What do you think?
Rate this book
Rousseau: The Discourses and Other Early Political Writings
The work of Jean-Jacques Rousseau one of the world's greatest thinkers is presented in two volumes, which together form the most comprehensive anthology of Rousseau's political writings in English. Here Volume I contains early writings, demonstrating the scope of Rousseau's influence on both the American and French Revolutions.
512 pages, Kindle Edition
First published July 13, 1997
14 people are currently reading
797 people want to read
About the author
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
4,715 books2,957 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 - 17 of 17 reviews
December 5, 2017
Though this book is a collection of diverse early political writings by Rousseau, I want to mainly focus on The Discourses since they make up the vast majority of the book.
In 1750 and 1754, Jean-Jacques Rousseau of Geneva decided to enter into the annual essay contest held by the Academy of Dijon. In both of these contests, the discourses he submitted became extremely popular and controversial and the ideas have influenced generation after generation of thinkers. He would win his first attempt in 1750 answering the question: "Has the restoration of the sciences and arts contributed to the purification of morals?" but would lose in his 1754 essay that responded to the inquiry: "What is the origin of inequality among people, and is it authorized by natural law?" Both of these discourses have had great effect on the way we understand education and politics, respectively. I will try to shortly give my opinion on both, as well as comment on the general format of the book and its editorial layout/decisions.
I read The Discourses out of order, because of school, but I am now glad I did because it works better in a chronological sense. The Second Discourse [On the Origins of Inequality] deals with how civil societiesbecome are unequal and how modern political societies simply perpetuate inequality. Now Rousseau's whole political philosophy goes against the status quo of two of his most famous predecessors on the subject: Thomas Hobbes and John Locke (whose political philosophy I personally prefer). Rousseau argues against the accepted wisdom that Hobbes and Locke advocated, that civil, political society brought order and stability from the chaos and uncertainty of nature. Rousseau famously says that natural man was man at his best and the moment that one man claimed property or possession, this was the beginning of inequality and sorrow for the human race. Savage man was perfection and everything since, imperfection. This is my basic overview of the discourse, but it goes very deep into the topic and is worth the read.
Now though I disagree with the overall thesis, if that was the only discourse I had read by in this book I would give the book 4/5 stars. But I also read the First Discourse which actually won the Academy's essay contest. Now if you understand the what he believes as far as man in his natural state versus man in civil society you will of course know what he does not at all believe: that the enlightenment has boasted morality. In fact, Rousseau believes the opposite, that even in the Classical era, scholarship ruined societies. He gives all of the examples you could think of, from Egypt to Persia to China to Greece to Rome to England. It is heavy on examples and lighter on actual ideas/statements. To make it short, for the most part people who take up or perpetuate the general teaching of the arts and sciences are ruining society and hurting patriotism. "Learned men" should exist, but they should reserve their talents for collaboration with political leaders only and both groups can, in-concert, help society. Had this been the only discourse I had read, the book would have gotten two, maybe three stars.
The two Discourses talk about the same thing, but from two different angles. In both, one group stands out as Rousseau's favorite and as near to perfect state that has existed in recorded history: Sparta. Both Discourses come with replies (usually criticisms) to Rousseau and Rousseau replies in-turn. You can find supplementary notes by Rousseau in the form of footnote and endnotes, but they can be inaccurate/misleading. Rousseau is notorious for not just contradicting himself across different works, but for contradicting himself across a single work. Without the editorial notes in the back of the book I would not have known that Rousseau casually mis-attributes quotations and mis-remembers basic things. The people at Cambridge deserve a medal for having to double-check everything he wrote.
In 1750 and 1754, Jean-Jacques Rousseau of Geneva decided to enter into the annual essay contest held by the Academy of Dijon. In both of these contests, the discourses he submitted became extremely popular and controversial and the ideas have influenced generation after generation of thinkers. He would win his first attempt in 1750 answering the question: "Has the restoration of the sciences and arts contributed to the purification of morals?" but would lose in his 1754 essay that responded to the inquiry: "What is the origin of inequality among people, and is it authorized by natural law?" Both of these discourses have had great effect on the way we understand education and politics, respectively. I will try to shortly give my opinion on both, as well as comment on the general format of the book and its editorial layout/decisions.
I read The Discourses out of order, because of school, but I am now glad I did because it works better in a chronological sense. The Second Discourse [On the Origins of Inequality] deals with how civil societies
Now though I disagree with the overall thesis, if that was the only discourse I had read by in this book I would give the book 4/5 stars. But I also read the First Discourse which actually won the Academy's essay contest. Now if you understand the what he believes as far as man in his natural state versus man in civil society you will of course know what he does not at all believe: that the enlightenment has boasted morality. In fact, Rousseau believes the opposite, that even in the Classical era, scholarship ruined societies. He gives all of the examples you could think of, from Egypt to Persia to China to Greece to Rome to England. It is heavy on examples and lighter on actual ideas/statements. To make it short, for the most part people who take up or perpetuate the general teaching of the arts and sciences are ruining society and hurting patriotism. "Learned men" should exist, but they should reserve their talents for collaboration with political leaders only and both groups can, in-concert, help society. Had this been the only discourse I had read, the book would have gotten two, maybe three stars.
The two Discourses talk about the same thing, but from two different angles. In both, one group stands out as Rousseau's favorite and as near to perfect state that has existed in recorded history: Sparta. Both Discourses come with replies (usually criticisms) to Rousseau and Rousseau replies in-turn. You can find supplementary notes by Rousseau in the form of footnote and endnotes, but they can be inaccurate/misleading. Rousseau is notorious for not just contradicting himself across different works, but for contradicting himself across a single work. Without the editorial notes in the back of the book I would not have known that Rousseau casually mis-attributes quotations and mis-remembers basic things. The people at Cambridge deserve a medal for having to double-check everything he wrote.
June 15, 2020
It has been a few years since i last read Rousseau, and through my further reading and musing about politics, i've come to appreciate his work a lot more. I think at the heart of Rousseau's writings is a question of the possible in political affairs. Looking at his surroundings, his intellectual climate, he was confronted with the issue: what is the foundation of the corruption of people and societies? At the time the prominent voices famously posited that people are by nature Prideful, Churlish, Greedy and Selfish; that if we stripped away the state, people would live in a state of unending conflict with each other over power and protection. From this logic, it is only natural (and, in fact, possible) that government be legitimised on the basis of these negative characteristics which have been inherent to all of human life. The only interest that such imperfect creatures can have in common is a certain self interest in their own life: self-preservation. Such is Hobbes' argument (basically, though there is certainly more to it), and it is from this argument that Rousseau situates his response.
Rousseau agrees with Hobbes' assessment of the character of people, though he doesn't believe that such flaws are due to human nature but rather the many influences of society. Such is the content of his first two dialogues, demonstrating how the arts and sciences, and society itself, corrupts the moral character of people. The second dialogue is the most interesting in this regard, as it introduces two key concepts central to Rousseau's philosophy: Amour Propre and Amour de soi-meme. Rousseau often gets flack (even from authors who should know better) for the historical inaccuracy of his State of Nature, of his portrayal of the "noble savage", as if his account is meant to represent an anthropological account. Rousseau himself states that we should "begin by dispensing with the facts" and that "hypothetical and conditional reasons" are "more suitable for illuminating the natureof things than for showing the true origin". Rather, the state of nature which Rousseau describes is used to demonstrate many of his ideas: the demonstration of how societal association corrupts Amour de soi-meme and produces Amour Propre, how the formation of government benefits the powerful and not the weak, how such a restrictive view such as Hobbes' ignores a central human characteristic of Pity (empathy), and how Locke's account of property is incorrect. It is a study of Human nature and society, not a historical account.
Rousseau was very much influenced by the classical conception of government that you see in Aristotle: namely, that there are perfect forms of government and their degraded counterpart. What distinguished these different states of government is simply: does the government rule in interests of all the people, or in its own self interest? such it is that the corrupting essence of all government is that very concept of self-interest. This spurs his attack of Hobbes: If government is founded on nothing but the self-interest of others, is it not from its very inception corrupted? Certainly this consideration is all the more interesting when thinking of modern political-economy and neoliberal ideology. The motivation to find a way of founding government on the interest of all, and minimising self interest, would play a role in his later writings (in the form of the General and Particular Will). This i what i mean by the question of the "possible" in politics: If we constrain ourselves to the narrow account of Hobbes, then there really isn't much that is possible in Politics; if, however, we understand that these defects aren't intrinsic to our nature, then perhaps a brighter future can be reached. Of course, Rousseau notes that such a corruption of our character isn't something that can be completely undone: after all, as long as there is property, society, interpersonal relations, there will always be comparison, concepts of mine and thine, hierarchies, which foster animosity between us and cause us to consider ourselves in relation to others. Even still, it leaves open more options than the pessimists of Human Nature.
Rousseau agrees with Hobbes' assessment of the character of people, though he doesn't believe that such flaws are due to human nature but rather the many influences of society. Such is the content of his first two dialogues, demonstrating how the arts and sciences, and society itself, corrupts the moral character of people. The second dialogue is the most interesting in this regard, as it introduces two key concepts central to Rousseau's philosophy: Amour Propre and Amour de soi-meme. Rousseau often gets flack (even from authors who should know better) for the historical inaccuracy of his State of Nature, of his portrayal of the "noble savage", as if his account is meant to represent an anthropological account. Rousseau himself states that we should "begin by dispensing with the facts" and that "hypothetical and conditional reasons" are "more suitable for illuminating the natureof things than for showing the true origin". Rather, the state of nature which Rousseau describes is used to demonstrate many of his ideas: the demonstration of how societal association corrupts Amour de soi-meme and produces Amour Propre, how the formation of government benefits the powerful and not the weak, how such a restrictive view such as Hobbes' ignores a central human characteristic of Pity (empathy), and how Locke's account of property is incorrect. It is a study of Human nature and society, not a historical account.
Rousseau was very much influenced by the classical conception of government that you see in Aristotle: namely, that there are perfect forms of government and their degraded counterpart. What distinguished these different states of government is simply: does the government rule in interests of all the people, or in its own self interest? such it is that the corrupting essence of all government is that very concept of self-interest. This spurs his attack of Hobbes: If government is founded on nothing but the self-interest of others, is it not from its very inception corrupted? Certainly this consideration is all the more interesting when thinking of modern political-economy and neoliberal ideology. The motivation to find a way of founding government on the interest of all, and minimising self interest, would play a role in his later writings (in the form of the General and Particular Will). This i what i mean by the question of the "possible" in politics: If we constrain ourselves to the narrow account of Hobbes, then there really isn't much that is possible in Politics; if, however, we understand that these defects aren't intrinsic to our nature, then perhaps a brighter future can be reached. Of course, Rousseau notes that such a corruption of our character isn't something that can be completely undone: after all, as long as there is property, society, interpersonal relations, there will always be comparison, concepts of mine and thine, hierarchies, which foster animosity between us and cause us to consider ourselves in relation to others. Even still, it leaves open more options than the pessimists of Human Nature.
June 22, 2012
This is a superb collection of Rousseau's early political writings. The focus is of course on the two Discourses of the title, the Discourse on the Sciences and the Arts or First Discourse and the Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality or Second Discourse. What makes this the best edition of those two seminal texts is the inclusion of Rousseau's various replies to critics of the First Discourse. These replies were quite significant in helping Rousseau clarify and elaborate his thinking. The preface to his play Narcisse is especially important as it portends the direction his thought would take in the Second Discourse. Gourevitch also includes two replies to critics of the latter; the reason there are no more is that Rousseau chose the second time around not to engage in a public debate.
The volume is rounded out with several lesser known works. I hesitate to describe them as "minor" as they are all crucial in one way or another to taking a fuller sounding of Rousseau's political doctrines. These include his "Letter to Voltaire," in which Rousseau defends a position of philosophical optimism in the wake of the great Lisbon earthquake; the Essay on the Origin of Languages; and the "Discourse on Heroic Virtue." The inclusion of these works makes this volume of great use to anyone interested in Rousseau, eighteenth-century intellectual history, and early modern political thought.
Gourevitch's translations and editorial work are excellent here just as they are in the companion volume. Together, they are likely the best compendium of Rousseau's political writings in English. It is unlikely they will be surpassed any time soon.
The volume is rounded out with several lesser known works. I hesitate to describe them as "minor" as they are all crucial in one way or another to taking a fuller sounding of Rousseau's political doctrines. These include his "Letter to Voltaire," in which Rousseau defends a position of philosophical optimism in the wake of the great Lisbon earthquake; the Essay on the Origin of Languages; and the "Discourse on Heroic Virtue." The inclusion of these works makes this volume of great use to anyone interested in Rousseau, eighteenth-century intellectual history, and early modern political thought.
Gourevitch's translations and editorial work are excellent here just as they are in the companion volume. Together, they are likely the best compendium of Rousseau's political writings in English. It is unlikely they will be surpassed any time soon.
December 11, 2007
It's a travesty to read The Social Contract without haivng read the Second Discourse. That's all there is to it. Take care of that immediately.
August 23, 2013
The paragon of insight, style, wit. I am under his spell. Also superb edition
February 26, 2019
Will definitely be reading this again outside of a class context.
Rousseau's idea that inequality stems from the fact that we are too far removed from our primitive state thanks to the luxuries/conveniences that progress has given us along with a shift in focus on the talents/traits others have rather than ourselves and our own basic necessities is pretty radical (but I suppose that's what he's known for!). It's definitely something I'd like to respond to when I have more time to look into these arguments without a reading schedule for them!
Rousseau's idea that inequality stems from the fact that we are too far removed from our primitive state thanks to the luxuries/conveniences that progress has given us along with a shift in focus on the talents/traits others have rather than ourselves and our own basic necessities is pretty radical (but I suppose that's what he's known for!). It's definitely something I'd like to respond to when I have more time to look into these arguments without a reading schedule for them!
May 1, 2021
I read the Introduction, Preface to the Discourses, First Discourse, Second Discourse, and the Letter to Voltaire. The rest I didn't read because I'm not trying to be a Rousseau scholar.
'Twas a good read. The discourses weren't as fun to read as The Social Contract but they're essential. The Letter to Voltaire's discussion on religion was pretty great.
'Twas a good read. The discourses weren't as fun to read as The Social Contract but they're essential. The Letter to Voltaire's discussion on religion was pretty great.
November 14, 2018
honestly i found the discourses (specifically the second) much better than the social contract
April 19, 2021
Often very witty, sometimes wrong but in thought-provoking ways. Worth reading again. This edition has a thorough set of notes.
October 26, 2024
There is a lot of interesting content in this collection, but for this review, I will mostly focus on the famous two discourses (On the Arts and Inequality).
Like many famous thinkers, Rousseau tends to have a reputation that precedes them and colors a lot of readings of their work. In the case of Rousseau, he tends to be painted as a very naive thinker, one that is fond of 'the primitive'. After consulting these works, I think that the picture (while there is a small grain of truth to it in parts) is a gross mischaracterization that misses the 'radical bourgeois' subtext present in the Discourses. I am no expert on Rousseau, so much of my interpretation comes from having read these texts firsthand and knowing a little of their historical context due to the fantastic introductory essay by Gourvitvh helped.
In the case of the Discourse on the Arts, I have seen many claim that this is where a lot of Rousseau's primitivism shines the most. However, I would strongly contend that is indicative of Rousseau's attacks on political absolutism as present in France and the relationship between its aesthetic culture and the then-extant organization of the state. For example Rousseau, using flowery prose exclaims "The mind has its needs, just as the body does. The latter are the
foundations of society; from the former emerge the pleasures of
society. While government and laws take care of the security
and the well-being of men in groups, the sciences, letters, and
the arts, less despotic and perhaps more powerful, spread
garlands of flowers over the iron chains which weigh men
down, snuffing out in them the feeling of that original liberty for
which they appear to have been born, and make them love their
slavery by turning them into what are called civilized people." (6)
The important relationship between political power and knowledge production is not lost on the author and he presses the point home, arguing furthermore that in this type of society there is a tendency for people conditioned to follow single individuals, e.g. the monarch, there is also a tendency to abdicate one's own initiative and intellectual faculties to 'thought leaders'. This is argued to corrupt the fabric of civil society and to weaken any emancipatory impulse among the population that has given up its own capacity to think. Needless to say this is a very prescient observation given the pervasive nature of advertising, influencer-celebrities, etc. in our own culture.
Rousseau is less of a primitivist than a modern Lycurgus, the legendary king of sparta, who emphasized the importance of ascetic virtues for the sake of the collective good of a prospective regime. In the spirit of many early protestant industrialists who gave up worldly pleasures to accumulate wealth, Rousseau claims that the limitation of the influence of the arts and sciences on the general population will enable them to connect on a deeper level to their society and 'fatherland'. It is argued that since science and art at this time were individualistic pursuits open only to men of great material and intellectual means, furthering the knowledge of mankind should be the duty of the Newtons of the world. I disagree with Rousseau given our modern circumstances where knowledge production is a socialized process (the Academic-Industrial Complex), but he is wrong in a thought-provoking way. It is concluded that the development of the arts and sciences is no good in and of itself, it depends on the surrounding social context (in our modern age, science and art done primarily for profit as opposed to science and art done for 'higher ideals').
Similarly, the Discourse of Inequality. In the historical context of the piece, it is quite clear that when Rousseau refers to the inequality by convention, he is mostly using it to attack the practices of the aristocracy in France which kept the peasants poor and miserable. Rousseau argues that as social practices of humans change over time, there is an interruption the 'normal process' of the reproduction of nature as a power above humans that maintains a degree of proximity and reciprocity with it (e.g. humans do not need to labor, much less labor together, to wrestle subsistence from nature, and instead take what they need from nature and each other, association is completely voluntary). Rousseau claims that changes in the climate (among other things) force people together and there arises the need for new practices that abstract the relationships of immediacy that characterized pre-social humanity and nature, human interaction is used as a form of mediation for the once 'free' human relationships. This abstraction could be used to herd people together (which would mean they would 'fall' from the previously unencumbered state they existed in in nature). However, by the same token, the abstractions of language allow humans to come up with new ideas like "freedom".
There are a lot of things I do not agree with in these texts, but I think that they offer us a very interesting way to look at contemporary human problems. Overall, I think this book is good, the translations are pretty good, lots to think over.
Like many famous thinkers, Rousseau tends to have a reputation that precedes them and colors a lot of readings of their work. In the case of Rousseau, he tends to be painted as a very naive thinker, one that is fond of 'the primitive'. After consulting these works, I think that the picture (while there is a small grain of truth to it in parts) is a gross mischaracterization that misses the 'radical bourgeois' subtext present in the Discourses. I am no expert on Rousseau, so much of my interpretation comes from having read these texts firsthand and knowing a little of their historical context due to the fantastic introductory essay by Gourvitvh helped.
