What do you think?
Rate this book
Discourse on the Sciences and the Arts and Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men
Jean Jacques Rousseau’s provocative Discourse on the Sciences and the Arts (1750) launched a vigorous assault on the most cherished beliefs of his age in a passionate indictment of civilized “progress,” which, in Rousseau’s eyes, has led to a debilitating corruption of human nature and morality. Four years later, Rousseau produced another such assault in the Discourse on the Origins and Foundations of Inequality Among Men. A landmark of political thought, this work argues that human beings are by nature free, happy, and independent, but that social institutions and human inventions have corrupted that condition and brought about all human misery.
Many of the details of Rousseau’s account are open to dispute, but the revolutionary impact of the argument is beyond doubt: by insisting that our understanding of modern society must be placed on a historical footing, Rousseau invites us to see social injustice and evil as products of pernicious social institutions—not permanent features of an unsatisfactory or fallen condition. He offers no clear solution to the evils he diagnoses, but the implication of his argument is clear: society’s most serious problems are caused, not by human nature, but by social institutions, especially property; if we wish to address these problems, we must change those institutions.
The unflagging passion, clarity, and rhetorical power of Rousseau’s style have inspired many social reformers and revolutionaries. Even today, his words are still cited by those who wish to challenge just how free and happy our citizens are in a society that prides itself on economic freedoms and the pursuit of happiness.
Many of the details of Rousseau’s account are open to dispute, but the revolutionary impact of the argument is beyond doubt: by insisting that our understanding of modern society must be placed on a historical footing, Rousseau invites us to see social injustice and evil as products of pernicious social institutions—not permanent features of an unsatisfactory or fallen condition. He offers no clear solution to the evils he diagnoses, but the implication of his argument is clear: society’s most serious problems are caused, not by human nature, but by social institutions, especially property; if we wish to address these problems, we must change those institutions.
The unflagging passion, clarity, and rhetorical power of Rousseau’s style have inspired many social reformers and revolutionaries. Even today, his words are still cited by those who wish to challenge just how free and happy our citizens are in a society that prides itself on economic freedoms and the pursuit of happiness.
145 pages, Kindle Edition
First published August 5, 2014
7 people are currently reading
21 people want to read
About the author
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
4,624 books2,895 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 - 3 of 3 reviews
December 4, 2021
We should all be like the Spartans if we want to be good people. Thanks, no thanks
March 28, 2023
very interesting though rousseau is insane and i dont rlly agree with him a lot. makes some compelling points tho and in terms of political and philosophical(ish?) theory he's fun to read. my masochist king
February 22, 2025
In this short and undeveloped Discourse, Rousseau discusses the effect that the sciences and arts have upon society. His first point is to suggest that society is a product of necessity. Kings and queens, rulers and ruled, come about from the satisfaction of want; the arts and sciences, however, appear as a means to make pleasant this new-found system. What springs up is politeness and delicacy, masques which we wear to be pleasant around others-- and, which, incidentally, hide our true (and often vile) feelings or thoughts. The truly virtuous is made hard to find, and, what is more, the true friend is made impossible, as all those human bonds we find for ourselves are fictive and void.
What is most important, behind the masque, is something else. To give a modern example, the act of networking, wherein we find 'friends' who help us along our careers, can easily be viewed from this perspective. These people are obligated--and we are obligated in turn--to be nice and considerate. Whatever our true feelings, the quid pro quo of our exchange isn't completable unless we are Nice.
He discusses innumerable historic examples of the rustic (but virtuous) and the civilized (but vicious) societies and their inevitable collapses.
To Rousseau, luxuries and the development of the arts bring about great tragedy to our virtues. Instead of foregrounding goodness to others, courage, etc., what we see is--instead--the foregrounding of public opinion and opulence. What is the importance (truly) of studies into metaphysics, if we aren't good to others? What is the benefit of opulence if it serves to steal our time--which could be used in doing good? How can it be that "talent" is more important than "virtue", when the one is merely an aptitude and the other morality? But, because society is not predicated upon virtue, and the arts and sciences are a product of social pleasantness, the idea of inevitable 'goodness' in these things do not exist. He suggest it's rather more to the contrary.
Rousseau, however, ends the piece with an indication a) that people aren't generally smart or apt enough to be a Newton (that is: Newton had no teacher, yet he did so much), and b) that there is a possibility of true wise men but they must be put into power. In the Academy, they will be enervated by the social conditions of the Academy. In the Court, provided they are only rewarded with helping others, they will be seen to shine.
To illustrate the point: we have probably all been privy to a person who isn't really interested in moral rectitude. Say, this person is only after self-interest. They think their job is good, because they need the money. They enjoy media, but only because it is a form of escape or pleasure. Maybe (and this is a qualified maybe), they will be compelled to give to charity or to mouth slogans of solidarity. But it is always shut up again and forgot. Here, then, we see that the stripping-down of even the fiction of the 'good' implied in the arts and sciences (in media)--and, what's more, this nudity is never covered up again. (That is to say, there is no good to don.) It has, instead, been replaced with nothing, or--(because nothing cannot exist)--with the recognition that media is entertainment, similar to eating good food or chemical excitation; thus, the point Rousseau makes of it's essentially dissipating quality is vindicated. There is prison in all of this, one which doesn't allow for the mind to broaden or for the heart to be whole, and, as such, the ruination of good friendships and a right understanding of the world is lost. We see nothing but passivity and lack precisely because, as Rousseau points out, these things are functionaries of the dominant order and nothing more.
What is the value of truth? 'Oh, it is only because it is interesting.'
What is most important, behind the masque, is something else. To give a modern example, the act of networking, wherein we find 'friends' who help us along our careers, can easily be viewed from this perspective. These people are obligated--and we are obligated in turn--to be nice and considerate. Whatever our true feelings, the quid pro quo of our exchange isn't completable unless we are Nice.
He discusses innumerable historic examples of the rustic (but virtuous) and the civilized (but vicious) societies and their inevitable collapses.
To Rousseau, luxuries and the development of the arts bring about great tragedy to our virtues. Instead of foregrounding goodness to others, courage, etc., what we see is--instead--the foregrounding of public opinion and opulence. What is the importance (truly) of studies into metaphysics, if we aren't good to others? What is the benefit of opulence if it serves to steal our time--which could be used in doing good? How can it be that "talent" is more important than "virtue", when the one is merely an aptitude and the other morality? But, because society is not predicated upon virtue, and the arts and sciences are a product of social pleasantness, the idea of inevitable 'goodness' in these things do not exist. He suggest it's rather more to the contrary.
Rousseau, however, ends the piece with an indication a) that people aren't generally smart or apt enough to be a Newton (that is: Newton had no teacher, yet he did so much), and b) that there is a possibility of true wise men but they must be put into power. In the Academy, they will be enervated by the social conditions of the Academy. In the Court, provided they are only rewarded with helping others, they will be seen to shine.
To illustrate the point: we have probably all been privy to a person who isn't really interested in moral rectitude. Say, this person is only after self-interest. They think their job is good, because they need the money. They enjoy media, but only because it is a form of escape or pleasure. Maybe (and this is a qualified maybe), they will be compelled to give to charity or to mouth slogans of solidarity. But it is always shut up again and forgot. Here, then, we see that the stripping-down of even the fiction of the 'good' implied in the arts and sciences (in media)--and, what's more, this nudity is never covered up again. (That is to say, there is no good to don.) It has, instead, been replaced with nothing, or--(because nothing cannot exist)--with the recognition that media is entertainment, similar to eating good food or chemical excitation; thus, the point Rousseau makes of it's essentially dissipating quality is vindicated. There is prison in all of this, one which doesn't allow for the mind to broaden or for the heart to be whole, and, as such, the ruination of good friendships and a right understanding of the world is lost. We see nothing but passivity and lack precisely because, as Rousseau points out, these things are functionaries of the dominant order and nothing more.
What is the value of truth? 'Oh, it is only because it is interesting.'
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews