Discourse on the Origins of Inequality, Polemics, and Political Economy

by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Judith R. Bush (Translator), Roger D. Masters (Translator)

Includes the Second Discourse (complete with the author’s extensive notes), contemporary critiques by Voltaire, Diderot, Bonnet, and LeRoy, Rousseau’s replies (some never before translated), and Political Economy, which first outlined principles that were to become famous in the Social Contract. This is the first time that the works of 1755 and 1756 have been combined with careful commentary to show the coherence of Rousseau’s “political system.” The Second Discourse examines man in the true “state of nature,” prior to the formation of the first human societies, tracing the “hypothetical history” of political society and social inequality as they developed out of natural equality and independence.

Genres: Philosophy

242 pages, Hardcover

First published February 23, 2007

About the author

Genevan 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.

Reviews

[A · Rating 5 out of 5]

9/10.

[Porter · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not sure what to say about this semi-coherent piece of work. Definitely an interesting read as a historical piece. Some of his “natural philosophy” remarks are just ludicrous and patently wrong. He just makes a priori assumptions about quite a few things based on his own personal thinking and some very questionable logical steps. However, the last third of the book is pretty decent, and if such a simple idea was revolutionary at the time or not widely published or revived from the past then historically it is significant. Reading the book you are not going to rack your brain pondering the book. However, it is not terribly long-winded, but only a little overblown at times. Rousseau's thoughts on tyranny and its inevitable end are very similar to Machiavelli’s "The Prince". One possibly unique and well-described gem that I read though was the idea that he asserts that many rulers of his era seemed to have forgotten and even the common people may have as well. That is, that people gave a ruler power for the people’s benefit and when the ruler no longer serves the people, and instead serves, usually his own or small ruling classes interests, the people have the right to remove the ruler because he is essentially breaching the contract that necessarily must have been implied between the people that are governed and the government, because why would people agree to any contract of subservience other than for this reason. A bit overly reductionistic, but not a bad jumping off point for a more detailed theory.

[laura]

weird. as philosophy, that is. not unfun to read though.

[haryii]

2022.6.12

[Jerry Wall · Rating 5 out of 5]

. . . human beings would never be anything but monsters, if nature had not given them pity to \assist their reason. p. 36
. . . the difference between man and man must be less in the state of natuare ethan in society and how much natural inequality must increase in the human species as a result of institutionalized inequality. p. 40
What is the use of wit for people who do not speak p. 40
. . . inequality is hardly perceptible in the state of nature. . . p. 441
SECOND PART The first man who, having enclosed off a piece of land, got the idea of saying "this is mine" and found people simple enough to believe him was the true founder of civil society. * * * someone . . . had cried out to his fellows, "Stop listening to this imposter. You are lost if you forget that the fruits belong to everyone and earth belongs to no one." p. 43
. . . first obligations for civility . . . p. 47
. . . what has civilized men and ruined the human race is gold and silver, but for the philosoopher it is iron and wheat. p. 48
to his fellow men. to whom he has, in a sense become a slave, even in becoming their master: if rich, he needs their services, if poor, he needs their helps. . . p. 51
Do you not know that a multitude dof your brothers are dying or suffering from a need for waht you have in excess and to arrogate to yourself from the common sustenance everything over and above your own needs? !!!!!!
. . . they would cease to be happy if the people ceased to be miserable. p. 62
. . . he would have to learn that there is a type fo man who counts the estimation of the rest of the universe as something and who knows how to be happy and content with himself on the basis of what other people say rather than on his own testimony. Such is, in fact, the real cause of all these differences: the savage lives in himself; social men, always outside himself, can live only in the opinions of others, and it is, so to speak, only from their judgment that he derives the feeling of his own existence. p. 64
moral inequality * * * physical inequality * * * a handful of men stuff themselves with superfluities while the starving crowds lack necessities. p. 65