What do you think?
Rate this book
On the Social Contract: with Geneva Manuscript and Political Economy
Complete with interpretive and biographical information and clarificaion on many previously obscure references in the text, this critical edition of Rousseau's On the Social Contract also contains translations of Political Economy and the Geneva Manuscript.
256 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1762
3 people are currently reading
136 people want to read
About the author
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
4,724 books2,979 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 - 4 of 4 reviews
December 12, 2018
I just feel dumb after reading this. I think I need "Rousseau for Dummies" or something. My attention span struggled through the whole of the book. So...I need to find a cliff notes version because I don't know what I just finished reading...unfortunately.
December 28, 2013
Churchill has been quoted as saying that if you’re not a liberal at 20, you have no heart and if you’re not a conservative at 40, you have no brains. Rousseau seems to go through a similar transition. The rebellious love of the noble savage seen in his Discourse on the Arts and Sciences and Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality fades between their publication in early 1750 and the publication of The Social Contract in 1762. His expressions of unconditional love morph into an examination of the practical limits of freedom in society. It’s a more mature work. More thoughtful. But, as with all compromises, it loses some of its soul.
Rousseau has often been contrasted to Hobbes in their views of man in the state of nature. Hobbes with his brutal vision of man without law versus Rousseau with his idyllic, pastoral vision. But they are not so far apart in The Social Contract. Rousseau sounds totalitarian at times. The civil state becomes the ultimate expression of a collective human endeavor. A leviathan of his own making subject to the amorphous general will of the people. A beast which consumes all things for its nourishment, even faith.
The social contract undercuts any real value for individual freedom. It is traded, in a collection of compromises, for unity. Maybe it’s because Rousseau had such contempt for his own times that he saw the compromises in his social contract to be simply the lesser of two evils.
In the context of creating a more practical society, the passionate idealism of his earlier works seems like naïve idealism now. His inconsistencies and fluid values undermine the structure of his attempt at creating government. Rousseau is best as the voice in the corner. The guy calling out those who have lost their way rather than trying to lead.
But one should not be dismissive of Rousseau’s attempt. In the Introduction, someone (the editor maybe?) gives a fantastic admonishment when reading the Western canon:
_______________________________________________
This doesn’t fit in anywhere in my review above, but I loved this passage. Sometimes our idealization of humility needs to be put in check.
Rousseau has often been contrasted to Hobbes in their views of man in the state of nature. Hobbes with his brutal vision of man without law versus Rousseau with his idyllic, pastoral vision. But they are not so far apart in The Social Contract. Rousseau sounds totalitarian at times. The civil state becomes the ultimate expression of a collective human endeavor. A leviathan of his own making subject to the amorphous general will of the people. A beast which consumes all things for its nourishment, even faith.
Of all the Christian authors, the philosopher Hobbes is the only one who correctly saw the evil and the remedy, who dared to propose the reunification of the two heads of the eagle… Book 4, Chap. VIII, pg. 127.The State requires allegiance beyond mere submission. It needs to be a moral force for righteousness.
The social contract undercuts any real value for individual freedom. It is traded, in a collection of compromises, for unity. Maybe it’s because Rousseau had such contempt for his own times that he saw the compromises in his social contract to be simply the lesser of two evils.
As for you, modern peoples, you have no slaves, but you are slaves. You pay for their freedom with your own. You boast of that preference in vain; I find it more cowardly than humane. Book 3, Chap. XV, pg. 103.Rousseau quests for a forum in which a society of equals makes informed decisions in trading their freedoms for specific, defined benefits. A system best designed for small collectives in which the voice of each member retains the most possible weight.
In the context of creating a more practical society, the passionate idealism of his earlier works seems like naïve idealism now. His inconsistencies and fluid values undermine the structure of his attempt at creating government. Rousseau is best as the voice in the corner. The guy calling out those who have lost their way rather than trying to lead.
But one should not be dismissive of Rousseau’s attempt. In the Introduction, someone (the editor maybe?) gives a fantastic admonishment when reading the Western canon:
The deference to the “great books” does not require that we be servile. It only obliges us to admit that those few authors who are read century after century were probably smarter than we are- and hence that hasty or superficial criticism reflects on us not them. Introduction, pg. 34.So remember, even though we can use smug cynicism to disregard his creation, Rousseau is still smarter than most of us.
_______________________________________________
This doesn’t fit in anywhere in my review above, but I loved this passage. Sometimes our idealization of humility needs to be put in check.
The oath taken by the soldiers of Fabius was a fine one to my mind. They did not swear to die or to win; they swore to return as victors, and they kept their promise. Christians would never have made such a promise; they would have believed they were tempting God. Book 4, Chap. VIII, pg. 129.
March 22, 2025
haha get fucked thomas hobbes
January 16, 2015
GREAAAAAAAAT book
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews