Rousseau's political writings are profound and thought-provoking.

Three of his works particularly focus on his ideas regarding freedom, equality, society, and government.

Overall, I was intrigued by the book and believed that Rousseau made several perceptive and counterintuitive arguments.

He famously declared, "Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains." This statement serves as a springboard for his exploration of why society disappoints "man" and how we can envision a more ideal state.

Rousseau also advocated for the abolition of slavery, promoted equality for women, and proposed the theory that we evolved from apes, all of which were revolutionary ideas for their time.

In addition, I found the extended introduction by John Scott to be extremely useful. It effectively highlighted the key points and prepared the reader for Rousseau's complex writings.

Scott's introduction provided valuable context and guidance, enhancing the overall understanding of Rousseau's political philosophy.

Overall, Rousseau's works offer valuable insights into the nature of society, government, and human freedom.

His ideas continue to inspire and challenge us today, making his writings an essential read for anyone interested in political theory.

The book is truly a treasure trove, filled with countless gems of wisdom and inspiration.

At certain moments, the content can become rather profound and weighty, compelling you to engage in deep thought and reflection.

It's important to note that some of the opinions expressed within its pages may be evaluated differently in our modern times.

However, despite this, the book remains an absolute must-read.

It offers unique perspectives and insights that can broaden our understanding and challenge our preconceived notions.

Whether you agree or disagree with certain viewpoints, the act of reading and considering them is an invaluable exercise.

Overall, this book has the power to enrich our minds and leave a lasting impact on our intellectual and personal growth.

Yes, it is a classic.

But dare I say it? It isn't very good. In fact, it is rather bad.

Rousseau is overrated. His idea about the development of society out of a bunch of asocial individuals (not "noble savages") has been thoroughly debunked by evolutionary history.

Its use as a hypothetical basis for political theory through the vague notion of the "general will" has generated more confusion than clarity.

And the latter parts of the Social Contract, with their climate-based notions of governance, and other weird comments, are just bizarre.

No, I do not approve.

To expand on this, Rousseau's work, while often regarded as a classic, has significant flaws. The idea that society emerged from asocial individuals goes against what we now know from evolutionary history.

The concept of the "general will" is too模糊 and has led to more confusion in political theory rather than providing clear guidance.

The latter parts of the Social Contract, with their strange ideas about governance based on climate and other odd comments, seem almost outlandish.

In conclusion, while Rousseau's work may have had some influence, it is far from being a perfect or even a very good piece of writing.

We should be critical of such works and not simply accept them as gospel because they are considered classics.

"El Contrato Social" by Jean-Jacques Rousseau is a crucial piece in the development of modern political theory. Rousseau presents a vision of how society should be structured to ensure freedom and justice for all. Here are his fundamental arguments:

The primordial condition of man: Unlike Hobbes, Rousseau describes the natural state of man as one of peace and innocence, where individuals live solitary lives but not in constant conflict. It is the process of civilization and the emergence of private property that introduces inequality and conflict among men.

The origin of inequality: Rousseau argues that private property is the main source of inequality and conflict. With the emergence of concepts like "this is mine," the foundations for envy, egoism, and confrontation are established.

The need for the social contract: Although civilization has led to inequality, Rousseau believes it is possible to be redeemed. He proposes a social contract, not as an agreement between individuals but as a collective union. When individuals unite, they create a "general will" that seeks the common good above particular interests.

The "general will": This concept is central in Rousseau's work. It is a collective force that represents the common good and to which all must submit. It should not be confused with the simple majority; it is the will of the collectivity for mutual well-being.

The sovereignty of the people: In Rousseau's model, the sovereign power resides in the people. It cannot be alienated or represented by a specific group; it belongs inalienably to the collectivity. This vision lays the foundation for modern democracy.

Criticism of other systems: Rousseau vehemently criticizes monarchies and aristocratic systems that perpetuate inequality. He maintains that under these structures, the social contract is a farce since individuals are not truly free but subject to the whims of a few.

The relationship between freedom and obedience: For Rousseau, true freedom is found in submitting to the general will. If a law is collectively decided and in the benefit of all, obeying it is not a restriction but an expression of freedom.

One of the pillars of European democratic philosophy is Rousseau.

His work begins with the profound statement: "Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains."

To me, if Rousseau made contributions to our present-day culture, it was not merely in the realm of democratic thought.

Rather, it was also the ideas implicitly conveyed in this famous quote.

It implies that our freedom is a complex concept.

We have the capacity - nay, the willingness - to submit ourselves to popular control without truly being aware of it.

It is impossible to explain the history of modern politics without taking Rousseau into account.

His ideas have had a profound and far-reaching impact on the development of political thought and the understanding of human freedom and society.

Even today, his works continue to be studied and debated, as they offer valuable insights into the nature of democracy and the challenges we face in safeguarding our freedoms.

Rousseau's legacy serves as a reminder of the importance of constantly questioning and reflecting on the meaning and limits of our freedom in a changing world.

Torn on how to rate this.

On the one hand, Rousseau really can pen a phrase and is full of one-liners. His writing is often engaging and thought-provoking, capable of capturing complex ideas in a concise and memorable way.

On the other hand, the detrimental effects of his philosophy on the West are sizable and have set us back centuries. His ideas have had a profound impact on political, social, and educational thought, but not always in a positive way.

SC, for what it’s worth, is much more enjoyable than the Emile. Somehow it’s easier to read charitably than a work on parenting penned by a man who sired several bastard children. This may be because SC is a more theoretical work, while the Emile is more practical and personal.

Overall, it’s difficult to come to a definitive conclusion about Rousseau’s work. While he has many strengths as a writer and thinker, his ideas also have significant flaws that cannot be ignored.

I've yet to encounter someone who truly delights in reading political theory.

I only hastily picked up this particular work because I obtained a charming copy from the wonderful bookshop in Haddington.

It took me a considerable amount of time to get through it, and unfortunately, it didn't enhance my understanding of Rousseau as much as I had anticipated.

Surprisingly, in my opinion, the discourse on inequality was more captivating than the social contract itself.

The observations on the past and the development of society seemed rather like those of an armchair anthropologist.

Hmm, to be honest, I simply didn't like the writing style at all.

Generally speaking, modern papers are far more accessible and engaging to read.

Boringgggggg! I really had to read for class. It felt like a never-ending task. The words on the page seemed to blend together, making it difficult to focus. I found myself constantly zoning out and having to reread the same paragraphs. The subject matter wasn't particularly interesting either. It was just a bunch of dry facts and information that I had to memorize. I tried to make it more engaging by highlighting important points and taking notes, but it still didn't help much. I couldn't wait for the class to be over so I could put the book down and do something more enjoyable. Reading for class can be such a chore sometimes.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau is often regarded as a crazy dude, yet he is such a foundational thinker. His famous quote, “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains” (163), encapsulates his profound insights into the human condition.

Rousseau believed that society and its institutions, such as government and property, had corrupted the natural freedom of individuals. He argued that in the state of nature, humans were free and equal, but the development of civilization had led to inequality and oppression.

This idea had a significant impact on political and social thought. It inspired revolutionary movements and influenced the development of democratic ideals. Rousseau’s work also challenged the traditional view of the relationship between the individual and society, and forced people to reevaluate their assumptions about freedom, equality, and justice.

Despite being considered radical and controversial in his time, Rousseau’s ideas continue to be relevant today. His emphasis on the importance of individual freedom and the need to create a more just and equal society remains a powerful message.

For it is by no means a light undertaking to distinguish properly between what is original and what is artificial in the actual nature of man. This task requires a deep understanding and careful examination of human nature. It is not easy to tell which aspects are innate and which ones are influenced by external factors.

Moreover, it is equally challenging to form a true idea of a state which no longer exists, perhaps never did exist, and probably never will exist. We need to rely on historical records, research, and our own imagination to try to picture such a state. However, even with all these efforts, it is still difficult to have a complete and accurate understanding.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to have true ideas about this non-existent state in order to form a proper judgment of our present state. By comparing and contrasting the two, we can better understand the strengths and weaknesses of our current society and make informed decisions about its future development.

Rousseau's conception of the state of nature is, in my view, a misconstruction.

He presents a rather idealized and perhaps overly simplistic view of this primitive state. This misrepresentation then undermines the credibility of any of his subsequent argumentation that is based on this flawed foundation.

It becomes difficult for me to accept his downstream reasoning when the very starting point, the state of nature, seems to be inaccurately portrayed.

His ideas about how society evolves from this supposed state of nature and the implications he draws may not hold true if the initial assumption is incorrect.

Consequently, I find myself unable to fully embrace Rousseau's overall line of argumentation due to this fundamental flaw in his understanding of the state of nature.

When confronted with the collapse of any system or idea, it is always instructive to go back to the fundamentals.

This process reveals where we made the fatal error or lost our way. Rousseau's theories, for instance, start from the basics and build on them through logic and observations, constructing a compelling argument.

As a result, many of the failings of our democracies become blatantly obvious.

Although written in the ornate and discursive style characteristic of the eighteenth century, his observations are remarkably incisive.

In the Social Contract, he meticulously outlines the origins and pre-requisites of different forms of government, as well as the definitions and roles of the state, government, sovereignty, and the citizens in modern states.

The statement "The strongest is never strong enough to be always master unless he transforms strength into right, and obedience into duty" has an almost eerie resonance.

Sovereignty, he argues, resides in the people, not the government.

As he astutely observes, Rome became tyrannical because it placed legislative authority and sovereign power in the same hands.

Unlike many Greek towns that entrusted the establishment of laws to foreigners, a practice that I was previously unaware of but which sounds quite quaint.

Overall, Rousseau's work is highly educative, even if some of his ideas may seem very improbable in our contemporary times.