In the case of the Discourse on the Arts, I have seen many claim that this is where a lot of Rousseau's primitivism shines the most. However, I would strongly contend that is indicative of Rousseau's attacks on political absolutism as present in France and the relationship between its aesthetic culture and the then-extant organization of the state. For example Rousseau, using flowery prose exclaims "The mind has its needs, just as the body does. The latter are the
foundations of society; from the former emerge the pleasures of
society. While government and laws take care of the security
and the well-being of men in groups, the sciences, letters, and
the arts, less despotic and perhaps more powerful, spread
garlands of flowers over the iron chains which weigh men
down, snuffing out in them the feeling of that original liberty for
which they appear to have been born, and make them love their
slavery by turning them into what are called civilized people." (6)
The important relationship between political power and knowledge production is not lost on the author and he presses the point home, arguing furthermore that in this type of society there is a tendency for people conditioned to follow single individuals, e.g. the monarch, there is also a tendency to abdicate one's own initiative and intellectual faculties to 'thought leaders'. This is argued to corrupt the fabric of civil society and to weaken any emancipatory impulse among the population that has given up its own capacity to think. Needless to say this is a very prescient observation given the pervasive nature of advertising, influencer-celebrities, etc. in our own culture.
Rousseau is less of a primitivist than a modern Lycurgus, the legendary king of sparta, who emphasized the importance of ascetic virtues for the sake of the collective good of a prospective regime. In the spirit of many early protestant industrialists who gave up worldly pleasures to accumulate wealth, Rousseau claims that the limitation of the influence of the arts and sciences on the general population will enable them to connect on a deeper level to their society and 'fatherland'. It is argued that since science and art at this time were individualistic pursuits open only to men of great material and intellectual means, furthering the knowledge of mankind should be the duty of the Newtons of the world. I disagree with Rousseau given our modern circumstances where knowledge production is a socialized process (the Academic-Industrial Complex), but he is wrong in a thought-provoking way. It is concluded that the development of the arts and sciences is no good in and of itself, it depends on the surrounding social context (in our modern age, science and art done primarily for profit as opposed to science and art done for 'higher ideals').
Similarly, the Discourse of Inequality. In the historical context of the piece, it is quite clear that when Rousseau refers to the inequality by convention, he is mostly using it to attack the practices of the aristocracy in France which kept the peasants poor and miserable. Rousseau argues that as social practices of humans change over time, there is an interruption the 'normal process' of the reproduction of nature as a power above humans that maintains a degree of proximity and reciprocity with it (e.g. humans do not need to labor, much less labor together, to wrestle subsistence from nature, and instead take what they need from nature and each other, association is completely voluntary). Rousseau claims that changes in the climate (among other things) force people together and there arises the need for new practices that abstract the relationships of immediacy that characterized pre-social humanity and nature, human interaction is used as a form of mediation for the once 'free' human relationships. This abstraction could be used to herd people together (which would mean they would 'fall' from the previously unencumbered state they existed in in nature). However, by the same token, the abstractions of language allow humans to come up with new ideas like "freedom".
There are a lot of things I do not agree with in these texts, but I think that they offer us a very interesting way to look at contemporary human problems. Overall, I think this book is good, the translations are pretty good, lots to think over.
September 29, 2024
I only read both parts of the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality.
This dudes such a doofus it’s crazy. The grass is always greener type shit. Like yeah man, pointless email jobs suck. But do you know what sucks more? Dying in childbirth. Get over yourself.
This dudes such a doofus it’s crazy. The grass is always greener type shit. Like yeah man, pointless email jobs suck. But do you know what sucks more? Dying in childbirth. Get over yourself.
April 3, 2020
General will still seems very hand-wavy; tyranny of majority
December 6, 2021
Superb!
November 16, 2023
I think theoretically, the Second Discourse is more important than The Social Contract.
November 27, 2024
Yeah fuck this guy he’s too smart
June 1, 2025
-1 star because how are you gonna have a mommy fetish and simultaneously be a misogynist
April 11, 2012
Not the easiest read in the world, but I learned a lot about Rousseau's political philosophy.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews