Rousseau delves into the concept of biological man, who is predominantly motivated by self-interest, encompassing one's preservation and welfare.

This need for freedom to address one's own requirements is deeply rooted in biology, forming the philosophical core of Rousseau's thought. Self-interest is counterbalanced by "pity" for the sufferings of other sentient beings.

Rousseau's natural man engages with his fellows in a manner that maintains a delicate balance between respecting the self's need for freedom and respecting the rights of others to their own freedom.

His role as a political philosopher is to identify a governance system that not only offers further mutual benefits but also safeguards one's inalienable freedom. His solution lies in the General Will concept (The Social Contract), which shares a similar spirit with Kant's idea of the universal moral law, where all individual particularities are set aside, leaving only the good of the whole.

Rousseau commences from a solid foundation, namely man's inherent need for freedom, a need that extends to all creatures. In this way, Rousseau incidentally articulates the rights of animals.

However, Rousseau strays when he posits that "pity" is a general capacity equally applicable to all men and that its application extends beyond one's immediate circle.

In a critique reminiscent of Thoreau's view of modern society, he rails against the corruption of arts and sciences (First Discourse), which he believes leads us to deviate from our true nature and become pretentious (and weak) individuals, overly concerned with impression and advantage. This, in turn, creates inequality (Second Discourse), resulting in the ills of modern society and the overemphasis of the particular will over the general will (Discourse on Political Economy).

Rousseau contends that theorists like Hobbes take this corrupt state and project it back onto the state of nature, in contrast to his own more benign view of natural man.

Yet, Hobbes's observation might offer a more accurate understanding of "human nature(s)." In this case, the role of power to check power could be a far more viable governing system than a general will that is based on an incomplete understanding of who we are, both individually and collectively.

As Darwin noted, we may be more tribal than individual. Nevertheless, Rousseau writes powerfully about man's (and "brutes'") inherent need for freedom, and this alone makes his work a compelling read. Additionally, the introduction by translator G.D.H. Cole (Everyman Library, 1950 edition) is also of great quality.

God, I just love reading about men in history who hated women!

Deadbeat dad writes clickbait for local essay contest, wins, and then spends his life doubling down on the assumption that his grifts are inherently coherent and good.

Rousseau was truly original in his way of thinking. He made connections between history, past and contemporary thinkers, and his own gut feelings. However, while he sometimes came up with some truly godawful conclusions, at other times, he landed on sensible ones, although with logic that could make you want to hit your head on the desk.

It's worth reading this to really understand that a lot of the most revered old dudes were simply throwing ideas at the wall to see what would stick. Rousseau wrote, “People who know little are usually great talkers, while men who know much say little.” But you're not supposed to say the quiet part out loud, bro.

This gets 3 stars for its hate-readability, and also because the Cole's notes and translation were really great. It makes you question the ideas and works of those who have been highly regarded throughout history, and shows that not everything they said or did was necessarily brilliant or without flaws.

I've made up my mind to include the Second Discourse as a component of one of my courses. As a result, I have now gone through this text again after a significant number of years. It still stands as a book of remarkable depth and captivating interest.

This specific edition is truly outstanding. It is not only inexpensive but also well-crafted, being hardbound. The translations and notes provided by Cole add great value to the reading experience.

One can easily get lost in the profound ideas and arguments presented in the Second Discourse. It offers a unique perspective on various aspects of society, human nature, and the origin of inequality.

The combination of the engaging content and the high-quality production of this edition makes it a must-have for anyone interested in philosophy, sociology, or the study of human history.

I'm excited to share this remarkable work with my students and explore its many layers of meaning together.

Rousseau is indeed a philosophical genius.

However, it is unfortunate that many of his ideas lack a coherent pattern for application in the practical world. His ideas are fascinating, yet they are also sporadic and haphazard.

Much of it appears more ambiguous rather than rationally practical. One might not be surprised by the criticism from other philosophers.

Nevertheless, Rousseau remains a crucial figure as his work, especially this particular one, captured the attention of Immanuel Kant.

Kant endeavored to understand Rousseau's ideas and solidify his own Kantian philosophy.

Rousseau's thoughts, despite their flaws, have had a profound impact on the development of philosophy and continue to be a subject of study and debate.

His unique perspective and innovative ideas have challenged the traditional ways of thinking and inspired generations of thinkers to explore new frontiers in philosophy.

Although his ideas may not always be directly applicable in the real world, they have opened up new avenues of thought and influenced the way we understand ourselves and the world around us.

In conclusion, Rousseau's contributions to philosophy cannot be ignored, and his ideas continue to shape our intellectual landscape.

I'd rather have red hot forks in my eyes than ever read this book again!

This statement clearly expresses my extreme aversion to the book. It implies that the experience of reading it was so unpleasant that I would prefer a rather painful alternative than to go through it once more.

Perhaps the content was dull, the writing style was unappealing, or the story failed to engage me. Whatever the reason, the book left a negative impression on me.

I can't imagine picking it up again and subjecting myself to that same feeling of boredom or dissatisfaction. It's as if the book has become a source of torture in my mind.

However, everyone has different tastes and preferences when it comes to reading. What I didn't like about the book might be exactly what someone else enjoys.

Nonetheless, for me, this book is firmly in the "never read again" category.

I believe this text is essential for understanding the republican institutions we have today. But not because they follow Rousseau's words to the letter... but precisely because they don't. The text called The Social Contract is an exposition on how a people of free men should be governed to remain so. This text inspired the French revolutionaries in their day (although they didn't follow his thought exactly) and has often been used to defend the republican values of the so-called Western democracy today (which according to Rousseau wouldn't be a democracy).

In my opinion, to read this text, two things must be taken into account: The time when it was written: 1762, before the American Declaration of Independence and the French Revolution during the Enlightenment; and also Rousseau's own thought, which was quite particular even for the time of the Enlightenment. My recommendation is that, before reading The Social Contract, you read Rousseau's two discourses: The Discourse on the Arts and Sciences, and The Discourse on the Origin of Inequalities (especially the latter).

What is remarkable about Rousseau is that, whether you agree with him or not (there are people who believe that Rousseau and this contract inspired Marxism by focusing a lot on what he calls the general will), he doesn't leave you indifferent and these are clearly a priori reasoned conclusions but very well founded in general. He thought a lot about everything he commented on before putting it in the book.

I think it must be one of the best-known and least seriously studied books in the history of modern thought. I say this because I am skeptical of representative democracy at least as it is presented but I hadn't read it and it reaffirmed my point of view. However, just because of the influence it had, Rousseau's work is essential.

Referencia Obligada

Amena Lectura

Concepciones Ingenuas e Idealistas Respecto a la Naturaleza Humana y la Organización de las Sociedades

In our modern world, having a referencia obligada, or a required reference, is of great importance. It serves as a foundation for our knowledge and understanding. An amena lectura, or an enjoyable reading, can enhance our learning experience and make it more engaging. However, when it comes to concepciones ingenuas e idealistas respecto a la naturaleza humana y la organización de las sociedades, or naive and idealistic conceptions regarding human nature and the organization of societies, we need to approach them with a critical eye. While these conceptions may seem appealing at first glance, they often do not take into account the complex realities of the world. We must be aware of the limitations of such idealistic views and strive to develop a more comprehensive and realistic understanding of human nature and society. By doing so, we can make more informed decisions and work towards creating a better world for all.

Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains. At times, Rousseau is truly insightful, yet at other times, he can be quite narrow. However, his writings are always abundant in passion and rich in historical context. The social contract is designed to represent the general will of the people, which forms a body known as the Sovereign. Separate from the government, the Sovereign acts in the best interests of the people and is the very fabric that holds societies together. The government merely serves as an officer of the Sovereign and must always obey the Sovereign in the administration of a town or city. In 1762, Rousseau endeavored to understand how to identify and enshrine the general will and develop the optimal form of government.

Just imagine what the world would be like if the following two questions could be periodically asked and the answers enforced: 'Does it please the Sovereign to preserve the present form of government?' and 'Does it please the people to leave its administration in the hands of those who are actually in charge of it?'

I was astonished in 'A Discourse on the Origin of Inequality' that Rousseau condemned all human advancements in favor of existing in a more 'natural' savage state. Perhaps living in ignorance is simpler, but despite all the chaos in our world today, it is better to live with a clearer perception of reality. In this vein of thought, I was also surprised that Rousseau denounced the arts as providing no value to society. There is, however, something to be said about how superficial our society is, how little we value what is most important, and how we are our own greatest burden. Rousseau does, in this paper, present a masterful piece in hypothesizing about the evolution of our social fabric and speech.

It is rather amusing that over 250 years later, we are still debating the same fundamental issues. In 'A Discourse on Political Economy', Rousseau promotes the idea of taxing luxuries to minimize the level of inequalities. Some things truly never change.

I don't know what uber-nerdy frame of mind I was in that I was reading Rousseau for pleasure.

Maybe it was the allure of delving into the profound thoughts of a great philosopher.

Or perhaps it was a desire to expand my understanding of political theory.

Anyways, this was surprisingly well paced and enjoyable for political theory essays.

Rousseau's ideas were presented in a clear and engaging manner, making it easy to follow his line of reasoning.

His exploration of the social contract and the nature of government was both thought-provoking and relevant.

It was interesting to see how his ideas have influenced modern political thought and continue to be debated today.

Overall, reading Rousseau was a rewarding experience that left me with a deeper appreciation for the complexity of political theory.

I would highly recommend his works to anyone interested in this field.

Sick of this white men being super chill about slavery. It is truly a matter that demands our attention and action. Slavery has been a dark stain on human history, and the fact that some white men seem to be indifferent or even casual about it is unacceptable. We need to have revolutionary ideas on social structure and the justification of the state.

Our current social structure may have been built on certain inequalities and unjust systems. It is time to question and reevaluate these structures. We should strive for a more equitable and just society where every individual is treated with dignity and respect, regardless of their race or background.

The justification of the state also needs to be examined. The state should exist to protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens, not to uphold unjust systems or discriminate against certain groups. We need to demand that our governments take a more active role in addressing issues such as slavery and social inequality.

In conclusion, we cannot continue to be complacent about the issue of slavery and social inequality. We must have the courage to think differently and take action to create a better world for all.

The edition is truly outstanding.

Firstly, the combination of the two discourses with the Social Contract is extremely beneficial. It provides a more comprehensive and in-depth understanding of Rousseau's ideas.

Secondly, the translation, notes, and introduction are all of high quality. In fact, for me, most introductions in popular editions, such as those from Cambridge or Hackett, are often dull and largely unhelpful. However, this introduction is both entertaining and useful, which makes it a pleasure to read.

Regarding the translation, in a Political Philosophy course, we read a different one, perhaps by Cranston or Watkins, and that one was noticeably inferior.

With respect to the content, I don't believe I have anything particularly novel to add. Rousseau popularized the historically significant "volonté générale" and presented a society that may be potentially unachievable but is nonetheless "romantic".

Last but not least, The Social Contract is one of the most accessible "classics". It is a must-read for anyone interested in political philosophy.

P.S. After fully digesting the content in this book, you might want to explore The Racial Contract for a different perspective on social and political issues.