Customer Reviews (2)

A very revealing autobiography!
This is a long autobiography, but well worth the effort to read.There is a reason why it is one of the most widely read autobiographies ever written, and apparently, it was George Elliot's favourite book.Since I am a very huge fan of George Elliot, this was enough to get me to read the book.The book is set up in two parts.Part 1 deals with Rousseau's life up until he was about 30 years of age.Not only is Rousseau a good writer, he has a very sly wit that keeps cropping up in these pages.You have to read carefully to catch his wit because it is so understated.The book is a really good picture of the people that lived during Mr. Rousseau's lifetime.(1712-1778).He holds nothing back when he describes what these people did and how they lived.The book is very sensual, if not licentious, and Rousseau holds nothing back.It is truly an intimate look at Rousseau and the many people that he came in contact with during his lifetime. We get a first-hand and very intimate at him - his life, his loves, his sins, his friendships, his enemies and his many hardships.A truly great man, and a truly great autobiography

The contemptible genius
Rousseau was a great genius, and one element of that genius is present in this work. He seems to be more honest in confessing his faults and sins, more relentlessly petty in finding faults in himself than anyone had ever been before. He concentrates on himself without that dimension of connection to higher questions and realities that Augustine has. He also reveals himself to be in many incidents most especially in relation to the mother of his children and his children a quite contemptible human being. For me the most memorable incident in the Confessions is when Rousseau wagers with himself and wins the wager not by throwing the rock at the tree from the distance as he was originally to test himself by doing, but rather by going up to the tree and making sure he does not miss. The Rousseauian wager that is one conducted in fundamental dishonesty with a goal of pettily promoting one's own self- interest. And this is the writer who most historians believe did more than anyone else to bring about the French Revolution. ... Read more

Book Description
Jean-Jacques Rousseau's ideas about society, culture, and government are pivotal in the history of political thought. His works are as controversial as they are relevant today. This volume brings together three of Rousseau's most important political writings-The Social Contract and The First Discourse (Discourse on the Sciences and Arts) and The Second Discourse (Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality)-and presents essays by major scholars that shed light on the dimensions and implications of these texts. Susan Dunn's introductory essay underlines the unity of Rousseau's political thought and explains why his ideas influenced Jacobin revolutionaries in France but repelled American revolutionaries across the ocean. Gita May's essay discusses Rousseau as cultural critic. Robert N. Bellah explores Rousseau's attempt to resolve the tension between the individual's desire for freedom and the obligations that society imposes. David Bromwich analyzes Rousseau as a psychologist of the human self. And Conor Cruise O'Brien takes on the "noxious," "deranged" Rousseau, excoriated by Edmund Burke but admired by Robespierre and Thomas Jefferson. Written from different, even opposing perspectives, these lucid essays convey a sense of the vital and contentious debate surrounding Rousseau and his legacy.For this edition Susan Dunn has provided a new translation of the Discourse on the Sciences and Arts and has revised a previously published translation of The Social Contract. ... Read more

Product Description
Translated by Barbara Foxley ... Read more

Book Description
'No one can write a man's life except himself.' In his Confessions Jean-Jacques Rousseau tells the story of his life, from the formative experience of his humble childhood in Geneva, through the achievement of international fame as novelist and philosopher in Paris, to his wanderings as an exile, persecuted by governments and alienated from the world of modern civilization.In trying to explain who he was and how he came to be the object of others' admiration and abuse, Rousseau analyses with unique insight the relationship between an elusive but essential inner self and the variety of social identities he was led to adopt.The book vividly illustrates the mixture of moods and motives that underlie the writing of autobiography: defiance and vulnerability, self-exploration and denial, passion, puzzlement, and detachment.Above all, Confessions is Rousseau's search, through every resource of language, to convey what he despairs of putting into words: the personal quality of one's own existence.Download Description
An autobiography of tortured honesty that set the stage for Romanticism and revolution. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (15)

It is a work of a genius!!!
There will never be another Jean-Jacques Rousseau and since he lived in a period without radio and television, he is talking to us through his books. While being hailed as one of the intellectual fathers of modern democracy, Rousseau also has a very interesting personality.

I highly recommend Confessions, many lovely short stories are so vivid that a reader almost feels being there with Rousseau.

A classic autobiography
Prior to the appearance of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's 'Confessions,' there existed very few real autobiographies.The few that did exist were like St. Augustine's 'Confessions,' designed to impart a religious or moral lesson instead of to exhibit or try to justify one's life.By the time Rousseau came along, however, people had begun to see themselves as individuals, not members of a society governed based on religious or monarchical precepts.So though writing one's autobiography may be old hat now, this was a revolutionary thing in the 18th century.This autobiography is also special in that Jean-Jacques reveals himself warts and all.He doesn't gloss over faults or embarrassing incidents; he exhibits all of himself, both the good and the bad.

This book was highly recommended by the wonderful History of the Enlightenment professor I had my senior year of college, and I was thrilled to find a copy (for only 50 cents!) about 5 years later.I'd been eager to read it based on the professor's lurid descriptions of it.He told us that, among other things, Rousseau revealed that he liked to be spanked, he described his sex life, and he had a very interesting problem centered in his midsection, manifested in how he had urinary problems that always seemed to crop up whenever he was about to be integrated into society, such as one time when he was going to be given some money by the king to further his writing, but his problem struck, and he excused himself and went out into the hall, where he ended up urinating on the floor, unable to hold himself, and was laughed at by the servant-women.I was kind of disappointed that the book didn't turn out as spicy as my professor had made it out to be, but I still loved every moment of it just the same.My professor's teasers of what the book contains were just the tip of the iceberg.Among many other fascinating stories and tidbits, we also learn about such things as his extreme shyness with women he was attracted to, how he was a late bloomer who didn't lose his virginity till he was in his early twenties, how several of the women he was attracted to and had relationships with were older women (among them his first lover, Mme. de Warens, who was far more than just a lover but also his teacher, his mentor, and his patron), how he was beaten horribly by the man he was apprenticed to in Geneva as a teenager, the real story behind why he gave all 5 of his kids away to foundling hospitals, the increasing persecutions and exiles he endured, how he engaged in self-gratification, and how, as a young man, he had advances made to him by two other men (one of them a priest).Although one wonders how much paranoia might have played into these growing conspiracies against him he laments.While there is ample evidence that a number of his former friends turned against him (to say nothing of how he was thrown out of a lot of places he tried to find refuge in after 'The Social Contract' and 'Émile' were banned), it also seems kind of weird that so many people would form all of these vast far-reaching conspiracies against him out of nowhere.Still, Jean-Jacques comes across as such an interesting likeable person, whom just about anyone can relate to, that this obsession with these alleged conspiracies can be overlooked.One wishes that the book covered his whole life and not just from 1712 to 1765, since he's just such an interesting character!

My translation is the one by J.M. Cohen, which is over 50 years old now, but gets the job done in spite of a few dated spots.The basic story remains the same in spite of some dated phrases and language (e.g., does anyone under the age of 100 still use diminutive words like "authoress" or "patroness" anymore?).I also wish there had been an index, particularly since what with so many people coming and going in Jean-Jacques's life (he knew so many famous and prominent people in Enlightenment Europe!), it can be kind of hard to keep track of just who's whom.Still, minor quibbles aside, he was a truly fascinating person, and this classic work of autobiography and the Enlightenment is not to be missed.

'Feelings can only be described in terms of their effects'
My feelings when reading this unusual autobiography was one of identification with the writer - I suspect that there are behavioural and biological reasons for this, not ones that can be explained by psychology. The effect on me of the feelings Rousseau generated are indeed strange. I have immense sympathy with the man and yet I have a total lack of understanding of how he could give up his five children shortly after their births - and impose that on his partner too! He certainly fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for me. (Unless, of course, there simply weren't any children but he was unable to confess to that!)

I also felt (feelings again!) that at times Rousseau was quite paranoid. Repeatedly the disasters he presaged were less troubling than I had feared. Over and over we come across what he describes as some of his best times of life. He did have a remarkable way of holding on to the light, even when regrets and threats existed, which tended to lighten some of the darkest times.

His love of women was truly extraordinary - perhaps it was generated by his own childhood experience of being propositioned by a man; perhaps not. It was certainly love - if we believe these are true confessions - and not lust, despite what was going on in the French high society he hovered around.

Perhaps the most interesting thing for me is that a very gifted philosopher can be wracked by self doubts and uncertainties.

Other recommendations:
'Diaries' - Alma Schindler (Mahler-Werfel)
'Memoirs' - Hector Berlioz
'Memoirs of a Revolutionist' - Peter Kroptkin
'Memoirs of the Author of a Vindication of the Rights of Woman' - William Godwin

How to understand your life-- the best autobiography ever written
Maybe you read Rousseau in college and your teacher mentioned EMILE.If you were lucky, he or she mentioned this, perhaps the greatest autobiography ever written.I read it when I was in my early twenties;it helped me to understand my feelings of loneliness, helplessness, and alienation.Years later, when I went to work for a large corporation, we had weekly meetings nominally about legal and regulatory issues, but the real "issues" on the participants' minds were the things they were talking about with each other before and after the meetings.I started reading excerpts from this book at our meetings.Everyone wanted to know what I was reading from.This was way before "book groups" became fashionable.

Rousseau was one of the most influential philosophers of the "Enlightenment", but he was also a humanitarian in the sense that he always looked for the good in others.Sometimes he found it.You will feel this when reading this wonderful book.My copy from thirty years ago has my handwritten notes in the back that I have trouble reading now,
but I know what the notes refer to, still recall the feelings I had when I made those notes, and remember how I wondered if I would ever understand how to live my life, how to relate to friends and family, how to figure out what is going on, most importantly how to deal with feelings. This book will not give you the answers, but it will give you the reassurance that your wonder and bewilderment are normal for thinking, sensitive persons.And that helps a lot. All this from one of the greatest literary artists since Plato.

You will want to read passages to your friends.Just as I did all those years ago. And compared to some celebrated "coming of age" novels, this is
the "Holy Bible".

The authenticity of a personal fiction
In his essay "On Rhetoric", Stanley Corngold addresses the rhetorical signs of autobiographical elements, and the use of language to create disruption, confusion, clarity or a sense of authenticity in the text, whether or not it actually is autobiographical or "a fictive chronicle of memory". Written elements of fiction can still function as an authentically constructed memory, and here Corngold makes a distinction between the lie and the fiction; an all important distinction for reading autobiographies like Rousseau's The Confessions. Figurative writing that refers to certain authentic emotions or personal imaginations of the writer, is considered fiction, whereas the conscious addition of a written element that does not belong to the memory or experiences of the author, is a lie.
Corngold considers the imagination to be superior over fulfillment. However, when a text is confessional in nature, the justification of the own identity and self by showcasing its sincerity and integrity, and thus its contrast to the imagination, is at stake. Corngold states that the rhetoric as Rousseau uses it in his Confessions, promises a truthful description of emotions. Corngold points out that abstractions like emotions and sensations are impossible to accurately describe in words, especially when one considers the possibility of the narrator's own memory deceiving him. He discusses the Rousseau's intent when he wrote his autobiography, and concludes that the question of whether this was a cognitive or confessional intent is problematic but can be analyzed by studying Rousseau's use of rhetoric.

Rousseau focuses mainly on his memories of moods in his autobiography The Confessions. One of the defining personal aspects that guide him in this is a sense of self-loss, and Rousseau seems to attempt to find and present himself by as accurately and truthful as possible describing his past actions and the sensation that caused and were caused by them.
An air of a self-indulgent narcissitic, yet apologetic and insecure personality surrounds Rousseau's autobiography, but nevertheless it is this underlying sense of this personality that the reader gets from this work that may very well be the most truthful autobiographical element of The Confessions.
Rousseau makes a distinction between his moods at the time of writing his autobiography and the past emotions he describes in his work, but doesn't openly acknowledge the likely possibility of the present mood influencing the memory of past sensations. However, I do value Rousseau's autobiography as authentic, as the emotions that he describes in his work were indeed descriptive of the sensations he must have felt while writing down his memories. In this regard, I think that the authenticity I perceive in Rousseau's work may not be the authenticity he intended to be perceived by a reader. In my opinion, it is impossible to narrate one's memories and past emotions as they actually were, without any influence of the present perceptions and moods of the narrator, and without taking into account that moods and moments sometimes last only seconds. However, I do agree with Corngold when it comes to prioritizing the imagination over the actual fulfillment and am convinced that Rousseau's imaginations about himself were not lies, but authentic fictions of and about himself. ... Read more

Book Description
In this first single-volume English-language biography of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Leo Damrosch mines the influential philosophers letters, memoirs, and writings to expose the eccentricities of a man who prefigured the modern mind.An autodidact who had not written anything of significance by age thirty, Rousseau was an unlikely candidate for becoming one of the most significant thinkers of the eighteenth century.Yet the power of his ideas is felt to this day in our political and social lives.The Social Contract had a direct influence on the Founding Fathers, his Confessions virtually created the genre of autobiography, and his ideas on child rearing have profoundly influenced modern educational theory. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (12)

Master of no one, mastered by no one
Until Damros published this 2005 National Book Award finalist, there has not been a good single-volume biography of Rousseau in the English language. This is because Rousseau's own auto-biography, "Confessions" (1782), is so well done and the number of sources for Rousseau's first 40 years are otherwise so weak, that writing a new biography is mostly a retelling of what Rousseau has already said. The strength of Damros' biography is to summarize Rousseau's life, his evolving thinking and his major works, including historical significance and context, while weaving in some of the best scholarship available after two centuries of reflection.

His personality can best be describe as immature and "sharp at the edges". He either loved a person with all his heart, or hated them as his worst enemy. Usually, it started with the former and ended with the later, fueled by his paranoia and over-active imagination. These are traits one normally sees in a child, a black and white world view of love and hate unable to deal with the ambiguities of human weaknesses - which makes sense given Rousseau's brilliant genius combined with his abusive child-hood; lacking a mother he needed to trust someone, but at the same time could trust no one because of his abusive past. This fueled his desire for self-sufficiency and subsequent rejection of dependent relationships - thus he was naturally conflicted in an 18th C French society which was based on hierarchies of dependencies, where everyone was either the master of someone, or mastered by someone (and usually both)--Rousseau found a way to both live and preach an isolated life of self-sufficiency and inward reflection, hallmarks of the modern man. The master of no one, mastered by no one, and completely isolated from everyone. All of this is directly reflected in his works and ideas, so it is possible to fully understand Rousseau's works by understanding Rousseau the person - this biography paints the full portrait and answers many questions.

Much more than just his philosophy.
This fine biography traces one of those lives that would not be credible if it were fiction. After his mother died and his father abandoned him, Rousseau wandered from place to place without receiving any formal education.He failed at just about every job he attempted.Through a course of self study, however, his genuis slowly fermented, and then, in a mind bogling 5 year period around the age of 40, produced The Social Contract plus two of the most popular and influential novels of the 17th century, Emile and Julie.

The story of his life, as told by Damrosch, serves the purpose of explaining where his philosophy came from.In Damrosch's view, Rousseau's outsider status and his ability to learn on his own provided the prespective from which he could see through the assumptions of his day and emerge with a unique view of life. Damrosch does a superb job of weaving between Rousseau's life, his personality and his philosophy.

My only slight criticism is that the substance of The Social Contract, the book for which he's best known today, fills just a few pages.I would have preferred more on that.Damrosch, a professor of literature, seems more at home analyzing the two novels and the later autobiography, Confessions, which he considers the first modern autobiography in which a person tries to look at his childhood and inner life to see how he became the person he became.Damrosch does a first rate job examining all aspects of Rousseau's thought as revealed in the novels and the autobiography.

In short, an extremely well written biography of a both intriguing and important man.

Dialectic of the Enlightenment
This fascinating biography gives a concise and briskly moving snapshot of one the key figures of our contested modernity, indeed, and ironically, of the Enlightenment tradition. Before Hegel mechanically codified dialectic Rousseau lived it in his embrace and intuitive grasp of contradictions that form the unity of life. Perhaps this is the reason he is often misunderstood and why a work such as The Social Contract provokes in turn its own dialectical audience. At a time when a technocractic rendition of the Enlightenment reigns as scientism Rousseau's critique, at the fount of the Romantic movement, still speaks to us. And Rousseau first grasps what Kant will make explicit in his 'critique of pure reason': the place of freedom in the mechanical Newtonian triumph, finally a triumph over man. All in all Rousseau is simply a human puzzle and this cascade through the strange incidents is superb reading.

Who is Rousseau?He is us.
I had previously read a good deal about Rousseau in general histories of the Enlightenment, and inspired by Prof. Damrosch's course for the Teaching Company, I had re-read a few of Rousseau's own works, but I was still intrigued and puzzled by his place in history and by his personality.Prof. Damrosch's book is so comprensive, insightful, and readable that my questions have now been answered to my complete satisfaction.In addition, Prof. Damrosch encourages and enables readers to compare themselves to Rousseau in terms of the unique individuality that we all share.I think that I now understand my own similarities and differences to Rousseau better than I did before.But I am not only a fellow human being but a participant in the history and culture of the modern world, which has been more profoundly affected by Rousseau than most of us realize.

Philosophy rooted in personality
It is no disrespect to a biographer of Rousseau to say that his task is made considerably easier by the fact that his subject had himself, in his fifties,writtensuch a vivid and amazingly self-revealing autobiography, the famous Confessions.Especially as far as the first halfof Rousseau's life are concerned, the main task of the biographer is to recount a story that has already been written, correcting the occasional misremembering or misrepresentation, and to comment upon it.Damrosch's own writing always reads pleasantly and easily, and he also alerts us in advance to how Rousseau's descriptions of his own childhood and adolescence would inform later writings, like Julie (1761) and Émile (1762), and how much his youthful resentment about the way he was treated by social superiors would be the foundation for his later political theories.

For the first 37 years of his life, Rousseau had not revealed himself as the genius in the subtitle, though he was certainly restless: constantly on the move physically and psychologically highly labile.One wonders, in fact, how interested one would be in those 37 years if he had not shown himself a genius thereafter. I for one became a little impatient that as much as 2/5th of this long book is devoted to this early period, which by itself is not all that interesting, in which there are a lot of trivial incidents and in which we are told more about Rousseau's marginal acquaintances than perhaps we want to know. True, there emerges a good picture of the aristocratic segments of society which took Rousseau up and in which he moved with an understandable touchiness about his own status; and we also learn, for example, that Rousseau's behaviour in placing his five children to a Foundling's Hospital as soon as they were born (not left on the doorstep, a story later spread maliciously by Voltaire) was not as unusual in those days as one might think: more than a quarter of all newborn babies in Paris were abandoned in this way.Most of them were illegitimate, as Rousseau's were, and some of them, like Rousseau's later friend d'Alembert, were the illegitimate children of aristocrats.

To me the book became really interesting when Rousseau made his break-through into real originality, and from that point onwards it gains immensely in power.Damrosch's analysis of Rousseau's writings is excellent. It does several things: it explains the ideas clearly and succinctly;it shows their originality at the time and the way they have influenced later thought, and it invariably links the ideas up with Rousseau's psychology.In this respect Damrosch goes against some literary theorists who insist that one should read texts as if one knew nothing about the lives of their authors;but many of Rousseau's books deliberately reflect his personal experiences in such a thinly disguised form that such arid theories are even more than usually inappropriate.Outstanding, I think, is the analysis, near the end of the book, of theConfessions, and I was particularly taken with his comparisons betweenRousseau's autobiography and the autobiographical writings of his contemporaries, Voltaire, Diderot, Hume, Gibbon, and Benjamin Franklin.(Damrosch is an American professor, and he comments: "Contemporary American culture talks the Rousseau line but lives the Franklin life").

Damrosch's account of Rousseau's emotional, prickly and suffering personality amply bears out David Hume's famous judgment: "He has only felt, during the whole course of his life; and in this respect his sensibility rises to a pitch beyondwhat I have seen any example of, but it still gives him a more acute feeling of pain than of pleasure.He is like a man who were stript not only of his clothes but of his skin, and turned out in that situation to combat with the rude and boisterous elements, such as perpetually disturb this lower world."

The book is attractively illustrated with contemporary engravings and portraits and with photographs of places where Rousseau lived.


... Read more

Book Description
When Rousseau first read his Confessions to a 1770 gathering in Paris, reactions varied from admiration of his candor to doubts about his sanity to outrage. Indeed, Rousseau's intent and approach were revolutionary. As one of the first attempts at autobiography, the Confessions' novelty lay not in just its retelling the facts of Rousseau's life, but in its revelation of his innermost feelings and its frank description of the strengths and failings of his character.

Based on his doctrine of natural goodness, Rousseau intended the Confessions as a testing ground to explore his belief that, as Christopher Kelly writes, "people are to be measured by the depth and nature of their feelings." Re-created here in a meticulously documented new translation based on the definitive Pleiade edition, the work represents Rousseau's attempt to forge connections among his beliefs, his feelings, and his life. More than a "behind-the-scenes look at the private life of a public man," Kelly writes, "the Confessions is at the center of Rousseau's philosophical enterprise." ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

Great edition of this classic
What can one say about The Confessions? I would recommend this particular edition because of the inlusion of the letters to Malesherbes, which can shed some light on the process Rousseau's writing of The Confessions. Wecan also see where the text differs from what actually happaned: there aresome discrepiences in his re-telling of the same event. There is as well anexcellent introductory essay. ... Read more

Book Description
Volume II contains the later writings such as the Social Contract. The Social Contract was publicly condemned on publication causing Rousseau to flee. In exile he wrote both autobiographical and political works. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains
Jean Jacques Rousseau born (1712-1778), in Geneva mother dies in childbirth, he was an engravers apprentice.Stayed out too late one night and locked out of the city, knew he would get in trouble for it so he takes off for France, and meets Madame De Warrens becomes his lover and she converts him to Roman Catholicism.He had a lifelong mistress had 5 kids which he left with an orphanage, which is amazing considering he wrote the book "Emile," which was a guide to raising and educating young children.He neglected the opportunity to put theory into practice.To begin at the beginning, famous lines of book "The Social Contract," "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains."

The question he asks, how do we find a way to get people to live together in groups?To live together in society and yet still make it true that each person only obeys himself that leaves us as free as when we were in the state of nature.He thinks he has the answer, he thinks he can legitimate, a kind of society, where people have this much freedom.There are certain things that he thinks are necessary for this, first, it has to be a society with general laws.It can't be that whoever is in charge of the government gets to do whatever they feel like doing.There has to of been laws made that authorize this.Second, there has to be universal consent to the laws, everybody has to accept the laws.Now this may be a little unclear, because there is a point that Rousseau talks about majority rule.It does make sense though there is a sense that he believes that the people have to consent to all of the laws, it has to be unanimous, it is just going to take a little while to get to that point.We will see how he reconciles these ideas.Third, there has to be unlimited Sovereignty, people have no rights against the laws you can't say the laws are illegitimate because they violate your rights the way that Locke would say for example people completely give up their rights to the collective.Therefore, there is no worry that a law might trespass on somebody's rights.For Rousseau, be sure to understand that this idea of sovereignty means the power to make laws.Therefore, it is a little bit different say than what you got out of Hobbes were he talks about the sovereign's power.For Hobbes, sovereign power is the power to say what goes.There is no real distinction between what we would call legislative power and executive power.You know the power to make the law and the power to enforce the laws.For Rousseau, sovereignty means the power to make the laws.Therefore, that's the power that is unlimited.Everything the state does has to be done in accordance to the laws.However, there is no limit on what the laws can be.At least no limits coming from the idea of violating individual rights.The only limit on the power of the state is the laws.There is this kind of notion that periodically there would be an assembly of people to come together to decide on the laws and make new ones.The power like a monarchy or oligarchy has power to enforce the laws and they do what ever the assembly tells them to do.The general laws are there and then the executive power is in charge of applying those general laws to specific cases.However, all they can do is apply those general laws.They cannot freelance and do stuff on there own.

Rousseau really praised Sparta as a model democracy.So, here's the kind of society that Rousseau thinks that makes it possible for us to enjoy freedom and social life.We give up all power to the state; we claim no individual rights to ourselves against the government.We give up complete power to the state we do not think we have any individual rights that can limit what the state can do but we insist that the state only act in accordance with general laws and these be laws everybody consents and agrees to.Now you ask, how in the world can we have unanimous consent to the law?With any size or group, how do you get unanimous consent?Rousseau's answer is that in a proper society, one where everyone has been brought up properly and so on, they think of them selves as a community there will be two different choices that people can make about the laws that they want.Two different standpoints, for which they will choose what the laws should be.1. Their individual wills, which will be a choice about what is best for each persons point of view, 2.However, each citizen will also possess a "General Will."There will as a citizen.The general will of every citizen will be the same.Their general will, will from each of them will be in favor of the laws that will be best for the community.Even if it is not best for them as an individual, sometimes it will be.Just like Kant thinks that everybody's Numinal self is in favor of the same law, Rousseau thinks that in a proper political community every bodies general will is in favor of the same laws each citizens general will, will be the same.Even if from your own perspective, you do not like some of the laws that are passed, if in fact they are laws that are best for the community, you will consent to them from the standpoint of your general will.Therefore, everybody does consent to whatever laws there are that are best for the community.Now ideally, people will think of themselves as citizens first and individuals second that they will have no hesitation in obeying the laws that the general will is in favor of, but people being what they are sometimes people will not obey the laws even when their general will has consented to the laws.Rousseau says people will be acting in accordance with their general will as a citizen rather than their private or individual will.That if one should be temptedor inclined to act on the basis of their individual will in a way that is contrary to their and everybody else's general will, then they ought to be forced to obey the general will and the laws it endorses.Not just be forced to obey, but in being forced to obey you are actually being made more free than you would be if you did in a sense what you think you want to do.You can call this Rousseau's "paradigm of positive freedom."

Rousseau does not think that any group of people can form this kind of society.Before a society can form a government under this kind of basis, it will already be a society that exists under illegitimate rule.Therefore, even though Rousseau talks about the state of nature the way Hobbes and Locke does, he does not really have the expectation that groups of people are going to go from the state of nature straight into a legitimate society.They are going to start out with some kind of illegitimate rule, and that is going to give them enough cohesion, this kind of shared experience they have had, that then they are going to be able to form a legitimate government.They are going to be similar enough in outlook and have enough of a bond to the society, that they have the general will.This can only happen in a relatively small community.They must have shared values and experience.He thought that the only place in his time in Europe that could do this was the island state of Corsica.Once the laws are already in place you are agreeing to them, it is tacit consent.He believes that when the society is first formed legitimately, people have to give expressed consent.

There is not some kind of disconnect that you would get in say some kind of fascist political philosophy like what is good for the community and what is good for the people.There is almost no connection between those things.Somehow for Rousseau there seems to be some kind of connection that what's good for the community is some kind of function of what is good for the individual people in the community.But, the nature of that function to me is just opaque, he doesn't get whatever he is trying to say across there.

In practice obviously this is hard to do.Because Rousseau is hostile to the idea that you could have just a select group of people to make the laws, this means he has to be against representative democracy.The only societies that are this democratic that have worked are societies that have had slaves (Greek and Roman).Because how much time does citizenship take without representatives, we have to be in assembly all the time so you need slaves to cook and raise crops.So, you should have this picture in mind that every so often the citizens get together to develop laws, what they should be doing of course is trying to vote in a way that the general will tells them to vote, whatever is best for the community.Rousseau is not so naïve to think that they are all going to unanimously and spontaneously put their hands up at the same time.People are going to disagree, abut what the law is.Majority rule he says in that case.However, it is not the majority rule in the spirit that we think of it, where the side with the most votes wins and the losers are disappointed because their way didn't prevail.No, what Rousseau says is the minority should look at this as they were wrong about what the general will was in that case, and so they should be happy that what they wanted didn't get adopted because that would have been a mistake.The majority essentially knows best.It is as if they are all trying to get to the same place, some will get there some will be misled and they should be grateful to be straightened out.One can see how totalitarian's can embrace some of Rousseau's writings.

I read this book for a graduate class in Philosophy.Recommended reading for anyone interested in philosophy, political science, history and, psychology.


... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

Insight into the Enlightenment
"I conceive of two sorts of inequality in the human species: one, which I call natural or physical, because it is established by nature and consists in the difference of ages, health, bodily strengths, and qualities of mindor soul; the other which may be called moral or political inequality,because it depends upon a sort of convention and is established, or atleast authorized, by consent of men.The latter consists in the differentprivileges that some men enjoy to the prejudice of others, such as to bericher, more honored, more powerful than they, or even to make themselvesobeyed by them."

In 1750, the Academy of Dijon held an essay contest. The question, `Has the restoration of the sciences & arts tended topurify morals?'The First Discourse (Discourse on the Sciences and Arts)was the winning essay.Rousseau's powerful critique of the enlightenmentin modern Europe spit in the faces of the very people that were judging hiswork.However, Rousseau's arguments and assessment of the enlightenmentwere so profound that even the elite scholars of the Academy could not denyRousseau his just recognition for superior writing and understanding of thenature of the sciences and arts and their effects on modernlife.

Rousseau's Second Discourse (Discourse on the Origin andFoundations of Inequity) was a follow up to the first.In it, Rousseaudelves deeper into the issue of human origins (i.e. the state of nature)and the cause and effects of human inequality.

No other philosopher hasbe praised and condemned, celebrated and written-off as much as Rousseau.His countless effects on modern life go relatively unknown.Anyone who hasread Marx, must ask themselves, what history book was Marx reading.Uponreading Rousseau's Discourses, it become obvious, Marx read Rousseau. However, "Rousseau can still overpower where Marx falls flat."(AllanBloom, `The Closing of The American Mind,' 217.)

Rousseau is a mustread for anyone who is a student of, or interested in, philosophy,political philosophy, Marxism, or simply has a longing to return to thestate of nature and thinks that life would be best if we would all just "goand work in our garden." (Voltaire, `Candide,' 144.) ... Read more

Book Description
An elegant translation of one of the most popular novels of its time.

Rousseau's great epistolary novel, Julie, or the New Heloise, has been virtually unavailable in English since 1810. In it, Rousseau reconceptualized the relationship of the individual to the collective and articulated a new moral paradigm. The story follows the fates and smoldering passions of Julie d'Etange and St. Preux, a one-time lover who re-enters Julie's life at the invitation of her unsuspecting husband, M. de Wolmar.

The complex tones of this work made it a commercial success and a continental sensation when it first appeared in 1761, and its embodiment of Rousseau's system of thought, in which feelings and intellect are intertwined, redefined the function and form of fiction for decades. As the characters negotiate a complex maze of passion and virtue, their purity of soul and honest morality reveal, as Rousseau writes in his preface, "the subtleties of heart of which this work is full."

A comprehensive introduction and careful annotations make this novel accessible to contemporary readers, both as an embodiment of Rousseau's philosophy and as a portrayal of the tension and power inherent in domestic life. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

A Superb Story
It is a pity that Julie, or the New Heloise is neither better known nor more widely read. It is one of the great novels. Rousseau may be most famous as a philosopher and Julie includes many philosophical passages, discussing issues such as education, virtue and religion, but he shows in this novel that he was both a fine writer and an able storyteller. The ideas he puts into the mouths of his characters are interesting, the debates they engage in are continually fascinating, but it is the story he tells which is truly memorable for it is deeply moving.

The novel consists of a series of letters some quite short, some extending to many pages. The main characters are Julie d'Étange, a young Swiss girl of noble birth and her tutor who has the pseudonym St. Preux. They begin an affair and fall deeply in love. It is this initial relationship of pupil to teacher, developing into passion, which is supposed to remind the reader of the medieval lovers Abelard and Heloise. Moreover both pairs of lovers face difficulties and opposition from family. They experience the joys of love and suffer because of it. These parallels however, should not be overestimated, Rousseau is not retelling an old story and Julie's life is quite different from that of Heloise. The story has numerous twists and turns and many surprises along the way. Other characters interact with the young lovers write letters to them and to each other. Gradually over the course of a long novel one begins to care about these people. It is here that Rousseau's skill as a writer is most evident. I found myself emotionally involved in the story of Julie and St. Preux in a way which was quite unexpected. By the end I had felt much joy and not a little sorrow and had been touched by a novel that can bring forth tears.

The epistolary form works very well, and is used cleverly, even if sometimes a letter is so large it could scarcely fit into an envelope. It has to be said however, that this novel is difficult. It has to be read carefully as it continually refers itself back to previous letters, which means that one is constantly re-reading previous passages. Sometimes it is necessary to read a paragraph over again in order to fully understand it. This is not a novel that can be skimmed, but must be savoured and read over a period of weeks. This fact should not discourage anyone from reading Julie, for it is as rewarding as it is challenging. If it is hard, it is also a pleasure.

The edition of Julie published by the University Press of New England is scholarly and a stunning achievement. The translation of Philip Steward and Jean Vaché is the first full translation into English since the 18th century. It reads well and seems both accurate and fluent. There are over seventy pages of notes, which I found both essential for my understanding of the novel and interesting in the way they expand and explain the various obscure references in the text. Stewart writes a relatively short introduction, which is clear and comprehensible. It is neither overly academic nor dry. My only wish is that it were somewhat longer. Spread throughout the novel are twelve beautiful illustrations depicting scenes from the novel. Finally this edition includes a summary of each letter and a chronology of the events in the novel. I found these very useful as a means of finding my way through what can be a dense and complex correspondence. Julie, or the New Heloise is a truly great novel and this edition does it justice. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (5)

Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains
Jean Jacques Rousseau born (1712-1778), in Geneva mother dies in childbirth, he was an engravers apprentice.Stayed out too late one night and locked out of the city, knew he would get in trouble for it so he takes off for France, and meets Madame De Warrens becomes his lover and she converts him to Roman Catholicism.He had a lifelong mistress had 5 kids which he left with an orphanage, which is amazing considering he wrote the book "Emile," which was a guide to raising and educating young children.He neglected the opportunity to put theory into practice.To begin at the beginning, famous lines of book "The Social Contract," "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains."

The question he asks, how do we find a way to get people to live together in groups?To live together in society and yet still make it true that each person only obeys himself that leaves us as free as when we were in the state of nature.He thinks he has the answer, he thinks he can legitimate, a kind of society, where people have this much freedom.There are certain things that he thinks are necessary for this, first, it has to be a society with general laws.It can't be that whoever is in charge of the government gets to do whatever they feel like doing.There has to of been laws made that authorize this.Second, there has to be universal consent to the laws, everybody has to accept the laws.Now this may be a little unclear, because there is a point that Rousseau talks about majority rule.It does make sense though there is a sense that he believes that the people have to consent to all of the laws, it has to be unanimous, it is just going to take a little while to get to that point.We will see how he reconciles these ideas.Third, there has to be unlimited Sovereignty, people have no rights against the laws you can't say the laws are illegitimate because they violate your rights the way that Locke would say for example people completely give up their rights to the collective.Therefore, there is no worry that a law might trespass on somebody's rights.For Rousseau, be sure to understand that this idea of sovereignty means the power to make laws.Therefore, it is a little bit different say than what you got out of Hobbes were he talks about the sovereign's power.For Hobbes, sovereign power is the power to say what goes.There is no real distinction between what we would call legislative power and executive power.You know the power to make the law and the power to enforce the laws.For Rousseau, sovereignty means the power to make the laws.Therefore, that's the power that is unlimited.Everything the state does has to be done in accordance to the laws.However, there is no limit on what the laws can be.At least no limits coming from the idea of violating individual rights.The only limit on the power of the state is the laws.There is this kind of notion that periodically there would be an assembly of people to come together to decide on the laws and make new ones.The power like a monarchy or oligarchy has power to enforce the laws and they do what ever the assembly tells them to do.The general laws are there and then the executive power is in charge of applying those general laws to specific cases.However, all they can do is apply those general laws.They cannot freelance and do stuff on there own.

Rousseau really praised Sparta as a model democracy.So, here's the kind of society that Rousseau thinks that makes it possible for us to enjoy freedom and social life.We give up all power to the state; we claim no individual rights to ourselves against the government.We give up complete power to the state we do not think we have any individual rights that can limit what the state can do but we insist that the state only act in accordance with general laws and these be laws everybody consents and agrees to.Now you ask, how in the world can we have unanimous consent to the law?With any size or group, how do you get unanimous consent?Rousseau's answer is that in a proper society, one where everyone has been brought up properly and so on, they think of them selves as a community there will be two different choices that people can make about the laws that they want.Two different standpoints, for which they will choose what the laws should be.1. Their individual wills, which will be a choice about what is best for each persons point of view, 2.However, each citizen will also possess a "General Will."There will as a citizen.The general will of every citizen will be the same.Their general will, will from each of them will be in favor of the laws that will be best for the community.Even if it is not best for them as an individual, sometimes it will be.Just like Kant thinks that everybody's Numinal self is in favor of the same law, Rousseau thinks that in a proper political community every bodies general will is in favor of the same laws each citizens general will, will be the same.Even if from your own perspective, you do not like some of the laws that are passed, if in fact they are laws that are best for the community, you will consent to them from the standpoint of your general will.Therefore, everybody does consent to whatever laws there are that are best for the community.Now ideally, people will think of themselves as citizens first and individuals second that they will have no hesitation in obeying the laws that the general will is in favor of, but people being what they are sometimes people will not obey the laws even when their general will has consented to the laws.Rousseau says people will be acting in accordance with their general will as a citizen rather than their private or individual will.That if one should be temptedor inclined to act on the basis of their individual will in a way that is contrary to their and everybody else's general will, then they ought to be forced to obey the general will and the laws it endorses.Not just be forced to obey, but in being forced to obey you are actually being made more free than you would be if you did in a sense what you think you want to do.You can call this Rousseau's "paradigm of positive freedom."

Rousseau does not think that any group of people can form this kind of society.Before a society can form a government under this kind of basis, it will already be a society that exists under illegitimate rule.Therefore, even though Rousseau talks about the state of nature the way Hobbes and Locke does, he does not really have the expectation that groups of people are going to go from the state of nature straight into a legitimate society.They are going to start out with some kind of illegitimate rule, and that is going to give them enough cohesion, this kind of shared experience they have had, that then they are going to be able to form a legitimate government.They are going to be similar enough in outlook and have enough of a bond to the society, that they have the general will.This can only happen in a relatively small community.They must have shared values and experience.He thought that the only place in his time in Europe that could do this was the island state of Corsica.Once the laws are already in place you are agreeing to them, it is tacit consent.He believes that when the society is first formed legitimately, people have to give expressed consent.

There is not some kind of disconnect that you would get in say some kind of fascist political philosophy like what is good for the community and what is good for the people.There is almost no connection between those things.Somehow for Rousseau there seems to be some kind of connection that what's good for the community is some kind of function of what is good for the individual people in the community.But, the nature of that function to me is just opaque, he doesn't get whatever he is trying to say across there.

In practice obviously this is hard to do.Because Rousseau is hostile to the idea that you could have just a select group of people to make the laws, this means he has to be against representative democracy.The only societies that are this democratic that have worked are societies that have had slaves (Greek and Roman).Because how much time does citizenship take without representatives, we have to be in assembly all the time so you need slaves to cook and raise crops.So, you should have this picture in mind that every so often the citizens get together to develop laws, what they should be doing of course is trying to vote in a way that the general will tells them to vote, whatever is best for the community.Rousseau is not so naïve to think that they are all going to unanimously and spontaneously put their hands up at the same time.People are going to disagree, abut what the law is.Majority rule he says in that case.However, it is not the majority rule in the spirit that we think of it, where the side with the most votes wins and the losers are disappointed because their way didn't prevail.No, what Rousseau says is the minority should look at this as they were wrong about what the general will was in that case, and so they should be happy that what they wanted didn't get adopted because that would have been a mistake.The majority essentially knows best.It is as if they are all trying to get to the same place, some will get there some will be misled and they should be grateful to be straightened out.One can see how totalitarian's can embrace some of Rousseau's writings.

I read this book for a graduate class in Philosophy.Recommended reading for anyone interested in philosophy, political science, history and, psychology.

A great collection of works by an unequalled thinker
It is often said that Descartes is the father of modern philosophy; but much of modern philosophy would be unthinkable without the writings of Rousseau.While Descartes put epistemology at the center of philosophy, and used reflections on subjectivity as a means to knowing, Rousseau put the historical human being at the center of his thinking, and thus paved the way not only for Kant but for Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Nietzsche, and Kierkegaard.

These texts are the ones to look to for the core of his thinking.Read the first and second discourses first -- of which the second is the most critical, but the first gives an easy orientation to his general strategy.The Social Contract is extremely relevant today, when words like "democracy" are bandied about unthinkingly.Rousseau identifies there what a genuine democracy requires: that individuals become prepared through education to cast their vote for what they think is the general good.The conditions for this cannot be established overnight, and cannot be imposed by war or by political pressure.

This is another fine edition by Hackett, who cannot be commended enough for their excellent series of inexpensive philosophical texts.After reading this, take a look at Rousseau's two other brilliant pieces (among many more): Emile, and his Autobiography.

Rousseau's influence on Kant
A more immediate influence of Rousseau's political thought was on the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, sometimes called "the philosopher of the French Revolution."Kant took over Rousseau's emphasis on the faculty of will and incorporated it into his political philosophy, especially in Part II of "The Metaphysics of Morals," "The Metaphysical Elements of Justice."There Kant, unlike Rousseau, favored a constitutional government rather than a direct democracy.But he utilized Rousseau's notion of the social contract in the form of a hypothetical agreement among autonomous individuals. Kant's conception of a hypothetical contract was in turn applied by John Rawls in his "A Theory of Justice," so it may be argued that Kant is in some respects a precursor of liberal representive democracy.Rousseau's idea of democracy has more application to contemporary theorists of participatory democracy than it does to Marx, whose "dictatorship of the proletariat" was largely undeveloped.And Mill's "On Liberty" is in many ways a critique of Rousseau's General Will, in that Mill asserted, among other things, that "if all of mankind except one were of one opinion, and that one were of another, all of mankind would be no more justified in silencing that man that would he in silencing all of mankind."So Rousseau's conception of positive freedom (i.e., "freedom to. . ."), encapsulated in his notorious remark that it may be necessary to "force men to be free," has no place in Mill's "On Liberty," which advances the more Anglo-American notion of negative freedom (i.e., "freedom from. . .").Furthermore, Mill favored a form of representative government (as put forth in his treatise of the same name), so he differs from Rousseau on that point as well.

