What do you think?
Rate this book
Rousseau Discourse on the Arts and Sciences, Inequality, and Political Economy
The book has an active table of contents for easy access to each chapter of the following
1.DISCOURSE ON THE ARTS AND SCIENCES - JEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAU
2.DISCOURSE ON THE ORIGIN AND BASIS OF INEQUALITY AMONG MEN - JEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAU
3.DISCOURSE ON POLITICAL ECONOMY - JEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAU
Jean Jacques Rousseau was a great philosopher and one of the founders of the modern system of philosophy. He is in the row with the greatest thinkers as Aristotle, Isaac Newton, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, David Hume, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, and John Stuart Mill. Their thoughts has had strong influence on building the foundation of the United States and its endeavor of open society.
In 1750, Rousseau published Discourse on the Arts and Sciences. It is commonly regarded as his First Discourse and it is considered one of his most important works. He argued in the essay that the arts and sciences corrupted human morality. It was Rousseau's first successful philosophical work. He declared the views about nature vs. society that ran through Social Contract and the other later works.
In 1754, Rousseau published Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality among Men his earliest and one of the most important of all his writings. The essay is usually regarded as his Second Discourse. He was to explore in this essay his conception of a human state of nature. He also explained the way that people should have established civil society and concluded that private property was the original source and basis of all inequality.
In 1755, Rousseau published Discourse on Political Economy. It is a revolutionary work and is regarded as his Third Discourse. The essay is also viewed as the classic of political theory and a key source of democratic ideals of Western Civilization. Rousseau proposed concepts of the general will and individual's submission to government by contract as the foundation of democracy.
The collection also has had the most impact on Enlightenment. It is regarded as the most important work in Western culture.
Rousseau’s work has produced great influence on modern philosophy and logic. His view became widely recognised as the foremost philosophical voice and his influence has been felt in nearly every field of the humanities and social sciences.
This book is one of the most important ones about Philosophy, Enlightenment, the Foundations of Liberty, and Politics by Rousseau, one of the greatest thinkers of modern philosophy on the planet.
1.DISCOURSE ON THE ARTS AND SCIENCES - JEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAU
2.DISCOURSE ON THE ORIGIN AND BASIS OF INEQUALITY AMONG MEN - JEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAU
3.DISCOURSE ON POLITICAL ECONOMY - JEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAU
Jean Jacques Rousseau was a great philosopher and one of the founders of the modern system of philosophy. He is in the row with the greatest thinkers as Aristotle, Isaac Newton, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, David Hume, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, and John Stuart Mill. Their thoughts has had strong influence on building the foundation of the United States and its endeavor of open society.
In 1750, Rousseau published Discourse on the Arts and Sciences. It is commonly regarded as his First Discourse and it is considered one of his most important works. He argued in the essay that the arts and sciences corrupted human morality. It was Rousseau's first successful philosophical work. He declared the views about nature vs. society that ran through Social Contract and the other later works.
In 1754, Rousseau published Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality among Men his earliest and one of the most important of all his writings. The essay is usually regarded as his Second Discourse. He was to explore in this essay his conception of a human state of nature. He also explained the way that people should have established civil society and concluded that private property was the original source and basis of all inequality.
In 1755, Rousseau published Discourse on Political Economy. It is a revolutionary work and is regarded as his Third Discourse. The essay is also viewed as the classic of political theory and a key source of democratic ideals of Western Civilization. Rousseau proposed concepts of the general will and individual's submission to government by contract as the foundation of democracy.
The collection also has had the most impact on Enlightenment. It is regarded as the most important work in Western culture.
Rousseau’s work has produced great influence on modern philosophy and logic. His view became widely recognised as the foremost philosophical voice and his influence has been felt in nearly every field of the humanities and social sciences.
This book is one of the most important ones about Philosophy, Enlightenment, the Foundations of Liberty, and Politics by Rousseau, one of the greatest thinkers of modern philosophy on the planet.
185 pages, Kindle Edition
Published July 14, 2015
About the author
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
4,938 books3,107 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 - 5 of 5 reviews
October 31, 2025
e o premio de worlds biggest yapper goes to
March 17, 2025
Read to find the source of Dostoyevsky's work "Notes from Underground" as he cites Rousseau there. Found an intriguing argument that morals and science were necessarily in opposition- something that perplexed me for most the book until he spelled it out at the end in "Preface to Narcissus"... Where he must have been cited by Baudrillard as he uses the term simulacrum to explain the state of a society where morals have been replaced by the images of them with effigies inside them. He explains that as morals are ubiquitous, the sciences encourage each man to make his mark by delineating himself from everyone else and usually deceitfully to his own advantage while pretending it is to the advantage of others. I was moved by Lecat's final reply in its many well written academic examples....
There seems to be both working at the same time, is my honest opinion. That science improves man's life enables him to be moral. What else can be said of a doctor who uses medicine to cure an otherwise ill or dying man? Would then, this disinterest Rousseau has to the gains of science, be a prejudiced view of the effects of science- something like: 'Well, the doctor doesn't become any more moral by exercising his job duties, nor does the patient improve morally through receiving those benefits.' Even if this was admitted, wouldn't the general pursuit of aiding others, be moral? Maybe for someone as selfish as Rousseau, who differentiates between 'amour propre' and 'amour de soi' this obvious brotherhood of men is what he resents. Yet- he finds the 'savages' the most moral which I consider praiseworthy- in this way he seems related to Voltaire slightly even as Voltaire writes to him 'No one has ever employed so much intellect to persuade men to be beasts. In reading your work one is seized with a desire to walk on all fours [marcher à quatre pattes]. However, as it is more than sixty years since I lost that habit, I feel, unfortunately, that it is impossible for me to resume it.'
Yet conversely, this aversion to science is one that Dostoyevksy agrees with in his work, and maybe was not so poorly placed given the coming of Nietzsche and immoralists who, unlike the respondents of this work, openly reject morality. In this way maybe they are in agreement with Rousseau that morality and science are opposed. And instead just reject morality outright.
Myself, I am either ignorant of the veracity of these points, but if I was forced to voice an opinion, would say that the terms are too general and thus can be both, some and neither depending on the ideology one applies to them, and at what scope or through what lens one is looking for results.
Rosseau's argument his contemporaries miss, is not that bad things happen from science and therefor we should reject it, but that the enterprise of becoming a scientist makes one contemplate things too great for them- and diminishes their courage- while making them seek to trick and abuse their fellow man through all they have learned. To reject him, it's not enough to demonstrate the good of sciences- but to demonstrate their lasting impressions of goodness on the men who they touch....
So... my doctor example- is the doctor more moral, for knowing his craft? Is the chemist- better? I find what is impossible, Rousseau's example of Sparta- a warrior people as if they were the most virtuous people ever, and his response to one of his critiques that the army that sacked Rome was virtuous.
What it amounts to is a peculiar definition of virtue that he has- he doesn't value 'savages' or cultures outside Eurocentricity for their humanity- he values their warlike nature, their common clothes. And when Lecat writes him that to seek virtue we should seek the most commonly dressed knave- he refuses to address angrily to all his examples...
Yet, some of his wordings are sentiments I have had too- that when you criticize the sciences they act like ancient priests of a mythology defending their fiction. His forceful repudiations by his colleagues he takes to demonstrate that they aren't interested in "true' science, but merely a list of jargon that they propagate as if it were true science. To this, I do agree with a bravo. But, not to discourage others from seeking the truth totally.
There is this problem in Rousseau- he admits some figures like Descartes and Newton SHOULD pursue the scientists- and his account isn't so binary but impressionistic. It's akin to saying that 'common man is unfit for the sciences' but a few select individuals are.
This needs work. There isn't a contradiction just a failure to explicate how such a separation could be made. Without such a separation, it does appear some kind of sophistry, that he is discouraging the common man from being educated, merely because he wishes they were more controllable? It might not be controllable per se, but of whatever temperament one is when they lack education- warlike. He seems to prize the soldier more than anyone else on earth, as the ultimate end of all human activity. A view that Foucault has dare I say proven to be ludicrous. It was something like "what an absurdity to look for the deeper meanings of human existence in that muddy puddle on the battlefield" This might also explain why his work and his adversaries are polemical. Yet it is not just Rousseau who takes warriors seriously, it is Plato too who says the first thing needed in a Republic is an army or else you are overtaken by someone else.
