What do you think?
Rate this book
The First and Second Discourses
As one of the most respected translations of this key work of 18th-century philosophy, this edition of First and Second Discourses contains abundant notes that range from simple explanations to speculative interpretations.
256 pages, Paperback
First published October 15, 1750
34 people are currently reading
1009 people want to read
About the author
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
4,716 books2,955 followersGenevan philosopher and writer Jean Jacques Rousseau held that society usually corrupts the essentially good individual; his works include
The Social Contract
and
Émile
(both 1762).
This important figure in the history contributed to political and moral psychology and influenced later thinkers. Own firmly negative view saw the post-hoc rationalizers of self-interest, apologists for various forms of tyranny, as playing a role in the modern alienation from natural impulse of humanity to compassion. The concern to find a way of preserving human freedom in a world of increasingly dependence for the satisfaction of their needs dominates work. This concerns a material dimension and a more important psychological dimensions. Rousseau a fact that in the modern world, humans come to derive their very sense of self from the opinions as corrosive of freedom and destructive of authenticity. In maturity, he principally explores the first political route, aimed at constructing institutions that allow for the co-existence of equal sovereign citizens in a community; the second route to achieving and protecting freedom, a project for child development and education, fosters autonomy and avoids the development of the most destructive forms of self-interest. Rousseau thinks or the possible co-existence of humans in relations of equality and freedom despite his consistent and overwhelming pessimism that humanity will escape from a dystopia of alienation, oppression, and unfreedom. In addition to contributions, Rousseau acted as a composer, a music theorist, the pioneer of modern autobiography, a novelist, and a botanist. Appreciation of the wonders of nature and his stress on the importance of emotion made Rousseau an influence on and anticipator of the romantic movement. To a very large extent, the interests and concerns that mark his work also inform these other activities, and contributions of Rousseau in ostensibly other fields often serve to illuminate his commitments and arguments.
This important figure in the history contributed to political and moral psychology and influenced later thinkers. Own firmly negative view saw the post-hoc rationalizers of self-interest, apologists for various forms of tyranny, as playing a role in the modern alienation from natural impulse of humanity to compassion. The concern to find a way of preserving human freedom in a world of increasingly dependence for the satisfaction of their needs dominates work. This concerns a material dimension and a more important psychological dimensions. Rousseau a fact that in the modern world, humans come to derive their very sense of self from the opinions as corrosive of freedom and destructive of authenticity. In maturity, he principally explores the first political route, aimed at constructing institutions that allow for the co-existence of equal sovereign citizens in a community; the second route to achieving and protecting freedom, a project for child development and education, fosters autonomy and avoids the development of the most destructive forms of self-interest. Rousseau thinks or the possible co-existence of humans in relations of equality and freedom despite his consistent and overwhelming pessimism that humanity will escape from a dystopia of alienation, oppression, and unfreedom. In addition to contributions, Rousseau acted as a composer, a music theorist, the pioneer of modern autobiography, a novelist, and a botanist. Appreciation of the wonders of nature and his stress on the importance of emotion made Rousseau an influence on and anticipator of the romantic movement. To a very large extent, the interests and concerns that mark his work also inform these other activities, and contributions of Rousseau in ostensibly other fields often serve to illuminate his commitments and arguments.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 78 reviews
Read
December 11, 2021Je l'ai lu pour l'école alors je ne donne pas de note mais pour être honnête je le marque plus comme lu pour souligner l'effort d'avoir essayé de faire les lectures mais je n'ai vraiment pas lu tout le livre lol
November 27, 2013
This was a peculiar reading. When I read it first, I had a reaction similar to that of Voltaire when Rousseau sent him a manuscript of one of his later books, The Social Contract:
"I have received your new book against the human race, and thank you for it. Never was such a cleverness used in the design of making us all stupid. One longs, in reading your book, to walk on all fours. But as I have lost that habit for more than sixty years, I feel unhappily the impossibility of resuming it."
This was the stronger in case of the first Discourse on the Arts and Sciences, which is really an impassioned attack against Reason and the notion of progress in Western society. Rousseau makes all sorts of claims to reason his way into showing how humans in state of nature are much more in place than in so-called civilization. One of the shocking lines in the first discourse is:
"Romains, hâtez-vous de renverser ces amphithéâtres ; brisez ces marbres, brûlez ces tableaux, chassez ces esclaves qui vous subjuguent , & dont les funestes Arts vous corrompent."
English Translation:
Romans, hurry up and tear down these amphitheatres, break up these marbles, burn these paintings, chase out these slaves who are subjugating you, whose fatal arts are corrupting you.
This really was a precedent from so respected a figure.
The second Discourse which concerns the origins of inequality was more balanced, though sometimes surpassing the first in speculation and guesswork. He claims that humans in the state of nature were much happier and healthier. Language and family were nonexistent and humans acted more like themselves. Civilization introduced social relations between people which though at first enjoyable resulted in such woes as vanity, cruelty and indifference to suffering, with all being perpetuated by inequality resulting from such social life.
Taking a glance at the context in which the author and his thought existed, I tend to see him more with sympathy and understand where he is coming from. Much of the problems he is describing were real and are even relevant today (e.g. how material goods are often nice to have but much painful to lose or how for the rich it is often more important to differentiate themselves from others). He may not convince you with his causal explanations, and certainly not with his solutions to these very human problems, but I believe it is fair to say that he was the conscience of the Enlightenment. He certainly acts as a balancing force against the certainties prevalent at the time about the merits of reason and the dangerous imperative that many felt to achieve "progress".
"I have received your new book against the human race, and thank you for it. Never was such a cleverness used in the design of making us all stupid. One longs, in reading your book, to walk on all fours. But as I have lost that habit for more than sixty years, I feel unhappily the impossibility of resuming it."
This was the stronger in case of the first Discourse on the Arts and Sciences, which is really an impassioned attack against Reason and the notion of progress in Western society. Rousseau makes all sorts of claims to reason his way into showing how humans in state of nature are much more in place than in so-called civilization. One of the shocking lines in the first discourse is:
"Romains, hâtez-vous de renverser ces amphithéâtres ; brisez ces marbres, brûlez ces tableaux, chassez ces esclaves qui vous subjuguent , & dont les funestes Arts vous corrompent."
English Translation:
Romans, hurry up and tear down these amphitheatres, break up these marbles, burn these paintings, chase out these slaves who are subjugating you, whose fatal arts are corrupting you.
This really was a precedent from so respected a figure.
The second Discourse which concerns the origins of inequality was more balanced, though sometimes surpassing the first in speculation and guesswork. He claims that humans in the state of nature were much happier and healthier. Language and family were nonexistent and humans acted more like themselves. Civilization introduced social relations between people which though at first enjoyable resulted in such woes as vanity, cruelty and indifference to suffering, with all being perpetuated by inequality resulting from such social life.
Taking a glance at the context in which the author and his thought existed, I tend to see him more with sympathy and understand where he is coming from. Much of the problems he is describing were real and are even relevant today (e.g. how material goods are often nice to have but much painful to lose or how for the rich it is often more important to differentiate themselves from others). He may not convince you with his causal explanations, and certainly not with his solutions to these very human problems, but I believe it is fair to say that he was the conscience of the Enlightenment. He certainly acts as a balancing force against the certainties prevalent at the time about the merits of reason and the dangerous imperative that many felt to achieve "progress".
May 5, 2025
Un discours très progressiste pour son époque!
J'ai aimé son point de vue et comment il juge toute la société civilisée d'une façon tellement brillante et un peu sarcastique.
J'ai trouvé toujours que la philosophie de Rousseau vous fait réévaluer toutes vos croyances sociales de la manière la plus convaincante, logique et divertissante.
J'ai aimé son point de vue et comment il juge toute la société civilisée d'une façon tellement brillante et un peu sarcastique.
J'ai trouvé toujours que la philosophie de Rousseau vous fait réévaluer toutes vos croyances sociales de la manière la plus convaincante, logique et divertissante.
November 12, 2020
In this early essay written twenty years before Confessions, Rousseau criticizes learning and culture which lead to less ethical behavior. He prefers early Rome founded by shepherds to cultured Rome, degenerating under Ovid, Catullus and Martial, that "crowd of obscene writers whose names alone arouse shame. Rome, once the cradle of virtue, became the theater of crime." "Cette capital du monde tombe enfin sous le joug qu'elle avait imposé à tout de peuples..."(15) The capital of the world fell under the same yoke it had imposed on everybody. He compares contemporary China, cultured but filled with crime and vice.
Rousseau was opposed by Diderot, optimistic about man's social progress, what we call Enlightenment, in his L'Encyclopédie, 1751. Rousseau said Rome had early been a temple of virtue, which its development made vile, no longer valuing virtue over vice, but now talent and sophistication. Rousseau thought valuing fashion a symptom of decline, for "L'homme de bien est un athlète, qui se plait comattre nu" A good man is an athelete who wrestles naked (12). Clothes were invented to inclrease "politesse," into a uniformity of manners, and to hide deformities.
In 1750, Rousseau describes our current U.S. politicians, "who speak only of commerce and money," while ancient politicians spoke ceaselessly of behavior and ethics.
Ancient Egypt and Greece had it right when they attributed learning to the gods' opposing mankind's leisure. Prometheus and Tenthus were each an "enemi du repos des hommes."(21 in the Doubleday edtion, 1961, Les Reveries du Promeneur Solitaire). He lists the disciplines, all born of vice: Astronomy, from superstition; Elquence, from ambition, hatred, flattery and lies; Geometry, from avarice; Physics, from vain curiosity--"toutes, et la morale mȇme de l'orgueil humain." Sciences and arts were born of human vices.
Praising solitary, country life, Rousseau dislikes civility, politeness and propriety: these lead to a "vile et trompeuse uniformité dans nos moeurs."(12) Greece, always wise, always voluptuous, and always slaves only proved in its revolutions a change of masters. All the eloquence of Demosthenes could not reanimate a body that luxury and the arts had ennervated. (15) R praises the ancient Persians and Scythians and Germans as examples of purity of manners or behavior and lack of arts.
Socrates exemplifies the anti-learned, by his embrace of ignorance: I know that I don't know. Instead of producing books, he left his precepts to his disciples, and the example of his own behavior.(19)
Rousseau here takes his epigraph from Ovid, in exile in modern Turkey: "Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis." I myself am the Barbarian here, since I am not understood by them.
(De Tristibus V.X.xxxvii)
In sum, Rousseau attacks learning, "Astronomy is born of superstition; eloquence, of ambition, hatred, flattery and lies (hello the Trumpster); geometry, of avarice; physics, of vain curiosity; all, even morality itself, of human pride"(22). "Les sciences et les arts doivent donc leur naissance à nos vices."
Almost a footnote on modern US education (such as my own community college, "The ancient politicians spoke ceaselessly of manners and virtues; now," "le notres ne parlent que de commerce et d'argent." Our leaders, especially in education, speak only of business and wealth. As a sign of success, they'll cite a man's wealth.
(See where this got the US in 2016, electing the most indebted president ever.)
Rousseau was opposed by Diderot, optimistic about man's social progress, what we call Enlightenment, in his L'Encyclopédie, 1751. Rousseau said Rome had early been a temple of virtue, which its development made vile, no longer valuing virtue over vice, but now talent and sophistication. Rousseau thought valuing fashion a symptom of decline, for "L'homme de bien est un athlète, qui se plait comattre nu" A good man is an athelete who wrestles naked (12). Clothes were invented to inclrease "politesse," into a uniformity of manners, and to hide deformities.
In 1750, Rousseau describes our current U.S. politicians, "who speak only of commerce and money," while ancient politicians spoke ceaselessly of behavior and ethics.
Ancient Egypt and Greece had it right when they attributed learning to the gods' opposing mankind's leisure. Prometheus and Tenthus were each an "enemi du repos des hommes."(21 in the Doubleday edtion, 1961, Les Reveries du Promeneur Solitaire). He lists the disciplines, all born of vice: Astronomy, from superstition; Elquence, from ambition, hatred, flattery and lies; Geometry, from avarice; Physics, from vain curiosity--"toutes, et la morale mȇme de l'orgueil humain." Sciences and arts were born of human vices.
Praising solitary, country life, Rousseau dislikes civility, politeness and propriety: these lead to a "vile et trompeuse uniformité dans nos moeurs."(12) Greece, always wise, always voluptuous, and always slaves only proved in its revolutions a change of masters. All the eloquence of Demosthenes could not reanimate a body that luxury and the arts had ennervated. (15) R praises the ancient Persians and Scythians and Germans as examples of purity of manners or behavior and lack of arts.
Socrates exemplifies the anti-learned, by his embrace of ignorance: I know that I don't know. Instead of producing books, he left his precepts to his disciples, and the example of his own behavior.(19)
Rousseau here takes his epigraph from Ovid, in exile in modern Turkey: "Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis." I myself am the Barbarian here, since I am not understood by them.
(De Tristibus V.X.xxxvii)
In sum, Rousseau attacks learning, "Astronomy is born of superstition; eloquence, of ambition, hatred, flattery and lies (hello the Trumpster); geometry, of avarice; physics, of vain curiosity; all, even morality itself, of human pride"(22). "Les sciences et les arts doivent donc leur naissance à nos vices."
Almost a footnote on modern US education (such as my own community college, "The ancient politicians spoke ceaselessly of manners and virtues; now," "le notres ne parlent que de commerce et d'argent." Our leaders, especially in education, speak only of business and wealth. As a sign of success, they'll cite a man's wealth.
(See where this got the US in 2016, electing the most indebted president ever.)
April 11, 2023
Rousseau is many things, but boring is not one of them. I don’t agree with all of his ideas, but boy could this man write.
It’s nearly impossible to argue with the premise of the first discourse. It’s the elegant, cutthroat version of the meme “hard times make strong men, strong men make good times, good times make weak men.” A slap in the face to enlightened Europeans at the time, obvious to us now: modernity and progress lead to moral degeneration.
The second discourse is where the problems show up, for although Rousseau correctly diagnosed the problem, he failed to offer a viable solution. It’s this that inspired Karl Marx and the like. Rousseau throws out the biblical creation narrative in favor of a romanticized savage original man. Which again, while wildly incorrect, does not make for a dry philosophical read.
A very important read for current political thought.
It’s nearly impossible to argue with the premise of the first discourse. It’s the elegant, cutthroat version of the meme “hard times make strong men, strong men make good times, good times make weak men.” A slap in the face to enlightened Europeans at the time, obvious to us now: modernity and progress lead to moral degeneration.
The second discourse is where the problems show up, for although Rousseau correctly diagnosed the problem, he failed to offer a viable solution. It’s this that inspired Karl Marx and the like. Rousseau throws out the biblical creation narrative in favor of a romanticized savage original man. Which again, while wildly incorrect, does not make for a dry philosophical read.
A very important read for current political thought.
April 13, 2020
First off, excellent translation. I don't speak French so I can't speak to its veracity, but I found it very easy to read. It was well-written.
Second, the five stars are not because I agree with Rousseau. The man was kind of crazy at times. But I think he still has some super important critiques that continue to ring true. There is a reason people struggle with the paradox in his writings well over 200 years later.
Also just fun to see how he influenced the "romantics" that followed.
Second, the five stars are not because I agree with Rousseau. The man was kind of crazy at times. But I think he still has some super important critiques that continue to ring true. There is a reason people struggle with the paradox in his writings well over 200 years later.
Also just fun to see how he influenced the "romantics" that followed.
November 12, 2013
Rousseau was the shadow of the Enlightenment. During a time in which natural philosophy morphed into physics, Diderot composed his Encyclopedie and Europe reinvented philosophy on the iconoclastic introspection of Descartes, Rousseau was that little fucker in the corner giving the finger to everyone. He thought it was all just some nonsense.
But not in a sinister way. Rousseau simply rejected the assumption that civilization was a boon to humankind. Civilization is a shackling chain to the free man. For the timid, it is the means for tranquility and peace. For the bold, tranquility and peace is the wage for slavery. For Hobbes, mankind would be in a constant state of war without the calming oppression of civilization. Rousseau didn’t agree. Rousseau believed that, at our core, we do not seek out conflict. We are the noble savage. We do not need to be slaves to be peaceful; we simply need to be true to who we are.
Which is what leads to his rejection of the science and arts in the First Discourse. Science is vain curiosity and the arts lead to arbitrary refinements in taste. They reduce the soul’s vigor. We are meant to be sincere creatures who fight when we need to fight and live simply and healthy. Through culture and civilization we adopt duplicitous social graces, lazy habits and unproductive lives.
Likewise, Rousseau argues that civilization is the origin of inequality among men in the Second Discourse. The much venerated philosopher is a burden upon society:
But not in a sinister way. Rousseau simply rejected the assumption that civilization was a boon to humankind. Civilization is a shackling chain to the free man. For the timid, it is the means for tranquility and peace. For the bold, tranquility and peace is the wage for slavery. For Hobbes, mankind would be in a constant state of war without the calming oppression of civilization. Rousseau didn’t agree. Rousseau believed that, at our core, we do not seek out conflict. We are the noble savage. We do not need to be slaves to be peaceful; we simply need to be true to who we are.
Which is what leads to his rejection of the science and arts in the First Discourse. Science is vain curiosity and the arts lead to arbitrary refinements in taste. They reduce the soul’s vigor. We are meant to be sincere creatures who fight when we need to fight and live simply and healthy. Through culture and civilization we adopt duplicitous social graces, lazy habits and unproductive lives.
Likewise, Rousseau argues that civilization is the origin of inequality among men in the Second Discourse. The much venerated philosopher is a burden upon society:
“Reason engenders vanity and reflection fortifies it; reason turns man back on himself, it separates him from all that bothers and afflicts him. Philosophy isolates him; because of it he says in secret, at the sight of a suffering man: Perish if you will, I am safe. No longer can anything except dangers to the entire society trouble the tranquil sleep of the philosopher and tear him from his bed.” Second Discourse, pg. 132.And to what end? There is nothing that we gain from such self-reflection. Rousseau finds little value in property, esteem and cultivation. These are the means by which we enslave ourselves. There is nothing more valuable to Rousseau than being free. It is only when you subscribe to civilization’s construct that you compromise that value for other, more egotistical, ends.
“Besides, citizens let themselves be oppressed only insofar as they are carried away by blind ambition; and looking more below than above them, domination becomes dearer to them independence, and they consent to wear chains in order to give them to others in turn. It is very difficult to reduce to obedience one who does not seek command; and the most adroit politician would never succeed in subjecting men who wanted only to be free.” Second Discourse, pg. 173.I’m not sure how much Rousseau actually lived his creed. He seemed pretty comfortable flitting about society in his time. However, this is not a great book because I necessarily agree with his sweeping statements or believe he sincerely believed his own call to turn away from society. This is a great book because few can express a love for freedom like Rousseau. A freedom rooted in the belief that we all can come together as independent, self-sufficient individuals who can express their will through general consensus. Not because we fear one another, not because we wish to oppress one another and not because we seek luxurious distractions. Maybe we do so because connecting with one another is all we have and everything else just doesn’t matter.
March 2, 2018
honestly the thought here is boring and common and when he does """purposefully""" contradict himself its rarely worth exploring............wig!
January 17, 2016
Was Rousseau the first one to blame it on society? Probably not, but I suppose few have expressed their complaints about culture with such eloquence. I once had a teacher who liked to ask his students to "go out on a limb, so I can saw it off." Rousseau needs no encouragement in that direction: his confidence is overweening, and the limb does get a bit thin at points (his anthropology needs a good overhaul, for starters.) But I love his passion -- I wish all political writing were as heartfelt and articulate as this. I read this for a course on Modernism and Post-Modernism; the next reading are by Marx, who is almost illiterate by comparison.
January 20, 2016
At the first sight, The First and Second Discourses contradict each other. However, one must not be fooled by the apparent contradiction. Rousseau is, without doubt, a romantic, and he is a bit pessimistic, as he views the development of the society as detrimental to human felicity in both the first and the second discourse. If you happen to read this book, which is an easy read, please do read the introduction and Rousseau's notes, as they will allow you to grasp concepts and make connections between the apparent contradictions.
August 17, 2021
DISCOURS SUR L'ORIGINE ET LES FONDEMENTS DE L'INÉGALITÉ:
Here's a famous 'discourse', relevant on many points yet relying upon an idea regarding the state of nature which is false. Of course (let's not reduce it to what it doesn't claim!) such idea is just a myth, a fiction only useful to better illustrate an argument! Rousseau certainly didn't want us to go back and 'walk on all four' (as Voltaire unfairly claimed)! However, the constant parallels drawn between such myth and reality can seriously impede a work which, despite it all, remains original. I, for one, have to personally confess that it annoyed me a few times...
Is society, in bringing about private property, the cause of inequalities? Well, in part, yes indeed; but is it here a reason to see in it the root cause to absolutely all of our problems, a system supposedly corrupting our innately good nature of 'bons sauvages'? I found Rousseau to be here reductionist to the extreme.
Now, being someone also interested in biology, I understand how tempting it is to draw parallels with Darwin and paleo-anthropology. Yet, the only thing such science has 'proved' so far if that we are apes those behaviours may be explained by studying other apes. Far from being in support of Rousseau, such approaches also clearly demonstrate that we are political by nature (so much for society corrupting it, then!), that the social inequalities he denounces are but one form of inequalities among others (those he calls 'physical' -nowadays we might refer to them as 'genetical', perhaps?- are as important to explain our social lives, a point he, obviously, ignored at the time of writing) and that, above all, the idea of an innately good nature is so simplistic it turned in fact to be naïve. Beyond the fallacious trap of referring to a supposed natural state (idealised and false in Rousseau's case) in order to justify a political philosophy, the developing of society is therefore not a bad thing going against our natural instincts, far from that! In fact, and unlike what the author claims, it might even be the source of empathy...
Does this mean that reading such 'Discourse' is a waste of time? Certainly not! His idea of 'perfectabilité' and his acknowledgement of free-will (even if, here again, evolutionary biology changed our outlook upon it) places us in front of our own responsibilities -in other words, he doesn't believe in fatalism; we can correct the issues brought about by the emergence of civil society. How? He will tackle this question in his 'Social Contract', yet another cornerstone work those relevance it will belong to each and everyone of us to judge, depending on our own political bias...
DISCOURS SUR LES SCIENCES ET LES ARTS
Far lesser known that his 'Discourse on Inequality' and 'The Social Contract', here's another discourse yet no less interesting. In fact, published in 1750 here's his first philosophical essay and, here too (as was the case with his 'Discourse on Inequality') is an answer to a question posed by the Dijon Academy (namely: 'has the restoration of the sciences and arts contributed to the purification of morals?). Interestingly, here too we find his hint that men are naturally good but were corrupted by society.
He doesn't spare his words:
'Astronomy was born out of superstition; eloquence from ambition, hate, flattery, lies; geometry from avarice; physics from vain curiosity; all, even moral, from pride... What would we do of arts without the luxury feeding them? Without men's injustices, what purpose would serve jurisprudence? What would history be without wars, tyrants, conspirators?'
For him, then, sciences and arts originated in our vices! Worse, he is of the opinion that a society glorifying them can only fall into luxury and passivity. One, in fact, just have to think about the popular 'salons' where intellectuals of his time used to meet, and that he used to despise and scorned, to see what he meant... To their 'pretentiousness', he actually preferred Ancient virtues such as the ones embodied by the Spartans. His discourse is therefore full of pitfalls.
Now, of course, if he doesn't deny the importance of sciences and arts (he certainly doesn't want a return to ignorance!) he nevertheless preach for a strange form of elitism: to him, such intellectual activities should be the sole preserve of those virtuous enough. Knowing that he himself dabbled in music, literature, philosophy, and even botany, one may wonder what did he mean exactly by 'virtuous'? Quite frankly, he sounds here like an arrogant and self-centred jerk.
Of course, it's very easy too to caricature such discourse. Himself would later label it as being 'mediocre at best' ('tout au plus médiocre') despite it having earned him first prize from the Dijon Academy, and a burgeoning reputation. Yet, to be fair, I personally think the issues with it lies not with Rousseau's answer but the question itself -what is meant by purifying moral? And why would sciences and arts even contributed to it? It smacks, in fact, of a scientism so typical of the Philosophes and whereas the triumph of reason over superstition and passions could only lead to better human nature. We should know better by know; and so let's, at least, salute Rousseau who, as a product of his time may have been as clueless as the ones asking the question in the first place.
All in all, then, here are two thought-provoking essays even if, quite obviously, they badly aged for many reasons.
Here's a famous 'discourse', relevant on many points yet relying upon an idea regarding the state of nature which is false. Of course (let's not reduce it to what it doesn't claim!) such idea is just a myth, a fiction only useful to better illustrate an argument! Rousseau certainly didn't want us to go back and 'walk on all four' (as Voltaire unfairly claimed)! However, the constant parallels drawn between such myth and reality can seriously impede a work which, despite it all, remains original. I, for one, have to personally confess that it annoyed me a few times...
Is society, in bringing about private property, the cause of inequalities? Well, in part, yes indeed; but is it here a reason to see in it the root cause to absolutely all of our problems, a system supposedly corrupting our innately good nature of 'bons sauvages'? I found Rousseau to be here reductionist to the extreme.
Now, being someone also interested in biology, I understand how tempting it is to draw parallels with Darwin and paleo-anthropology. Yet, the only thing such science has 'proved' so far if that we are apes those behaviours may be explained by studying other apes. Far from being in support of Rousseau, such approaches also clearly demonstrate that we are political by nature (so much for society corrupting it, then!), that the social inequalities he denounces are but one form of inequalities among others (those he calls 'physical' -nowadays we might refer to them as 'genetical', perhaps?- are as important to explain our social lives, a point he, obviously, ignored at the time of writing) and that, above all, the idea of an innately good nature is so simplistic it turned in fact to be naïve. Beyond the fallacious trap of referring to a supposed natural state (idealised and false in Rousseau's case) in order to justify a political philosophy, the developing of society is therefore not a bad thing going against our natural instincts, far from that! In fact, and unlike what the author claims, it might even be the source of empathy...
Does this mean that reading such 'Discourse' is a waste of time? Certainly not! His idea of 'perfectabilité' and his acknowledgement of free-will (even if, here again, evolutionary biology changed our outlook upon it) places us in front of our own responsibilities -in other words, he doesn't believe in fatalism; we can correct the issues brought about by the emergence of civil society. How? He will tackle this question in his 'Social Contract', yet another cornerstone work those relevance it will belong to each and everyone of us to judge, depending on our own political bias...
DISCOURS SUR LES SCIENCES ET LES ARTS
Far lesser known that his 'Discourse on Inequality' and 'The Social Contract', here's another discourse yet no less interesting. In fact, published in 1750 here's his first philosophical essay and, here too (as was the case with his 'Discourse on Inequality') is an answer to a question posed by the Dijon Academy (namely: 'has the restoration of the sciences and arts contributed to the purification of morals?). Interestingly, here too we find his hint that men are naturally good but were corrupted by society.
He doesn't spare his words:
'Astronomy was born out of superstition; eloquence from ambition, hate, flattery, lies; geometry from avarice; physics from vain curiosity; all, even moral, from pride... What would we do of arts without the luxury feeding them? Without men's injustices, what purpose would serve jurisprudence? What would history be without wars, tyrants, conspirators?'
For him, then, sciences and arts originated in our vices! Worse, he is of the opinion that a society glorifying them can only fall into luxury and passivity. One, in fact, just have to think about the popular 'salons' where intellectuals of his time used to meet, and that he used to despise and scorned, to see what he meant... To their 'pretentiousness', he actually preferred Ancient virtues such as the ones embodied by the Spartans. His discourse is therefore full of pitfalls.
Now, of course, if he doesn't deny the importance of sciences and arts (he certainly doesn't want a return to ignorance!) he nevertheless preach for a strange form of elitism: to him, such intellectual activities should be the sole preserve of those virtuous enough. Knowing that he himself dabbled in music, literature, philosophy, and even botany, one may wonder what did he mean exactly by 'virtuous'? Quite frankly, he sounds here like an arrogant and self-centred jerk.
Of course, it's very easy too to caricature such discourse. Himself would later label it as being 'mediocre at best' ('tout au plus médiocre') despite it having earned him first prize from the Dijon Academy, and a burgeoning reputation. Yet, to be fair, I personally think the issues with it lies not with Rousseau's answer but the question itself -what is meant by purifying moral? And why would sciences and arts even contributed to it? It smacks, in fact, of a scientism so typical of the Philosophes and whereas the triumph of reason over superstition and passions could only lead to better human nature. We should know better by know; and so let's, at least, salute Rousseau who, as a product of his time may have been as clueless as the ones asking the question in the first place.
All in all, then, here are two thought-provoking essays even if, quite obviously, they badly aged for many reasons.
October 24, 2013
PROs:
* Nice compilation of Rousseau's famous discourses
CONs:
* Brings nothing new to the table
I enjoyed both discourses, agreeing with the second more than the first, but finding the first more entertaining than the second. Rousseau goes off topic quite a bit, but even his off topic rants are interesting.
* Nice compilation of Rousseau's famous discourses
CONs:
* Brings nothing new to the table
I enjoyed both discourses, agreeing with the second more than the first, but finding the first more entertaining than the second. Rousseau goes off topic quite a bit, but even his off topic rants are interesting.
November 11, 2025
peak reading
Read
April 17, 2025I didn't read all of the preface nor the appendix, but I know the difference between the first and second discourses. I read this for POLI 328, I also read the Leviathan, but like only 200 pages out of the 600 pages. Rousseau reminds me not to always look at the past, as the past is the old ideal that cannot be attained in the present.
August 7, 2016
OH.MON.DIEU; I couldn’t wait to get through this one! For all the hoopla I didn't expect to be this disappointed, so I narrowed it down to a few things:
**He praises nature and the ‘primitive man’ (French: l’homme sauvage), as if they themselves are devoid of property and self-consciousness (the latter of which in itself can be construed as very insulting, but likely quite reflective of the times).
**He seems to be favorable to the Bible and even says the spiritual texts are the only ones he never condemned, yet—in typical enlightenment fashion—steers clear of the subject; no clause of good and evil, nor free will. While private property can change people (as money and other things can); what about one’s own role in letting himself be changed/affected by said factors (ie: free will)?
**He mentions being aware that the Academy granted prizes not on the most important issue but on how well it’s expressed… Um?!
And I’m not sure what’s worse: that they’re picking delivery style over content, or that people actually found this ‘well expressed.’ This is yet another reminder: just because you talk a lot (and in this case, supposedly ‘well’--and which is, of course, arguable), doesn’t necessarily mean you know what you’re talking about. The thing about philosophers is they often tend to glorify complexity, and in the process complicate things; this text being one (of many) examples of that
**There was a statement I noted (p. 175) that sounded quite prophetic in terms of the subsequent French Revolution... and which brought to mind that Louis XVI (as referenced in Antonia Fraser’s Marie Antoinette) had named him and Voltaire ‘the ruin of France’
Even if he does make some points, I mostly found it a jumble of literal 'je ne sais quoi' that made for anything but a pleasant read.
It’s as interesting as it is sad that in time he became increasingly paranoid, when it was he who said that 'reason and conscience are a sound man’s best guides’ (p. 119). Maybe he wasn’t so sure of (at least some of) what he’d said after all?
To know that this book was so influential is telling in more ways than one.
**He praises nature and the ‘primitive man’ (French: l’homme sauvage), as if they themselves are devoid of property and self-consciousness (the latter of which in itself can be construed as very insulting, but likely quite reflective of the times).
**He seems to be favorable to the Bible and even says the spiritual texts are the only ones he never condemned, yet—in typical enlightenment fashion—steers clear of the subject; no clause of good and evil, nor free will. While private property can change people (as money and other things can); what about one’s own role in letting himself be changed/affected by said factors (ie: free will)?
**He mentions being aware that the Academy granted prizes not on the most important issue but on how well it’s expressed… Um?!
And I’m not sure what’s worse: that they’re picking delivery style over content, or that people actually found this ‘well expressed.’ This is yet another reminder: just because you talk a lot (and in this case, supposedly ‘well’--and which is, of course, arguable), doesn’t necessarily mean you know what you’re talking about. The thing about philosophers is they often tend to glorify complexity, and in the process complicate things; this text being one (of many) examples of that
**There was a statement I noted (p. 175) that sounded quite prophetic in terms of the subsequent French Revolution... and which brought to mind that Louis XVI (as referenced in Antonia Fraser’s Marie Antoinette) had named him and Voltaire ‘the ruin of France’
Even if he does make some points, I mostly found it a jumble of literal 'je ne sais quoi' that made for anything but a pleasant read.
It’s as interesting as it is sad that in time he became increasingly paranoid, when it was he who said that 'reason and conscience are a sound man’s best guides’ (p. 119). Maybe he wasn’t so sure of (at least some of) what he’d said after all?
To know that this book was so influential is telling in more ways than one.
July 14, 2015
Ridiculous at times, contradictory more than once (this is Rousseau, after all), but Rousseau still had a knack for highlighting and making the reader ruminate on the more pernicious aspects of contemporary society. You'll be reading a given paragraph and Rousseau will make some sweeping statement about human nature (bonus points if it's misogynistic; thankfully, this is a lot less unbearable in that respect than his letter to D'Alembert) that still has at its core a profound observation on how society makes us vie for the opinions of others, how it perpetuates superficiality, etc. Thus, while his worries about scientific/artistic refinement might fall on deaf ears today (sidenote: some of his 'biological' footnotes in the second discourse might make a modern science student giggle on occasion), it's pretty hard to deny some of his arguments about the corrupting influences of refinement and civilization, particularly when these arguments are paired with his pleasant prose. Rousseau never practiced what he preached to the fullest extent, but even after reading this and conceding some of Rousseau's points, I'll probably do very little in my everyday life to save myself from the 'shackles' of society. So we're both spineless cowards who have an inability to pursue what is best for us, and I guess it's neat that this book has made me realize I am no better than a Genevan nutjob who liked to expose himself publicly.
January 18, 2012
What can I say? I enjoyed reading this.
December 14, 2025
in questo libro, Rousseau compie un gesto radicale: mette in discussione l’idea, tanto cara alla modernità, che il progresso coincida automaticamente con il miglioramento morale dell’umanità.
la sua è una filosofia della frattura, che scava sotto l’apparente splendore della civiltà per mostrarne le crepe.
nel discorso sulle scienze e sulle arti, Rousseau rovescia l’ottimismo illuminista: le scienze e le arti non rendono gli uomini migliori, ma più raffinati nel vizio.
la cultura diventa maschera, ornamento che nasconde la perdita dell’autenticità.
l’uomo civile, educato al gusto e alla competizione simbolica, si allontana dalla virtù perché impara a vivere nello sguardo dell’altro.
non cerca più di essere, ma di apparire. in questa diagnosi si avverte già un tema centrale: la dipendenza dal giudizio altrui come origine dell’alienazione.
il discorso sull’origine della disuguaglianza approfondisce e radicalizza questa intuizione sul piano antropologico.
Rousseau immagina uno stato di natura in cui l’uomo è libero, autosufficiente e guidato da due principi semplici: l’amor di sé e la pietà.
è con la nascita della società, e soprattutto con l’istituzione della proprietà privata, che si apre la frattura decisiva.
la disuguaglianza non è naturale, ma storica; non è un destino inevitabile, bensì il risultato di scelte umane che hanno trasformato il confronto in dominio e la convivenza in competizione.
in questo senso, Rousseau appare come un pensatore profondamente anticonformista.
nel cuore dell’Illuminismo, quando la ragione, la scienza e il progresso erano celebrati come strumenti di emancipazione, egli osa andare controcorrente, denunciandone il lato oscuro:
non si limita a criticare singoli abusi, ma mette in questione l’intero paradigma del progresso moderno.
la sua voce è scomoda perché rifiuta le consolazioni della civiltà e smaschera le sue illusioni: l’idea che l’eleganza dei costumi equivalga alla virtù, o che la ricchezza sia segno di merito.
proprio questo anticonformismo rende, secondo la mia opinione, i discorsi opere ancora attuali. Rousseau non propone un nostalgico ritorno alla natura, ma invita a interrogarsi sul prezzo umano del progresso.
la sua critica costringe il lettore a una domanda sempre valida: quanto di ciò che chiamiamo civiltà è davvero progresso, e quanto invece è una forma più sofisticata di disuguaglianza e dipendenza?
la sua è una filosofia della frattura, che scava sotto l’apparente splendore della civiltà per mostrarne le crepe.
nel discorso sulle scienze e sulle arti, Rousseau rovescia l’ottimismo illuminista: le scienze e le arti non rendono gli uomini migliori, ma più raffinati nel vizio.
la cultura diventa maschera, ornamento che nasconde la perdita dell’autenticità.
l’uomo civile, educato al gusto e alla competizione simbolica, si allontana dalla virtù perché impara a vivere nello sguardo dell’altro.
non cerca più di essere, ma di apparire. in questa diagnosi si avverte già un tema centrale: la dipendenza dal giudizio altrui come origine dell’alienazione.
il discorso sull’origine della disuguaglianza approfondisce e radicalizza questa intuizione sul piano antropologico.
Rousseau immagina uno stato di natura in cui l’uomo è libero, autosufficiente e guidato da due principi semplici: l’amor di sé e la pietà.
è con la nascita della società, e soprattutto con l’istituzione della proprietà privata, che si apre la frattura decisiva.
la disuguaglianza non è naturale, ma storica; non è un destino inevitabile, bensì il risultato di scelte umane che hanno trasformato il confronto in dominio e la convivenza in competizione.
in questo senso, Rousseau appare come un pensatore profondamente anticonformista.
nel cuore dell’Illuminismo, quando la ragione, la scienza e il progresso erano celebrati come strumenti di emancipazione, egli osa andare controcorrente, denunciandone il lato oscuro:
non si limita a criticare singoli abusi, ma mette in questione l’intero paradigma del progresso moderno.
la sua voce è scomoda perché rifiuta le consolazioni della civiltà e smaschera le sue illusioni: l’idea che l’eleganza dei costumi equivalga alla virtù, o che la ricchezza sia segno di merito.
proprio questo anticonformismo rende, secondo la mia opinione, i discorsi opere ancora attuali. Rousseau non propone un nostalgico ritorno alla natura, ma invita a interrogarsi sul prezzo umano del progresso.
la sua critica costringe il lettore a una domanda sempre valida: quanto di ciò che chiamiamo civiltà è davvero progresso, e quanto invece è una forma più sofisticata di disuguaglianza e dipendenza?
July 11, 2025
Based upon two 'prompts' which are worthy of the attention of such an erudite polymath such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau was, namely "Has the restoration of the sciences and arts tended to purify morals" and "What is the origin of inequality among men; and is it authorized by natural law?", the book "The First and Second Discourses" is characterized by such clarity of thought, and such humane values and wise understanding, that one comprehends and agrees (mostly) with the conclusions and suppositions of the man from Geneva who wrote these treatises. Indeed, written in 1750 and 1759, respectively, these works appear, to this reader's eyes at least, much more modern and relevant than their antiquity would seem to suggest. Perhaps it is due to the fact that Rousseau centers his understanding of man as a species in the affective emotions, a concept which, by today's date, has achieved wide spread recognition as being true and accurate. Additionally, his positing of the 'State of Nature' as one synonymous with a peaceful and bucolic life too has been reinforced by anthropological evidence of the nature of primitive life innumerable times since Rousseau first asserted it two hundred and seventy-five years ago. To add on, Rousseau's critique of Locke and Hobbes, his two most essential precursors (and rivals), is 'dead-on' accurate also, dovetailing nicely with what many contemporary political theorists attest to in recent works on the same topics. Finally, the prose of the pieces, along with the voluminous end-notes attached to this edition, fully illustrate the capaciousness of Rousseau's understanding of his topics. Hugely influential, an essential tome of the (counter?) Enlightenment, Rousseau's effort here is highly recommended to those interested in the history of Western political thought, its development through time, and the wisdom (and sagacity) of one Jean-Jacques Rousseau. His other works, such as "The Confessions," might reveal more about the personal characteristics of such an important figure, but the two works treated here distill into a clear essence his profound (and important) ideas, and so these books are highly recommended!
November 3, 2025
In seiner Abhandlung über die Ursprünge der Ungleichheit stellt Jean-Jacques Rousseau eine Frage, die angesichts der anhaltenden sozialen und ökonomischen Spaltungen bis heute nichts an Brisanz verloren hat: Wie konnte es zu einer Gesellschaft kommen, die, wie er es ausdrückt, "nur die Gewalt der Mächtigen und die Unterdrückung der Schwachen" zeigt?
Um diese Ungleichheit zu verstehen, wagt Rousseau ein radikales anthropologisches Gedankenexperiment: Er entwirft den hypothetischen "Naturzustand" eines Urmenschen, "der vielleicht nie existiert hat". Dieser Mensch ist bei Rousseau kein brutaler Wilder, sondern ein isoliertes Wesen, das von nur zwei Prinzipien geleitet wird: dem Instinkt zur Selbsterhaltung und, ganz entscheidend, dem Mitleid (pitié) – einer natürlichen Abneigung, andere leiden zu sehen.
Rousseaus Geniestreich ist die darauffolgende These: Die Ungleichheit ist nicht natürlich, sondern ein künstliches Produkt der Vergesellschaftung. Der Sündenfall der Menschheit beginnt für ihn mit dem Moment, in dem der erste Mensch ein Stück Land einzäunte und sagte: "Dies ist mein". Diese Einführung des Privateigentums löste eine Kettenreaktion aus – von Eitelkeit (amour-propre) über Arbeitsteilung bis hin zur Gründung von Gesetzen und Staaten. Diese Institutionen, so Rousseau, dienten von Anfang an nur dazu, die "Gewalt der Mächtigen" zu legitimieren und die "Unterdrückung der Schwachen" in ein Gesetz zu gießen.
Das Buch ist somit eine Anklage – und zugleich eine Mahnung, dass die Ungleichheiten unserer Zeit nicht naturgegeben, sondern menschengemacht sind. Rousseaus schonungslose Analyse trifft auch heute noch ins Mark, weil sie nicht bloß historische Ursachen benennt, sondern die moralische Frage nach Mitgefühl, Macht und Menschlichkeit neu stellt.
Um diese Ungleichheit zu verstehen, wagt Rousseau ein radikales anthropologisches Gedankenexperiment: Er entwirft den hypothetischen "Naturzustand" eines Urmenschen, "der vielleicht nie existiert hat". Dieser Mensch ist bei Rousseau kein brutaler Wilder, sondern ein isoliertes Wesen, das von nur zwei Prinzipien geleitet wird: dem Instinkt zur Selbsterhaltung und, ganz entscheidend, dem Mitleid (pitié) – einer natürlichen Abneigung, andere leiden zu sehen.
Rousseaus Geniestreich ist die darauffolgende These: Die Ungleichheit ist nicht natürlich, sondern ein künstliches Produkt der Vergesellschaftung. Der Sündenfall der Menschheit beginnt für ihn mit dem Moment, in dem der erste Mensch ein Stück Land einzäunte und sagte: "Dies ist mein". Diese Einführung des Privateigentums löste eine Kettenreaktion aus – von Eitelkeit (amour-propre) über Arbeitsteilung bis hin zur Gründung von Gesetzen und Staaten. Diese Institutionen, so Rousseau, dienten von Anfang an nur dazu, die "Gewalt der Mächtigen" zu legitimieren und die "Unterdrückung der Schwachen" in ein Gesetz zu gießen.
Das Buch ist somit eine Anklage – und zugleich eine Mahnung, dass die Ungleichheiten unserer Zeit nicht naturgegeben, sondern menschengemacht sind. Rousseaus schonungslose Analyse trifft auch heute noch ins Mark, weil sie nicht bloß historische Ursachen benennt, sondern die moralische Frage nach Mitgefühl, Macht und Menschlichkeit neu stellt.
April 1, 2022
One gets the impression that the First Discourse was penned by a less pessimistic Nietzsche in the way it tackles the theme of 'decadence' unique to civil society, already prefiguring the Second Discourse's assault on civilization as such, its supposed virtues, and its claim to be the logical resolution of the unbearable tensions in the state of nature. Whereas Nietzsche's aristocratic rebel who makes and remake values as they see fit are yet to walk the earth, Rousseau places his speechless but 'sovereign' savage firmly in the half natural, half transcendental past. The latter lacks language, reason and the 'will to truth' necessary to articulate and tarry with the empty and perpetual 'place' of value/meaning that both haunts and empowers the Nietzschean men of the future. To this extent, primitive humans were already Overman, though negatively so. But would Nietzsche have taken issue with Rousseau's thesis that pity is natural? According to Rousseau, the Hobbesian brute with his natural pity extinguished has already fallen from the rustic condition of nature. In the 'true' of state of nature, man lives in an austere pseudo-paradise beyond virtue and vice, in what Marx would describe as 'primitive communism'--no commodity production, no sociability, no private property. Above all, Rousseau's state of nature is an immanent order that 'naturally' only point towards itself, not towards the civil society to come, as Hobbes and others have imagined it. But a rupture from this order did take place, which Rousseau admits is purely 'accidental'. Hence his radical thesis that man is not by nature a social being.
September 30, 2019
It really took me too long to read these discourses. However, they do have some interesting insights into modern society. Rather than a full review I thought just some simple notes would suffice:
Background
- Rousseau wasn’t the most consistent philosopher
- Hailed both as the apostle of democracy and attacked as a totalitarian
- He based his work attacking the doctrine of the establishment or the orthodox French society - that meant he was not to question truth of Christianity in the inherent sanctity of the monarchy -as well as the rational character of natural law for man’s moral and social duties
- The world was changing to natural science
First Discourse
- The First Discourse was an attack on the enlightenment of the sciences and the arts
- Our souls have been corrupted by the advancement of science is an arts toward perfection - sciences do not teach virtue
- His key argument that study of the arts and sciences does not make a person virtuous
- Corruption is proportional to enlightenment which always produces luxury which is fatal to morality and political power
- The arts force men to honor talent produces rewards on appearances rather than virtuous actions which results in inequality
- He believed that true philosophers in great mind should be advisers to kings but for the common man they should avoid studying knowledge
- The small city state is preferable to large societies much like Sparta and the Republic of Rome - for the public good
Second Discourse:
- Society exists before the rational standards of justice
- Men must leave the state of nature to form society which is prior to justice
- Emergence of society allows philosophers to distinguish legit power and tyranny
- Natural law states that freedom is the condition for truly judging human affairs
- Political order for creating virtue cannot be the primary goal since it leads to tyranny - it must be freedom and liberty of the individual
It's seems clear that Rousseau would have felt justified in many of his thoughts about the modern predicament.
Background
- Rousseau wasn’t the most consistent philosopher
- Hailed both as the apostle of democracy and attacked as a totalitarian
- He based his work attacking the doctrine of the establishment or the orthodox French society - that meant he was not to question truth of Christianity in the inherent sanctity of the monarchy -as well as the rational character of natural law for man’s moral and social duties
- The world was changing to natural science
First Discourse
- The First Discourse was an attack on the enlightenment of the sciences and the arts
- Our souls have been corrupted by the advancement of science is an arts toward perfection - sciences do not teach virtue
- His key argument that study of the arts and sciences does not make a person virtuous
- Corruption is proportional to enlightenment which always produces luxury which is fatal to morality and political power
- The arts force men to honor talent produces rewards on appearances rather than virtuous actions which results in inequality
- He believed that true philosophers in great mind should be advisers to kings but for the common man they should avoid studying knowledge
- The small city state is preferable to large societies much like Sparta and the Republic of Rome - for the public good
Second Discourse:
- Society exists before the rational standards of justice
- Men must leave the state of nature to form society which is prior to justice
- Emergence of society allows philosophers to distinguish legit power and tyranny
- Natural law states that freedom is the condition for truly judging human affairs
- Political order for creating virtue cannot be the primary goal since it leads to tyranny - it must be freedom and liberty of the individual
It's seems clear that Rousseau would have felt justified in many of his thoughts about the modern predicament.
November 8, 2017
"Do you not know that numbers of your fellow-creatures are starving, for want of what you have too much of? You ought to have had the express and universal consent of mankind, before appropriating more of the common subsistence than you needed for your own maintenance. Destitute of valid reasons to justify and sufficient strength to defend himself, able to crush individuals with ease, but easily crushed himself by a troop of bandits, one against all, and incapable, on account of mutual jealousy, of joining with his equals against numerous enemies united by the common hope of plunder, the rich man, thus urged by necessity, conceived at length the profoundest plan that ever entered the mind of man: this was to employ in his favour the forces of those who attacked him, to make allies of his adversaries, to inspire them with different maxims, and to give them other institutions as favourable to himself as the law of nature was unfavourable." -- Rousseau, On the Origin of Inequality
December 5, 2023
Ooga Booga, Yeah I agree with you 'state of nature' Rousseau. Walk through it again. Oh wait, "state of nature" Alexander wants to say something. Go ahead buddy: I believe Rousseau's social theory grapples with inherent contradictions within the concept of the natural man, particularly in the avoidance of murder. During the reading, the question arises as to whether a natural man can genuinely exist simply for himself, primarily when basic needs like food, a mate, and sleep become contested. Rousseau contends that the natural man engages in violence only for self-preservation, yet this assertion appears contradictory, as it implies a threat from others. I think it is pretty similar to the scenario where the first person planting signs around their property initiates a widespread practice, sort of like how the act of killing for self-preservation would seem to necessitate an initial act of aggression from others.
July 1, 2018
These two winning essays are what initially brought Rousseau to public attention. Later, he gathers his thoughts and puts a full political philosophy together in 'The Social Contract'.
Both have a very strong polemical tone, and Rousseau clearly sought to provoke his readers. In the first essay, he rails against the arts and sciences, and even more so against the self satisfaction of his time in surveying the progress in these two fields. In the second, he draws his ahistorical state of nature to argue that as human beings have cooperated so too have they become corrupted. That inequality arises not from 'natural' causes but from 'social' ones.
Both have a very strong polemical tone, and Rousseau clearly sought to provoke his readers. In the first essay, he rails against the arts and sciences, and even more so against the self satisfaction of his time in surveying the progress in these two fields. In the second, he draws his ahistorical state of nature to argue that as human beings have cooperated so too have they become corrupted. That inequality arises not from 'natural' causes but from 'social' ones.
December 26, 2019
Li este livro tão lentamente que é difícil fazer uma crítica interessante a respeito do seu conteúdo. Tudo muito fragmentado dentro da cabeça. Por mais que sejam interessantes as considerações de Rousseau sobre as modificações de comportamento do homem na natureza e na sociedade, é difícil não pesar também que em relação a natureza ele faz conjecturas criativas e racionais mas que não estão baseadas em fatos, certamente a antropologia tem indícios que devem contradizer muito de sua descrição. Por outro lado sua argumentação a favor da igualdade é muito contundente e meticulosa ao apontar a necessidade de igualdade para que seja possível um governo justo e confiável. Ótimo livro.
March 11, 2024
Just wow. Rousseau's First Discourse is a prescient commentary on our toxic social media culture and what he calls the "herd society." Short and punchy and highly relevant. The Second Discourse, Rousseau's attempt to "correct" Locke and other social contract theorists on private property and the state of nature, is also a relevant (if perhaps, more controversial) reflection on liberal society and some of its flaws. I don't agree with Rousseau on everything, but he is a brilliant and highly readable author who made waves in the fields of social science, political theory, and education and he is definitely worth the read.
Read
May 18, 2025J'étais vraiment pas dans de bonne conditions quand je l'ai écouté en livre audio, déjà j'avais pas le pdf sous les yeux en même temps, c'était avant le bac blanc donc j'étais assez stressé et globalement fatigué, autant dire que je ne me souviens pas de grand chose.
Je me souviens même de rien en vrai juste j'ai une image vague en mode Il était une fois des bonshommes qui évoluent mais le principal que j'ai retenu c'était avant de lire le livre, en cours de philo en mode "l'humain est naturellement bon, c'est la société qui le corrompt" et le truc du mec qui a dit ceci est à moi et qui a trouvé des gens assez bêtes pour le croire et les fruits sont à tous, la terre n'est à personne
Je me souviens même de rien en vrai juste j'ai une image vague en mode Il était une fois des bonshommes qui évoluent mais le principal que j'ai retenu c'était avant de lire le livre, en cours de philo en mode "l'humain est naturellement bon, c'est la société qui le corrompt" et le truc du mec qui a dit ceci est à moi et qui a trouvé des gens assez bêtes pour le croire et les fruits sont à tous, la terre n'est à personne
November 23, 2023
This book is pretty bad; Rousseau is a pretty shitty philosopher, his arguments are shaky, his logic unsound, his examples ridiculous, his evidence non-existent, he does not prove anything at all; very bad piece of work if you consider that at the time we had luminaries like David Hume and Adam Ferguson doing far more serious philosophy. This book is only valuable because it foreshadows all the lefty-marxist arguments against markets, private property and the vices of commercial society, which are obviously ill founded at best.
Displaying 1 - 29 of 78 reviews