Rousseau Comments on Society and the General Will of Man
Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "The Basic Political Writings," have a two part effect. Rousseau uses the first portion of the book, the discourses on science and the arts, the origin of inequality, and politicaleconomy, to describe the basic policies of then modern society. Rousseaudescribes the creation of society as a threat against the laws of nature.Rousseau also explains that the origin of society coincides with theconcept of personal property. From there society develops by who controlswhom into a political system. Rousseau comments on several points in"The Social Contract." In the first book of "The Social Contract"Rousseau explains the limiting of the human spirit by the bonds of society.This is the origin of the infamous line, "Man is born free, andeverywhere he is in chains." Books two and three describe theattitudes of a nation and its responsibilities to both other nations andits own people. The final book of "The Social Contract" affirmsthe point that a nation cannot destroy the general will of the people."The Basic Political Writings" are considered an excellentresource on society simply for its commentary on the general will.Rousseau's writings are amazing when coupled with the later thoughts ofKarl Marx in "The Communist Manifesto." Obvious correlation's canbe made between Rousseau's commentary and Marx's ideals of the creation ofa communist society. Although these writings may not be for the averagereader, the points they make extremely thought provoking.

Attention Poly Sci Students
This book contains 4 of Rousseau's works: Discourse on the Sciences and the Arts, Discource on the Origin of Inequlality, Discource on Political Economy, and On the Social Contract.In his writings, Rousseau theorizes about the state of nature of man before civilization, a time before anysocietal influences governed his actions.He then explains how man leftthis initial state of nature to form society's.According to Rousseau,reason and cooperation, which led to the sciences and arts, are what forcedus to leave our happy state of nature.Based on the state of nature,Rousseau then goes on to relate how man is in a society and what an idealsociety should be.Enjoy your reading... ... Read more

Book Description
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) was a pivotal thinker in the history of political philosophy. Making major contributions in a variety of areas, he brought his political theory to bear on subjects such as the novel, music, education, and autobiography, amongst others.

Bringing together and reprinting the vital scholarly papers on the broad range of Rousseau's thought, with a particular emphasis on his political theory, this collection includes translations of a number of influential interpretations of his work that were not previously available in English and were prepared especially for this set, such as those of Lanson, de Jouvenal, Weil, Wahl, and Baczko.

Organized thematically, and including an initial new introduction by the editor, as well as brief introductions to each individual volume, this systematic collection is undoubtedly an essential resource for a wide variety of students and scholars. ... Read more

Book Description
These abridgements of The Plan for Perpetual Peace (published 1761), On the Government of Poland (1771-1772), and Jean-Jacques Rousseau's other writings on history and politics represent his considerations of the practical applications of key principles developed in his best-known theoretical writings. In this latest volume in the classic series, Rousseau reflects on projects for a European union; the possibilities for governmental reform for France, including the polysynody experiment; international relations; and the establishment of governments for Poland and Corsica, both recently liberated from foreign oppression. Taken together, these works offer definitive insights into Rousseau's decidedly nonutopian thoughts on cosmopolitanism and nationalism, and on the theory and practice of politics. ... Read more

Book Description
A clear, readable, and highly engrossing translation of Rousseau's masterpiece on the education and training of the young. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (5)

Post-Modern Child Rearing
A deceptively simple text. Rousseau has distanced himself from the Social Contract and the concept of the noble savage here, and has decided to illustrate the principles of an education that will bring about `natural man.' Emile is his guinea pig, whom he allows to grow on his own accord. His governor and nurse impose nothing on him, and he is allowed to build and explore without any external authority, eventually choosing a vocation and place in society.

For Rousseau, the most important property of modern society that is inimical to man is the exertion of authority and power over the subject. Emile is allowed to grow and flourish without the arbitrary directives of parent/authority figures. And as always, Rousseau's prose is light and wonderful. He falls short in the section on Emile's counter-part Sophie, who embodies practically all of the sexist facets of enlightenment prejudice, but this remains a very great work of political theory in spite of its shortcomings and frequent meanderings.

great book, great translation
Rousseau has a reputation as a hypocrite and a left wing nut job.He certainly didn't practice what he preached but his writings cannot be reduced to serve mere partisan purposes.Everyone can learn something from this book.Allan Bloom does a great job of turning this book into good English.The translation is intended to be quite literal, but nonethess reads very smoothly.Highly recommended.

Nature, Education and Democracy
Heersink's distillation of the "essence" of Rousseau's Emile is so bazaar, tendentious and misleading that I am left to wonder whether he has read a single page of the book that he finds so tedious and banal.Nature, for Rousseau, is not the vast open spaces of the great outdoors; it is rather, the totality of created beings such as they exist prior to their being worked over by human artifice, and, in particular, the inner, inborn nature of human beings before it has been deflected, distorted, and perverted through their reciprocal, social interaction. In Emile, Rousseau sets out to show how, even in the midst of the corrupting forces of society, it might still be possible to raise a healthy, fully-actualized, harmonious individual; a human being whose inner nature is developed and realized in its potentialities.Such an education is not possible under the instruction of trees, bears and geysers, but only through the most exquisite attentiveness of the tutor, who, through constant vigilance, tries to develop the mind and sentiments of his pupil without giving a foothold to the social passions that make children vain, greedy, manipulative, and deceitful.This requires, above all, that at every moment, the child should learn to judge its actions by their natural effects, and feel its own will limited by the resistance of the nature without it, rather than by the will of other human beings. For whereas the child will submit easily to the force of nature, it will do everything to overcome the force that oppose it once it regards them as expressions of a human will.
I disagree with Rousseau about many things, even about the most fundamental issues.Most of all, I do not think that what it means to be human should be thought limited by a pre-existing, and pristine human nature.Yet I also believe that, now more than ever, we must take Rousseau seriously, and read him rigorously -not merely as an antiquarian piece, but as a profound challenge to our conceits and myopias.There can be no true democracy without citizens who are free not only in the eyes of the law, but in their own eyes; yet we cannot recognize others as free, unless we have eyes for our own freedom. This demands nothing less than a liberal education.In place of this, we have entrusted our children to those whose seek only their own gain and who profit by tapping into human desires, dissociating them from the whole, and crystalizing them into a form in which it seems as though they could be satisfied through some given commodity. As a result, we have become, in the words of my friend, the social critic Dan A. Leythorn, "a nation of slaves - to our desires, to our whims, to money, to power, to each other"

Not the Best Rousseau
Three works mark Rousseau: Confessions, Social Contract, and Inequality. "Emile" is a tedious tome that espouses at great, if not banal, length the issues he has more adequately and eloquently addressed in his major works. The premise is simple: Let nature be the educator. Imagine a kid dropped in the middle of Yosemite National Park, revisit him at age 20, and the kid will know everything he needs to know. Now, you know the substance of the book. If you think nature alone without a preceptor or teacher other than nature alone is sufficient, you'll be bored with the redudancies and polemics against "this" and "that" institution that has developed over the centuries. The core of the book is a vain effort to show that these institutions have corrupted the student, and ergo, society. If only nature could be allowed to "speak," so to speak, then men everywhere would be better off. Right!

