PRE-READ:

WAS ROUSSEAU EVER AWARE OF THIS???!!!???

"We, who are just as good as you,
Swear to you
who are no better than ourselves,
To accept you as our king and sovereign lord
Provided you observe all our liberties and laws
But if not, NOT."

The sheer audacity and self-confidence of this declaration never ceases to jump out and seize me by the throat and heart. I first read it in 1970 in Stephen Clissold's book "Spain", page 57 and copied it into my book of quotes which presently rests in my lap. Clissold aptly described it as a "grudging oath".

I never forgot the rhythm and gist of it. But I did forget that I had copied it down. So a few years ago while reading Robert Hughes' "Barcelona", when I came across it again, I relived that original thrill. I'd bought the book for my nephew who was going to reside in that city on a 3-month's art residency and hoped he too would be seized by it.

It is the Catalan-Aragonese Oath of Allegiance to the king, which predated the Magna Carta by 100 years. It was sworn to the king by the Justicia Mayor and surely the king must have quivered in his right royal shoes as it was growled at him.

However, there was still a need for Rousseau's Social Contract of 1762. And its opening words are just as memorable for their rhythm and message: "Man was born free, but everywhere he is in chains."

The Bible, that blasted classic of antiquity, had been used to oppress the masses with its belief in the divine right of kings. It took bloody revolution in England, France and finally Russia before social contracts could be established. But almost immediately the old regime was reasserting itself. The new dominant ideology of Europe, the Nation State, was soon subsuming and repressing the cultural differences within it. But this development was summed up quite early by Samuel Johnson with his observation that patriotism was the last resort of the scoundrel. We walk a tightrope and to keep aright requires constant vigilance.

The Catalan-Aragonese Oath of Allegiance is a remarkable piece of history. It shows the power and confidence of the people even in the face of a king. This oath, predating the Magna Carta, was a bold statement of the people's rights and expectations. The Justicia Mayor, in growling this oath at the king, must have sent shivers down his spine. It was a clear message that the king was not above the law and that the people would not tolerate any infringement of their liberties.

Rousseau's Social Contract, on the other hand, came much later but was equally important. Its opening words, "Man was born free, but everywhere he is in chains," capture the essence of the human condition. The Bible, unfortunately, had been misused to justify the divine right of kings, leading to the oppression of the masses. It took bloody revolutions in different countries to establish social contracts and overthrow the old regime.

However, the struggle for freedom and equality did not end with the establishment of social contracts. The new dominant ideology of the Nation State soon began to suppress the cultural differences within it. Samuel Johnson's observation that patriotism can be the last resort of the scoundrel is a reminder that we must always be vigilant and question the motives behind the actions of those in power. We must continue to fight for our rights and freedoms and ensure that the principles of the social contract are upheld.

When I was first getting into philosophy years ago, I looooved this book so much.

It was like a magical portal that opened up a whole new world of ideas and perspectives for me.

I devoured every page, fascinated by the profound thoughts and arguments presented within.

However, now that I’ve reread it for my degree, my feelings have changed.

I’m just like?? this is so just ok.

I don’t know why I loved it so much back then.

Maybe it was because I was new to the subject and everything seemed so exciting and novel.

Or perhaps my understanding and expectations have evolved over time.

Nonetheless, it’s interesting to see how our perceptions of things can change as we grow and learn.

This experience has also made me realize the importance of constantly reassessing and reevaluating our beliefs and opinions.

After all, philosophy is all about questioning and seeking the truth.

A political book was proposed centuries ago.

It discusses in the social era the relationship between the ruler and the ruled and the political parties.

Surely, it was a bold proposal in that era.

This book is beneficial for those who are interested in reading about the relationship between politics and society.

It didn't add much to me. However, it provides valuable insights and perspectives that can help us better understand the complex dynamics of the political and social landscape.

By studying this book, we can gain a deeper appreciation for the historical context in which political ideas and systems have evolved.

It also allows us to reflect on the current state of affairs and consider possible ways to improve the relationship between the government and the people.

Overall, this political book is a worthwhile read for anyone who wants to enhance their understanding of politics and society.

Caro Rousseau,

you have written a book for a different species, surely more virtuous and stronger; not for man.

Your work seems to envision an ideal being that surpasses the flaws and weaknesses of humanity.

Perhaps you are disappointed with the state of man, with his vices and his inability to live up to the ideals of virtue and strength.

But is it fair to write off all of humanity in this way?

Surely there are individuals among us who strive for virtue and who possess great strength, both physical and moral.

Maybe your book should serve as a challenge to us, to rise above our shortcomings and to become more like the ideal species you have imagined.