Yet to link Rousseau to this seems only happenstance. His is a desire to man to return to their natural way, perhaps Biblically, he is revisiting the Garden of Eden as his inspiration. The curse of knowledge and that snake and what came of it all.
One more interesting view of Rousseau was that 'all people everyone are the same' is a ludicrous view.
If I can return to what I digressed from- on this subject, maybe others spoke- The Picture of Dorian Gray demonstrated a pro-Russeauan view- that art was worthless and morals the ultimate end. And Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil would be not just an antithesis but entirely repulsive work for him (?) Plato- whos Socrates he glorifies, he uses as an example, as Socrates questions the arts for not just being deceivers...
If I really understood him, there are gold nuggets here, but still- a veiling of his meaning that I resent. It can only amount to a cowardice that were his true intention totally revealed, the contradiction behind it would seem aparent- Or worse- he believes in totalitarianism and conservatism that is something like "only the few know" and perhaps "and I am one of them". He would certainly have his detractors there, like Kant- who believed that all moral questions are equally accessible to all of us. Where Rousseau claims that he only wanted to show the trunk so that you could discern the leaves- would Kant reply what I just wrote?
This view then, which praises the masses for their original lack of development- has the goal of elevating only the few who Rousseau sees not as masters of science but masters of power. Indeed it would fit with his idea of merely those who triumph as being morally correct- and perhaps he can be summed up as a vague veiled Thrasymachus?
If not, does his own life lead to transcendentalism as Thoreaus? Does he move to become John Muir? I will have to research more, but if he stays inside and writes books about the glory of returning to a presocietal state, while enjoying all the fruits of society? Isn't he the Socrates that instead escapes with Crito- taking whatever is for his own advantage while saying it his his right to break the rules he agreed to while being in that society?
There seems to be both working at the same time, is my honest opinion. That science improves man's life enables him to be moral. What else can be said of a doctor who uses medicine to cure an otherwise ill or dying man? Would then, this disinterest Rousseau has to the gains of science, be a prejudiced view of the effects of science- something like: 'Well, the doctor doesn't become any more moral by exercising his job duties, nor does the patient improve morally through receiving those benefits.' Even if this was admitted, wouldn't the general pursuit of aiding others, be moral? Maybe for someone as selfish as Rousseau, who differentiates between 'amour propre' and 'amour de soi' this obvious brotherhood of men is what he resents. Yet- he finds the 'savages' the most moral which I consider praiseworthy- in this way he seems related to Voltaire slightly even as Voltaire writes to him 'No one has ever employed so much intellect to persuade men to be beasts. In reading your work one is seized with a desire to walk on all fours [marcher à quatre pattes]. However, as it is more than sixty years since I lost that habit, I feel, unfortunately, that it is impossible for me to resume it.'
Yet conversely, this aversion to science is one that Dostoyevksy agrees with in his work, and maybe was not so poorly placed given the coming of Nietzsche and immoralists who, unlike the respondents of this work, openly reject morality. In this way maybe they are in agreement with Rousseau that morality and science are opposed. And instead just reject morality outright.
Myself, I am either ignorant of the veracity of these points, but if I was forced to voice an opinion, would say that the terms are too general and thus can be both, some and neither depending on the ideology one applies to them, and at what scope or through what lens one is looking for results.
Rosseau's argument his contemporaries miss, is not that bad things happen from science and therefor we should reject it, but that the enterprise of becoming a scientist makes one contemplate things too great for them- and diminishes their courage- while making them seek to trick and abuse their fellow man through all they have learned. To reject him, it's not enough to demonstrate the good of sciences- but to demonstrate their lasting impressions of goodness on the men who they touch....
So... my doctor example- is the doctor more moral, for knowing his craft? Is the chemist- better? I find what is impossible, Rousseau's example of Sparta- a warrior people as if they were the most virtuous people ever, and his response to one of his critiques that the army that sacked Rome was virtuous.
What it amounts to is a peculiar definition of virtue that he has- he doesn't value 'savages' or cultures outside Eurocentricity for their humanity- he values their warlike nature, their common clothes. And when Lecat writes him that to seek virtue we should seek the most commonly dressed knave- he refuses to address angrily to all his examples...
Yet, some of his wordings are sentiments I have had too- that when you criticize the sciences they act like ancient priests of a mythology defending their fiction. His forceful repudiations by his colleagues he takes to demonstrate that they aren't interested in "true' science, but merely a list of jargon that they propagate as if it were true science. To this, I do agree with a bravo. But, not to discourage others from seeking the truth totally.
There is this problem in Rousseau- he admits some figures like Descartes and Newton SHOULD pursue the scientists- and his account isn't so binary but impressionistic. It's akin to saying that 'common man is unfit for the sciences' but a few select individuals are.
This needs work. There isn't a contradiction just a failure to explicate how such a separation could be made. Without such a separation, it does appear some kind of sophistry, that he is discouraging the common man from being educated, merely because he wishes they were more controllable? It might not be controllable per se, but of whatever temperament one is when they lack education- warlike. He seems to prize the soldier more than anyone else on earth, as the ultimate end of all human activity. A view that Foucault has dare I say proven to be ludicrous. It was something like "what an absurdity to look for the deeper meanings of human existence in that muddy puddle on the battlefield" This might also explain why his work and his adversaries are polemical. Yet it is not just Rousseau who takes warriors seriously, it is Plato too who says the first thing needed in a Republic is an army or else you are overtaken by someone else.
Yet to link Rousseau to this seems only happenstance. His is a desire to man to return to their natural way, perhaps Biblically, he is revisiting the Garden of Eden as his inspiration. The curse of knowledge and that snake and what came of it all.
One more interesting view of Rousseau was that 'all people everyone are the same' is a ludicrous view.
If I can return to what I digressed from- on this subject, maybe others spoke- The Picture of Dorian Gray demonstrated a pro-Russeauan view- that art was worthless and morals the ultimate end. And Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil would be not just an antithesis but entirely repulsive work for him (?) Plato- whos Socrates he glorifies, he uses as an example, as Socrates questions the arts for not just being deceivers...
If I really understood him, there are gold nuggets here, but still- a veiling of his meaning that I resent. It can only amount to a cowardice that were his true intention totally revealed, the contradiction behind it would seem aparent- Or worse- he believes in totalitarianism and conservatism that is something like "only the few know" and perhaps "and I am one of them". He would certainly have his detractors there, like Kant- who believed that all moral questions are equally accessible to all of us. Where Rousseau claims that he only wanted to show the trunk so that you could discern the leaves- would Kant reply what I just wrote?
This view then, which praises the masses for their original lack of development- has the goal of elevating only the few who Rousseau sees not as masters of science but masters of power. Indeed it would fit with his idea of merely those who triumph as being morally correct- and perhaps he can be summed up as a vague veiled Thrasymachus?
If not, does his own life lead to transcendentalism as Thoreaus? Does he move to become John Muir? I will have to research more, but if he stays inside and writes books about the glory of returning to a presocietal state, while enjoying all the fruits of society? Isn't he the Socrates that instead escapes with Crito- taking whatever is for his own advantage while saying it his his right to break the rules he agreed to while being in that society?
Read
February 8, 2023boring old man i don’t care he was influential i hated every second of this!
December 30, 2023
Read the discourses during my modern philosophy course. Really enjoyed in particular his discourse on the arts and sciences and the notion that improvement in arts/sciences does not imply a correlated improvement in morality- the two are not linked. “I am not attacking the arts and sciences, rather I am defending virtue.”
Love.
Love.
December 10, 2024
Personally my favorite work by Rousseau that I've read so far. Other works are better for his specific political philosophies, read this if you want to better understand his system of thought.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews