposed, but not obligated. Thus, for this author, Force is different from Law, the latter being a moral concept, founded on reason, while Force is a fact. Therefore, there is no right (nor contract) in the submission of a man by force. No man alienates his liberty gratuitously to another, nor a people to an individual.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Political Philosophy was decisive in the Enlightenment movement in Europe, in the claims of the French Revolution and in the development of later political, economic and educational thought, despite being critiqued quite a lot and later refuted, which are typical consequences of the debate of all utopias.
This motto: "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité", should serve as a reflection for all of us, both in its argumentative causes and in its consequences. It's validity, importance and acuity increases in digital spaces where there are no defined human formations, the rules of good coexistence established are merely generic and the freedom of action and speech are only limited by the individual capacity of each of the actors. In my opinion, it is from these basic foundations that any discourse, debate or movement must start in an environment that is intended to be acceptable to all, in which there are no domains, private forums or users who arrogate to themselves virtues superior to those of the "rest".
Having said this, I wish you all an extraordinary weekend, full of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.
Fraternal hugs,
Pedro Estadão
@hefestus 14.03.25
Rousseau at this moment did not know as much as we do concenernin social psychology and evolutionary biology.
Individualisation is and stays a paradox between out-binding and in-binding, i.e. between 'the others' and 'me'. Even if 'the others' are my best friends, there is always some type of concurrency. The consciousness and will to overcome this state needs deep insight in the resulting processes and is much more than one can expect from everybody. The overall struggle for ressources is inherent to social life.
Mating, as can easily be observed among many species, involves claims of ownership. Very long before the time of human sedentarisation and before the agraric cultivating of land, there must have been etablished mechanisms of owning and ruling. And at those times you can not expect groups of men or humans fighting against such claims. They were fighting about mating itself without the possibility of looking through this, since reflecting instead of falling in love is for older humans only - which were rare.
The theory that principality evolved out of some claims to have more power among nearly equal humans is not proved - and will never be, since men never were 'equal' in regard to their skills. The authority of a guide emerged by his abilitiy to be a leader, at least in some respect.
0.00 SBD,
0.02 STEEM,
0.02 SP
Hum...
What about the American Declaration of Independence from 1776?
0.00 SBD,
0.01 STEEM,
0.01 SP
I'm inclined to regard the words of this triple motto as 'false friends' nowadays.
It seems to be clear, but is not, what be meant by the well known words.
Instead of this, in 18th century France, 'liberté' was not a battle cry for more freedom of decision but a claim against serfdom: the fact, that most people were OWNED by other people. In other words, it was the battle cry against slavery.
In the same way, 'égalité' pointed to the end of a society of estates (no more aristocracy but bourgeoisie - yet not including agricultural labourers nor housemaids, e.g.).
'Fraternité', as the perhaps most freemasonly determined concept of the triple, means not the same as Schiller's 'All humans become siblings' in his 'Ode to Joy' (1786).
In short, we have to fill the triple concept of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity with content - but this is not possible in regard to 'modern' aspects and to 'historical' aspects at the same time.
0.00 SBD,
0.01 STEEM,
0.01 SP
Republished to my fb feed.
@tipu curate
;) Holisss...
--
This is a manual curation from the @tipU Curation Project.
Upvoted 👌 (Mana: 4/8) Get profit votes with @tipU :)
I'm too late to vote, but not to say:
Very good post!
A portrait of JJR hang in Kant's studio, as far as I know.
What role does the sequence play - if it plays one?
Is liberty the topmost value, or is it just the starting point for fraternity to be regarded as the topmost one? Or do belong all three to egality, which in this case would be the topmost as well as the unifiying value of the triple?
In regard to the given citation of Rousseau, I'd like to remark:
Do we know if there hadn't been numerous trials of 'pulling out the stakes'? Again and again, but in the end...
Do we know if the first enclosing of land was against neighbours and not against beasts? And then was 'my' opinion that 'my' neighbour's fence or the fence of 'my' village was too weak and I built a stronger protection for my own since the community was not willing to follow my advices? And so, my fence was stable against beastly attacks, and in the end the others followed me as their guide?
(I think Jean-Jacques knew that this was a possibility, but he omitted this for stressing his own argument. And arguing is on it's own way a part of building guidances and fences...)
I don't want to leave you unanswered, but I'm having a complicated week and weekend, and will be back to my normal schedules on monday. Thanks for the comment. ;)
Don't worry, don't hurry.
Meanwhile, I can think on Rousseau's citation.
0.00 SBD,
0.02 STEEM,
0.02 SP