Rather than writing us off completely, it could inspire us to work towards a better future for ourselves and for those who come after us.

Surely, we are in desperate need of a new social contract, an updated version of the old one.

The new social contract should not be limited to the agricultural and industrial revolutions but should also encompass the third and fourth revolutions, namely the technological and genetic revolutions.

Basically, before delving into this book, one should first read Plato's Republic and Utopia. This will make it easier to understand the context and the sources of inspiration from which the ideas in the book are drawn.

By doing so, readers can gain a deeper appreciation of the significance and implications of the proposed new social contract in the context of the rapidly evolving technological and genetic landscapes.

It is essential that we adapt our social contracts to keep pace with these revolutionary changes to ensure a just and sustainable future for all.

The one-star rating does not imply that I don't recommend reading The Social Contract. In fact, everyone should read it as it is of great importance and has had a significant influence. Reading this work was truly eye-opening. However, the one star does not mean that this treatise was tedious, dry, or difficult. On the contrary, it is not long, easy to understand, and can be read within a few hours. Moreover, Rousseau is quite adept at using powerful phrases, and there are many quotable lines in this book.

But my dislike for this book goes beyond mere dissatisfaction. I absolutely despise it and everything it represents. Leo Strauss referred to Machiavelli as the “teacher of evil,” and while I have nothing kind to say about Marx either, both seem clean and wholesome compared to Rousseau. Machiavelli is at least upfront about advocating that there is no place for morals in politics, but Rousseau is positively Orwellian.

He begins the first chapter of The Social Contract with the inspiring words: Man is born free and everywhere is in chains. Although he speaks of liberty and democracy, it is clear that his ideal state, as he defines it, is totalitarian. Those who do not wish to be part of his state and refuse to obey should be “forced to be free.” Locke argued that inalienable rights include life, liberty, and property, and that governments are established to safeguard these rights. For Rousseau, however, life, liberty, and property are all things that one completely surrenders to the state, “retaining no individual rights.” Rousseau states:

Whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body... the social contract gives the body politic absolute power over all its members... when the prince says to him: “It is expedient for the State that you should die,” he ought to die.

Even Rousseau himself thought that his ideal system could not function in large territories. He ideally desired direct democracy, with all citizens gathering in assembly as in the ancient city-state of Athens, rather than representative democracy, which he did not consider to be true democracy. (And the larger the state, the more absolute its powers should be, and the more autocratic the government should be to prevent it from descending into selfish anarchy.) Alissa Ardito states in the introduction to my edition that: “Politics... is also about language, talking, negotiating, arguing; and for that Rousseau had no need and little patience. The goal in The Social Contract is always about consensus, and in the end one suspects what Rousseau finally wanted was silence.” One cannot have liberty or democracy while silencing and suppressing anyone who dissents from the “general will.” And then there is Rousseau's advocacy of a civil religion, where one literally worships the state. What results is the abomination of a state like the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,” which only pays lip service to democracy in its name, and where its leader assumes a quasi-religious status.

Can I find any good in this treatise? I can see the form that the United States took in the discussion of a combination of monarchy (President), aristocracy (Senate, Supreme Court), and democracy (Congress), as well as the system of checks and balances between them. However, such features are also discussed in Locke's Second Treatise of Government and Montesquieu's The Spirit of the Laws, both of which predate The Social Contract. In fact, Rousseau's categories of government can even trace their roots back to Aristotle. So, the good that I can see in it is hardly original. Well, and The Social Contract did argue for sovereignty being vested in the people rather than the Divine Right of Kings—it is supposed to have inspired the French Revolution and its cry of “liberty, equality, fraternity.” If so, it is easier to understand why the French Revolution devolved into the Reign of Terror. I do consider this a must-read, and I'm glad I read it. It is enlightening, like turning over a rock to see all the unpleasant things that were hiding beneath.

I highly recommend this work without any hesitation. It is truly a remarkable piece that has left a profound impression on me. The content is engaging, thought-provoking, and filled with valuable insights. I found myself completely immersed in it from start to finish. The author's writing style is captivating, making it easy to follow along and understand the concepts being presented. It's not just a one-time read; it's a work that I will be rereading in the future for sure. Each time I go through it, I believe I will discover something new and gain a deeper understanding. I cannot stress enough how much I think others should give this work a chance. It has the potential to inspire, educate, and entertain all at the same time.

How to maintain the primitive freedom of man by inserting it into a state structure that allows governance according to the dictates of reason?

This is what Rousseau attempts to clarify in this work, following the formation of the first communities and referring to the structures of ancient peoples to arrive at the most modern forms of representative government. There is no shortage of interesting criticisms and suggestions.

Certainly, there is a slight ambiguity in the air when Rousseau becomes a defender of individual freedom, but then he seems to subordinate it to the good of the state and see, in the governed man, more of a citizen than an individual whose rights must still be protected.

Is there an underlying totalitarian streak, perhaps?

The government that is populated by its citizens and is increased more than before, without external aid or coercion or brutality, is undoubtedly the best government. And the government that has fewer subjects and they are oppressed is the worst, O enemies! Now it is left to you to account, measure, and confront. After I finished writing, several questions came to my mind: What if the social contract theory was reconstructed in our current era? Why should the people suffer throughout their lives and die humiliated? When we read what Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote from the late 17th century to the late 18th century about regulating the relations between the state and the people and comparing his ideas with our Arab reality, we feel the degree of humiliation and degradation as a result of the tyranny of the authorities and their rudeness. In this book, Rousseau provides a detailed explanation of the core idea of the importance of the social contract in forming a civil and political society that ensures for everyone their absolute and natural rights of "freedom, justice, and equality" and how the state becomes legitimate by adhering to all the constitutional charters and agreements for a better life.

Although the content is rich and full of ideas, in my opinion, the translation by Adil Zaiter is very lacking in the rights of the book, which made some of the proposed ideas somewhat unclear. Perhaps I will reread it at a later time with a better translation.

Rousseau expounds in this book the relationship between the people, the government, and the ruler, their respective rights and duties, the different forms of governments and which people are suitable for each of them. He also makes the people the foundation of the state and its essential element, and emphasizes their freedom that cannot be denied under any circumstances.

The book is a rich set of answers to major philosophical and political questions, such as the impact of the nature of the people on the government and the ruler, the meaning of the social contract and the possibility of error in the general will, the limits of sovereignty and how to overcome the ruler's excesses, and many other questions. Many people consider it one of the bases on which the French Revolution was built.

This work by Rousseau has had a profound and far-reaching influence on political thought and the development of democratic ideals. It has inspired countless discussions and debates about the proper role of government, the rights of the people, and the pursuit of a just and free society.

Overall, Rousseau's ideas presented in this book continue to be relevant and studied today, as they offer valuable insights into the complex and ever-evolving relationship between the individual and the state.

"Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." This profound statement by Rousseau sets the stage for his exploration of freedom and the social contract.

According to Rousseau, one regains freedom by entering the social contract. Sovereignty lies with the people and is inalienable and indivisible. The people come together to support the general will while maintaining their individual freedom. The general will transcends factionalism and represents the collective interests of all citizens, not just the sum of individual interests.

Achieving the general will of a polity requires the adroit guidance of tempered legislators and strong civic virtue. Laws reflect the general will, and the people have a duty to obey them, which in turn advances one's liberty.

This book is one of the most influential works of modern political philosophy. Its critique of European monarchy and aristocracy and the promotion of individual and collective liberty was revolutionary. It underpinned the politico-philosophical thought of America's Founding Fathers, such as the idea that sovereignty originates from the consent of the governed. The French Revolution was also underpinned by Rousseauian idealism.

However, the misappropriation of the idea of the general will by Robespierrean factionalism and Napoleonic militarism led to terror and decades-long war. This has led some to question whether achieving the general will is chimerical.

Perhaps not. Rousseau argued that Republican Rome reflected the general will, with its high civic virtue and democratic institutions. However, militaristic factionalism, as seen in Sulla, Caesar, and Octavian, led to the creation of the Empire. Some scholars have used this and other modern examples, such as Stalin and Hitler, to suggest that the general will has totalitarian dispositions. But this misinterprets Rousseau. The general will requires direct democracy and high civic virtue, which tyrannical states quash. Thus, these regimes cannot represent the general will in the Rousseauian sense.

Freedom with danger is preferable to peace with slavery.

If you want to give the state stability, then bring the two extreme ends as close as you can, and do not tolerate the existence of rich and poor people. Because these two situations, which cannot be separated from each other by the law of nature, are also a hindrance to the common good. From one of them, the means of tyranny will appear, and from the other, tyranny itself will appear. And between them lies the treatment of general freedom, where one buys and the other sells.

The shortest and most convenient way to distinguish between good and evil is to ask yourself about what you want and what you do not want if others were in control.

Man is born free, and man is found chained everywhere. He thinks he is the master of others, and yet he remains more of a slave than they are.

This profound statement makes us reflect on the true nature of freedom and slavery. It shows that freedom is not just the absence of physical restraint but also the ability to make choices and live according to one's own will. Slavery, on the other hand, is not only the state of being owned by another but also the submission to the will of others without question. We should strive for true freedom, even if it comes with risks, rather than settling for a false sense of peace that comes with slavery.