What do you think?
Rate this book
The Essential Rousseau
Unmarked book in good condition for its age. Some shelf wear on the cover and price stamp on inside cover. Ships same or next day! Bin 60
Mass Market Paperback
First published January 1, 1762
2 people are currently reading
138 people want to read
About the author
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
4,719 books2,959 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 - 2 of 2 reviews
February 8, 2022
How long ago did I read Rousseau’s Discourse on the Arts and Sciences? I can’t even remember, but I remember my reaction. I enjoyed it and I thought it was clever, but I never for a moment took it seriously. I never felt I needed to take it seriously to take the second discourse seriously. But I have reconsidered my position, though I wouldn’t really call it a position. I think I was more enamored of the idea of the noble savage than convinced by it.
I can’t blame my younger self for this. She read with the future in mind, not the past. She chose the noble savage over leviathan because of what she wanted human nature to be. This just proves that she was not a very good reader of books, for she mistook the descriptive for the prescriptive and simply chose nobility over slavery.
Nowadays I’m more interested in the past – how we got here rather than where we’re going. Now I think Rousseau’s first discourse needs to be taken more seriously. I couldn’t see it before because I could not bear a world without the arts and sciences, without culture, without sophistication. The noble savage I extolled was a philosophical idea, a subject of intellectual discourse, a product of the imagination. The paradox of extolling an ideal that is the negation of all the things I value, a negation even of the work of literary sophistication that embodies it, was resolved by my not really believing a word of it.
But now I do believe. This time the paradox is resolved by my recognition that the things I value ought not to be so valued. I came to this change of mind as I reflected upon the art and science that I hold most dear: language. When I first read Rousseau attributing moral corruption to the invention of culture, I could not believe it because I thought quite the opposite. Although I knew that sophisticated civilizations gave rise to new vices, I felt certain that the good outweighed the evil. How could art not make people better? How could cultural progress not lead to moral progress?
I knew that the noble savage was happy and robust, a solitary yet compassionate soul. I knew that civilization created political inequality. Still, I couldn’t blame the arts and sciences for that. I couldn’t blame the search for beauty and truth. I couldn’t blame language for the moral corruption that has been eating away at our species for millennia. But now I do.
“ ... the art of writing preceded the art of thinking, an order which may seem strange, but may be all too natural” (207)
Language is the ultimate weapon of moral corruption. The more sophisticated language becomes, the more damage it can do. That is because language is the tool that creates other tools. From language comes a host of abstractions. These abstractions take on the status of real things. Then we become slaves to our own creations.
But do I believe this? I have a room full of books that seem to say otherwise. They are intellectually edifying, emotionally moving, aesthetically pleasing. Reading them, I become a more civilized and sophisticated person, but do I become better?
I can’t blame my younger self for this. She read with the future in mind, not the past. She chose the noble savage over leviathan because of what she wanted human nature to be. This just proves that she was not a very good reader of books, for she mistook the descriptive for the prescriptive and simply chose nobility over slavery.
Nowadays I’m more interested in the past – how we got here rather than where we’re going. Now I think Rousseau’s first discourse needs to be taken more seriously. I couldn’t see it before because I could not bear a world without the arts and sciences, without culture, without sophistication. The noble savage I extolled was a philosophical idea, a subject of intellectual discourse, a product of the imagination. The paradox of extolling an ideal that is the negation of all the things I value, a negation even of the work of literary sophistication that embodies it, was resolved by my not really believing a word of it.
But now I do believe. This time the paradox is resolved by my recognition that the things I value ought not to be so valued. I came to this change of mind as I reflected upon the art and science that I hold most dear: language. When I first read Rousseau attributing moral corruption to the invention of culture, I could not believe it because I thought quite the opposite. Although I knew that sophisticated civilizations gave rise to new vices, I felt certain that the good outweighed the evil. How could art not make people better? How could cultural progress not lead to moral progress?
I knew that the noble savage was happy and robust, a solitary yet compassionate soul. I knew that civilization created political inequality. Still, I couldn’t blame the arts and sciences for that. I couldn’t blame the search for beauty and truth. I couldn’t blame language for the moral corruption that has been eating away at our species for millennia. But now I do.
“ ... the art of writing preceded the art of thinking, an order which may seem strange, but may be all too natural” (207)
Language is the ultimate weapon of moral corruption. The more sophisticated language becomes, the more damage it can do. That is because language is the tool that creates other tools. From language comes a host of abstractions. These abstractions take on the status of real things. Then we become slaves to our own creations.
But do I believe this? I have a room full of books that seem to say otherwise. They are intellectually edifying, emotionally moving, aesthetically pleasing. Reading them, I become a more civilized and sophisticated person, but do I become better?
February 16, 2014
The ideas of art and formal education being detrimental to humanity and our growth as individuals is interesting. I personally disagree, but would need further study to break down each of his precepts.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews