General will still seems very hand-wavy. It is often a concept that is difficult to define precisely.

On one hand, it is supposed to represent the common good or the will of the people as a whole. But in practice, it can be easily misinterpreted or manipulated.

The tyranny of the majority is a related concern. When the will of the majority prevails, it may suppress the rights and interests of the minority.

This can lead to unjust situations where the voices of the few are drowned out.

It is crucial to find a balance between the general will and the protection of individual rights.

We need to ensure that the decision-making process is democratic and inclusive, taking into account the diverse perspectives and interests of all members of society.

Only in this way can we hope to achieve a more just and harmonious social order.

Superb!

This word truly encapsulates excellence and superiority. When something is described as superb, it implies that it is of the highest quality, outstanding in every aspect.

For example, a superb performance by an athlete leaves the audience in awe. Their skills, precision, and determination are on full display, making it a memorable and remarkable event.

Similarly, a superb piece of art can capture the essence of a moment or an emotion with such vividness and detail that it takes the viewer's breath away.

In the world of cuisine, a superb meal is a symphony of flavors, textures, and presentations. Each dish is carefully crafted to perfection, delighting the taste buds and leaving a lasting impression.

Superb can also describe a person's character or qualities. A person with a superb work ethic is dedicated, reliable, and always strives for the best. Their positive attitude and perseverance make them an asset in any situation.

In conclusion, the word superb is a powerful and descriptive term that represents the very best. It is used to describe things, people, and experiences that are truly exceptional and worthy of admiration.

Will definitely be reading this again outside of a class context.

Rousseau's idea that inequality stems from the fact that we are too far removed from our primitive state is truly radical. Thanks to the luxuries and conveniences that progress has bestowed upon us, along with a shift in focus on the talents and traits of others rather than ourselves and our own basic necessities. This perspective challenges our modern way of thinking and forces us to reevaluate the consequences of our pursuit of progress.

It makes us wonder if our detachment from our primitive roots has led to a society where inequality prevails. While Rousseau's ideas may seem extreme, they do offer valuable insights into the human condition. I suppose that's what he's known for! It's definitely something I'd like to respond to when I have more time to look into these arguments without the constraints of a reading schedule. I'm eager to explore further and gain a deeper understanding of Rousseau's thoughts on inequality and its origins.

It has been a few years since I last read Rousseau. Through my further reading and musing about politics, I've come to appreciate his work a lot more.

Rousseau's writings center around the question of the "possible" in political affairs. Looking at his surroundings and intellectual climate, he confronted the issue: what is the foundation of the corruption of people and societies? At that time, prominent voices posited that people are by nature prideful, churlish, greedy, and selfish. They argued that without the state, people would live in a state of unending conflict over power and protection. From this logic, it is natural to legitimize government based on these negative characteristics. Hobbes' argument, though there is more to it, is that the only common interest of such imperfect creatures is self-preservation. Rousseau situates his response within this context.

Rousseau agrees with Hobbes' assessment of people's character but believes these flaws are due to society's influences. His first two dialogues demonstrate how the arts, sciences, and society corrupt people's moral character. The second dialogue is the most interesting, introducing two key concepts: Amour Propre and Amour de soi-meme. Rousseau often faces criticism for the historical inaccuracy of his State of Nature, but he himself states that we should "begin by dispensing with the facts" and use "hypothetical and conditional reasons" to illuminate the nature of things. The state of nature he describes is used to demonstrate his ideas, not as an anthropological account.

Rousseau was influenced by the classical conception of government in Aristotle, distinguishing between perfect and degraded forms based on whether the government rules in the interests of all or its own self-interest. This leads to his attack on Hobbes: if government is founded only on self-interest, is it not corrupted from the start? This consideration is particularly interesting when thinking of modern political economy and neoliberal ideology. The motivation to found government on the interest of all and minimize self-interest plays a role in his later writings. This is what I mean by the question of the "possible" in politics: if we accept Hobbes' narrow account, there is little possibility in politics; but if we understand that these defects are not intrinsic to our nature, perhaps a brighter future can be achieved. Even though Rousseau notes that the corruption of our character cannot be completely undone, it still leaves more options than the pessimists of human nature.

I have only read both parts of the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality.

This person is such a foolish one that it's crazy. It's like the typical "the grass is always greener on the other side" kind of thing. For example, yes, man, those pointless email jobs really suck. But do you know what sucks even more? Dying in childbirth. Just get over yourself already.

We should really put things into perspective and stop complaining about relatively minor issues when there are much more serious and life-threatening situations out there. Instead of constantly longing for something else, we should focus on being grateful for what we have and try to make the best of our current circumstances.

Maybe if this person took a moment to think about the real hardships that others face, they would realize how lucky they actually are and stop being so overly critical and dissatisfied with their own lives.

Honestly, I found the discourses (specifically the second) much better than the social contract.

The discourses offer a more in-depth and comprehensive exploration of various ideas and concepts. They delve into the nature of human society, the role of individuals, and the principles that govern our interactions.

Unlike the social contract, which may sometimes seem rather one-sided or limited in its scope, the discourses present a more nuanced and multifaceted view. They consider different perspectives and offer a more detailed analysis of the complex issues at hand.

Moreover, the discourses often engage with real-world examples and historical contexts, making the ideas more relatable and applicable. This practical approach helps to bring the theories to life and makes them more accessible to a wider audience.

In conclusion, while the social contract has its merits, I believe that the discourses offer a more profound and valuable contribution to our understanding of society and human nature.

I think theoretically, the Second Discourse is more important than The Social Contract.

The Second Discourse delves deeper into the fundamental nature of human beings and society. It explores the origin and development of inequality, shedding light on the complex web of social relationships and power dynamics.

By contrast, The Social Contract focuses more on the establishment of a just and legitimate political order. While this is无疑 an important aspect, it does not address the root causes of social problems as comprehensively as the Second Discourse.

The Second Discourse challenges our assumptions about human nature and society, forcing us to reevaluate our values and beliefs. It provides a more critical and incisive analysis of the human condition, making it a crucial work for understanding the social and political world we live in today.

In conclusion, although both the Second Discourse and The Social Contract are important works, the Second Discourse holds a special significance due to its in-depth exploration of the nature of inequality and its implications for society.

It is truly a travesty to attempt to read The Social Contract without first having read the Second Discourse.

The Second Discourse provides a crucial foundation and context that is essential for a proper understanding of The Social Contract.

Without this prior knowledge, one may miss out on key concepts, ideas, and the overall philosophical framework that Rousseau was building.

It is imperative that this oversight be corrected immediately.

By reading the Second Discourse first, readers will be better equipped to engage with and appreciate the depth and significance of The Social Contract.

This will allow for a more comprehensive and meaningful exploration of Rousseau's political philosophy.

So, do not delay. Take the time to read the Second Discourse and then approach The Social Contract with a newfound understanding and perspective.

I read the Introduction, Preface to the Discourses, First Discourse, Second Discourse, and the Letter to Voltaire. The rest I didn't read because I'm not trying to be a Rousseau scholar.

Overall, it was a good read. The discourses, although not as enjoyable as The Social Contract, were still essential. They provided valuable insights into Rousseau's thoughts and ideas.

The First Discourse explored the relationship between the arts and sciences and morality. Rousseau argued that the progress of the arts and sciences had not necessarily led to the improvement of human morality.

The Second Discourse delved deeper into the nature of inequality among humans. He examined how society and its institutions had contributed to the development of inequality.

The Letter to Voltaire's discussion on religion was particularly great. Rousseau presented his views on the role of religion in society and its impact on individuals.

Although I didn't read the entire work, what I did read was enough to give me a better understanding of Rousseau's philosophy. It was an interesting and thought-provoking read.

Often, this work is extremely witty, presenting ideas in a manner that is not only engaging but also capable of making one think deeply. It is true that there may be times when the content is incorrect, yet these very errors serve to stimulate our minds and encourage us to question and explore further. It is truly a piece that is well worth reading again and again.

This particular edition comes with a comprehensive and thorough set of notes. These notes enhance the reading experience by providing additional context, explanations, and insights. They help the reader to better understand the text, its nuances, and the ideas that the author is试图 to convey. Whether you are a first-time reader or someone who has read the work before, these notes are sure to add value and deepen your appreciation of this remarkable piece of writing.

This is a truly superb collection of Rousseau's early political writings. The focus, of course, lies on the two Discourses mentioned in the title. The first one is the Discourse on the Sciences and the Arts, also known as the First Discourse, and the second is the Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality, or the Second Discourse. What sets this edition apart as the best of these two seminal texts is the inclusion of Rousseau's various replies to the critics of the First Discourse. These replies were of great significance as they helped Rousseau clarify and elaborate his thinking.

The preface to his play Narcisse is especially important as it foreshadows the direction his thought would take in the Second Discourse. Gourevitch also includes two replies to the critics of the latter. The reason there are no more is that Rousseau chose not to engage in a public debate the second time around.

The volume is further enhanced by several lesser-known works. I am hesitant to describe them as "minor" because they are all crucial in one way or another for a more comprehensive understanding of Rousseau's political doctrines. These include his "Letter to Voltaire," in which Rousseau defends a position of philosophical optimism in the aftermath of the great Lisbon earthquake, the Essay on the Origin of Languages, and the "Discourse on Heroic Virtue." The inclusion of these works makes this volume extremely useful for anyone interested in Rousseau, eighteenth-century intellectual history, and early modern political thought.

Gourevitch's translations and editorial work are excellent, just as they are in the companion volume. Together, they are likely the best compendium of Rousseau's political writings in English. It is highly unlikely that they will be surpassed anytime soon.

This text may not be the easiest to read in the world. However, through it, I have managed to gain a significant amount of knowledge about Rousseau's political philosophy.

Rousseau's ideas are complex and profound. His concept of the social contract, for example, challenges traditional views on government and authority. According to him, individuals enter into a contract with society to ensure their freedom and well-being.

By studying his work, I have come to understand the importance of the general will in a democratic society. The general will represents the common good and should guide the actions of the government. This idea has had a profound impact on modern political thought.

Although the reading was not without difficulties, the effort was well worth it. I now have a better understanding of Rousseau's political philosophy and its relevance in today's world.