The Unread Masterpiece
A natural education is one that "consists not in teaching the child many things, but never letting anything but accurate and clear ideas enter his brain."

Rousseau, in his longing to return to the state of nature,ventures to raise a natural man.Emile (or On Education) is the CornerStone to Rousseau's "Discourse on the Sciences and Arts" & "Discourseon the Origin and Foundations of Inequality." Rousseau's imaginary pupil,Emile, will "get his lessons from nature and not from men."Rousseau isnot concerned with teaching Emile numerous facts, but with instructing thechild to be able to think for himself.

Emile will have one mentor,Robinson Crusoe. Crusoe is Rousseau's modern natural man.Crusoe is "onhis island, alone, deprived of the assistance of all the arts, providingnevertheless for his subsistence."Rousseau goes to extremes to create achildhood that is free from habit, and one that provides Emile with thegreatest adaptability to his surroundings, whatever they may be, for therest of his life.

Rousseau's ideas are profound.Though he is farless well known than Marx, Nietzsche, and or Weber, to name a few, hisideas are the basis for the philosophies' of these men, who have in returninfluenced society.Along with Rousseau's Two Discourses, Emile is a mustread. (I recommend reading the Discourses before Emile.)However, do notexpect Rousseau to tell you everything because he does not spend anextensive time explaining all of the minute details, especially thoseregarding the first few years of Emile's life.Rather, he says, "if youhave to be told everything, do not read me."

If you are interested inthe foundation of thought for many of the most influential philosophers ofmodern Europe, then read Emile. (I recommend the Allan Bloom translation.) ... Read more

Book Description
The work of Jean-Jacques Rousseau is presented in two volumes, which together form the most comprehensive anthology of Rousseau's political writings in English. Volume I contains the earlier writings such as the First and Second Discourses. The American and French Revolutions were profoundly affected by Rousseau's writing, thus illustrating the scope of his influence.Volume II contains the later writings such as the Social Contract. The Social Contract was publicly condemned on publication causing Rousseau to flee. In exile he wrote both autobiographical and political works. These volumes contain comprehensive introductions, chronologies, and guides to further reading, and will enable students to fully understand the writings of one of the world's greatest thinkers. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

Essay, The Chain of Free Will
B1 refers to the 'the Discourses', B2 refers to the "Social Contract" by Rousseau

"Man are born free, but everywhere they are in chains."
What a glorious line! Who would not want to shake off the chains and be free? The question is, what kinds of freedom is Rousseau talking about, and where is the source of the evil chain?

Rousseau talks about two kinds of freedom, the freedom to act and the freedom to enjoy the fruits of action, both of which serve the goal of the preservation of life. The freedom to act is called "free will"; it differentiates men from animals and is directed by one's desires.

In the state of nature, the "free will" of men allows them to find creative sources of subsistence as the environment changes, and each is free to enjoy the fruits of their labor because he has labored independently. In civil society, however, men must labor together and share their produces. Under these new conditions, "free will" will lead men to excessive desire which result in the usurpation of the others' freedom to enjoy the fruits of their labor. The loss of the freedom to enjoy puts the life of every member of the society under danger, and hence, in the civil society, "free will" has contributed negatively to its goal of the preservation of life.

The chain of life, therefore, is in fact "free will", which was beneficial for the preservation of life in the state of nature, but detrimental to this goal in the civil society. Hence, for the civil society to achieve its end of preserving life, each individual must give up their "free will" and succumb their freedom to act to the general will of the society.

Survival-the Goal of Life

Rousseau frequently repeats that preservation of life is the most fundamental goal of man's actions. He writes,

"Man's first sentiment was that of his existence, his first care is that for his preservation." (B1, p161)
And,
"His (man's) first law is to attend to his own preservation, his first cares are those he owes himself..." (B2, p42)
As the first "care" and "law" of life, and the "first sentiment", the desire for survival is the singular progenitor to all other desires in life, and in the state of nature, will always trump all other interests in life. One might say that there are higher goals in life beyond mere survival. Indeed there are, however, if one does not survive, those higher goals of life could not exist either.

The mechanism by which men strive for survival is to act according their "free will". Rousseau writes,
"I see in animal nothing but an ingenious machine to which nature has given senses in order to wind itself up and, to a point, protect itself against everything that tends to destroy or to disturb it. I perceive precisely the same thing in the human machine, with this difference that Nature alone does everything in the operations of the Beast, whereas man contributes to his operations in his capacity as a free agent..." (B1, p140)
Here, Rousseau again emphasizes that the "ingenious machine" of animals and men share the goal of protecting their beings, however, the means to achieve this goal is different in that man are equipped with a different mechanism, their free will, to achieve this end. This different mean will turn out to be men's advantage of animals in survival.

Free Will-the Advantage

On the same page as the previous quote, Rousseau goes on to point out the disadvantage the Beast, which does not have free will. He writes,

"...as a result the Beast cannot deviate from the Rule prescribed to it even when it would be to its advantage to do so...Thus a Pigeon would starve to death next to a Bowl filled with the choicest meats, and a Cat atop heaps of fruit or of gain, although each could very well have found nourishment in the food it disdains if it had occurred to it to try some..." (B1, p140)

The Pigeon could not adapt to new environments as conditions changed since it has been programmed to act in only one way. This restricts Pigeons to places where they can find certain kinds of food. If their population grows to the extend that their restricted locales can no longer supply all the Pigeons with sufficient food, many pigeons will die away; if a natural disaster destroys all their habitats, then all pigeons will have to face death.

On the other side, since men have "free will", they are not limited by their current conditions. Unlike the pigeon, the savage man could eat whatever he comes across and learn what food is beneficial or poisonous through experience. Rousseau writes,
"Men...raise themselves to the level of the Beasts' instinct, with this advantage that each species has but its own instinct, while man perhaps having none that belongs to him, appropriates them all, feeds indifferently on most of the various foods which the other animals divide among themselves, and as a result finds his subsistence more easily than can any one of them." (B1, p1350)

The freedom must not only be limited to what kinds of food savages could eat but also their flexibility regarding lodging, sleeping and everything else that contribute to their survival. This flexibility allows men to survive anywhere and during any environmental changes; it consequently allows men to spread their seeds to the whole world. This is how "free will" contributes to the preservation of lives, and one must not misunderstand preservation as static-preservation is both directed toward those who are living and those who are young and those who have not been borne. Human's unique ability to preserve itself insures that it can grow and multiple.

Free Will and Desires

Free will allows men to out-survive other animals, but free will itself is not an action but a process; it is the specific acts that a man wills that allow him to adapt. To will one action instead of another is to prefer one solution above another, and to have preference is to have desires for one thing more than another. For the purpose of the preservation of life, in the state of nature, a man must desire for what is to his survival. Hence, the goal of desires is to direct one's actions to what is beneficial for his survival. (Animals also have desires, however, the difference is: while both a man