I don't know what to make of Rousseau.

On the one hand, the entire concept of the social contract seems like a hopelessly dated relic. It appears to be a completely flawed starting position for any program of political philosophy.

Isaiah Berlin was right, I think, when he heard the tap-tap-tapping of jackboots in the future. This was albeit completely unbeknownst to Rousseau, when notions about an inalienable and indivisible general will of the people were being bandied about.

However, at this time, Rousseau was writing against the notion of an oligarchical, aristocratic elite in control of society. So it has to be considered in that context.

And that last clause should also be considered when we're talking about the Discourses. The notion of the "arts and sciences" as being "civilizing" was taken as gospel then. It was even used as an excuse for colonial horror. And inequality was stated as a necessity.

Rousseau's counter-arguments, while deeply, deeply flawed, at least were counter-arguments. And they were revolutionary for their time.

An excellent though dated read, this book holds a significant place in literary history. It features one of the most quoted opening sentences of any book to date, immediately captivating the reader's attention. The book delves deep into the concept of the social contract, exploring how it can be applied to states both large and small. It meticulously details how the Sovereign can construct and maintain a body politic within the state, as well as the rules for law making. The work concludes with a classic theme of the French Enlightenment, namely the banishment of religious intolerance.

The book can be divided into three distinct parts. Firstly, it examines what the social compact is and how it relates to individual and collective liberties. According to Rousseau, the social compact involves the relinquishing of the individual will to a collective or general will of society, which gives rise to the Sovereign and ultimately forms the rules governing the State. Secondly, it explores how, once the social compact is formed, the State is determined by the Sovereign and the rules for governing it, whether it be a democracy, republic, aristocracy, or other forms. Finally, it looks at the lessons of Rome and the issue of intolerance in religious dogmas as they pertain to the State.

One of the key aspects Rousseau emphasizes is that while man is by nature good, it is society's influence on his judgment of right and wrong that leads him astray. The social compact, however, creates a sense of moral behavior in line with the general will. Although we lose some individual freedom, we gain collective liberty. Additionally, the theoretical government proposed by Rousseau includes magistrates to represent the people, a legislative and executive branch, and public assemblies held on specific days and upheld by the law. Interestingly, there should also be a short-term dictator who can prevent the executive or legislative branch from performing their duties if they are believed to be corrupted.

A brief history of the Roman caste system and governing bodies is provided, along with an explanation of why the State should remain independent of religious influence. The importance of religious tolerance among all sects that tolerate one another within the State is emphasized. It is also noted that when the general will becomes influenced by private interests and votes are sold for money, the state is on the verge of collapse. Rousseau's famous quote, "To renounce liberty is to renounce being a man... For him who renounces everything no indemnity is possible," highlights the significance of liberty within the context of the social compact. Overall, the social compact limits our individual freedoms but binds us to a general construct that promotes moral behavior and a righteous government, as long as the general will remains uncorrupted by the domination of private interests.

Interestingly wrong in a multitude of ways,

This statement implies that there is something that is not only incorrect but also interesting in the various ways it is wrong. It could refer to a theory, an idea, a belief, or even a behavior that, upon closer examination, reveals multiple flaws or inaccuracies. The interesting aspect might lie in the unexpected nature of the errors or the creative ways in which they deviate from what is considered correct. It could also suggest that there is value in exploring and understanding these wrong ways, as they can provide insights into the limitations of our knowledge or the complexity of a particular subject. By acknowledging and analyzing what is interestingly wrong, we can expand our understanding and potentially avoid making similar mistakes in the future.

I'm just really excited to dig in on this one.

This particular thing has caught my attention and I can't wait to explore it further.

There's something about it that makes me feel a sense of anticipation and eagerness.

Maybe it's the potential for new discoveries or the opportunity to learn something valuable.

Whatever it is, I'm fully committed to delving deep into it and uncovering all its secrets.

I'll approach it with enthusiasm and an open mind, ready to embrace whatever comes my way.

As I start this journey of exploration, I know there will be challenges and obstacles along the way.

But I'm determined to overcome them and make the most of this experience.

I believe that by the end of it, I'll have gained a wealth of knowledge and a new perspective.

So, here I go, ready to dig in and see where this adventure takes me.

There is no denying the importance of this book in the history of the modern world.

It holds a significant place and has had a profound impact on various aspects.

However, one must not simply pick up the book and start reading without considering the context in which it was written.

The era, the social, political, and cultural circumstances of that time all play a crucial role in understanding the true essence and meaning of the book.

By reading it in the context of when it was written, we can gain a deeper appreciation for the author's intentions, the challenges they faced, and the ideas they were trying to convey.

It allows us to see how the book fits into the larger historical narrative and how it has influenced subsequent generations.

So, when approaching this important book, it is essential to take the time to research and understand the context in which it was created.

This will enhance our reading experience and enable us to fully grasp the significance of this literary work in the history of the modern world.

It was an absolute pleasure to read Rousseau's work.

His writing is simply amazing, filled with profound insights and thought-provoking ideas.

Scott's translation was outstanding as well. The footnotes with the original French/Latin phrases and the potential English equivalents were truly invaluable, allowing for a deeper understanding of the text.

My favorite was the 2nd Discourse (on inequality). It delved into the complex nature of human inequality and presented a scathing critique of society.

The angry atheist in me also found the fourth book of the Social Contract to be particularly scathing. It challenged many of the traditional beliefs and institutions.

I loved every minute of reading these works. They have left a lasting impression on me and have inspired me to further explore Rousseau's ideas.

I can't wait to read more of his works and continue this intellectual journey.

Not as poetic as his first discourse on inequality, this work is still highly intriguing and holds great significance in understanding both modern and contemporary times.

It delves into various aspects that have shaped our society and the way we live today. The author presents thought-provoking ideas and analyses that prompt us to reevaluate our assumptions and perspectives.

By exploring the complex issues of inequality, power dynamics, and social change, this piece offers valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities that we face in the modern era.

It serves as a reminder that understanding the past is crucial for navigating the present and envisioning a better future. Whether one is a scholar, a social activist, or simply an interested reader, this work is sure to engage and inspire.

There is an important book that presents some great theories regarding the natural rights of the individual. It delves deep into the concept of what rights a person inherently possesses. However, I have a point of disagreement with one of the ideas presented in the book. I firmly believe that no human should be compelled to be a part of a forced social contract that they do not give their consent to. This aspect goes against the very essence of individual freedom and autonomy. Nevertheless, despite this difference in opinion, the book is still extremely worth checking out. It offers a wealth of knowledge and perspectives that can stimulate critical thinking and further our understanding of the complex relationship between the individual and society.

Rousseau is the most interesting.

He once said, "The rich, for their part, had scarcely experienced the pleasure of dominating than they soon disdained all other pleasures, and using their old slaves to subdue new ones, they thought only of subjugating and enslaving their neighbors--like those ravenous wolves which having once tasted human flesh refuse all other food and no longer want to devour anything but men" (101).

This description is really vivid and profound.

It makes us clearly see the greed and cruelty of the rich.

Although I cannot speak or read French (yet), the prose in this passage is so elegant that it can still deeply touch my heart.

And I'm also assured that the translation is quite faithful, which allows me to better understand Rousseau's thoughts.

Rousseau's works are really worth studying and savoring carefully.

We can gain a lot of inspiration and wisdom from them.

Quite a mixed bag indeed!

On one hand, the writing is superb, with mostly clear and brilliant observations that offer deep insights. However, the variety of conclusions presented is rather astonishing. Despite this, it clearly deserves its status as a classic. Placing this voice within its historical context stitches things together smoothly. Yet, I found it extremely difficult to penetrate into his mind and understand what ties it all together.

Some of the most striking sentences for me are as follows:

"Though it may be the peculiar happiness of Socrates and other geniuses of his stamp to reason themselves into virtue, the human species would long ago have ceased to exist, had it depended entirely for its preservation on the reasonings of the individuals that compose it." This sentence makes one ponder the role of reason in the survival and progress of humanity.

"..., The human understanding is greatly indebted to the passions, which, on their side, are likewise universally allowed to be greatly indebted to the human understanding. It is by the activity of our passions that our reason improves; we covet knowledge merely because we covet enjoyment, and it is impossible to conceive why a man exempt from fears and desires should take the trouble to reason. The passions, in their turn, owe their origin to our needs, and their increase to our progress in science; for we cannot desire or fear anything but in consequence of the ideas we have of it, or of the simple impulses of nature..." This passage beautifully explores the complex relationship between the human understanding and the passions, highlighting how they are intertwined and mutually influential.

I first read the entire Book, including Chapters I, II, III, IV, VI, VII, VIII, and XI of the second Book, Chapters I, II, III, IV, IX, X, and XI of the third Book, and Chapters I, II, and VIII of the fourth Book of The Social Contract. I didn't read any of the discourses.

Regarding the social contract, the idea of the Legislator seems rather utopian. It seems to me that Rousseau had a flash of inspiration when introducing this almost divine concept.

On the other hand, he is not in favor of democracy being the best government for humanity. "There has never been a true democracy and there never will be."; "Such a perfect government is not suitable for men (but for the gods)."

It is interesting to note that Rousseau's views on the social contract and government are complex and thought-provoking. His ideas have had a significant impact on political philosophy and continue to be debated and discussed today.

By reading these specific chapters of The Social Contract, I was able to gain a better understanding of Rousseau's thoughts and arguments. However, there is still much more to explore and analyze in this important work.

Overall, my reading experience of The Social Contract has been both enlightening and challenging, and I look forward to further studying and reflecting on Rousseau's ideas.

"Discourse on Inequality" was indeed a remarkable work. It delved deep into the nature of inequality in society, exploring its various manifestations and the factors that contribute to it. Rousseau's analysis was thought-provoking and shed light on many important issues.

However, when it comes to "The Social Contract," the situation is different. While it also contains some interesting ideas, it has its limitations. The concept of the social contract as presented by Rousseau may not be as practical or applicable in the real world as one might hope.

Some critics argue that the assumptions underlying the social contract are too idealistic and do not take into account the complexity and diversity of human nature and society. Additionally, the implementation of the social contract may face numerous challenges and difficulties.

Overall, while "Discourse on Inequality" remains a valuable contribution to the field of political philosophy, "The Social Contract" has its flaws and requires further examination and critique.