Take a photo of a barcode or cover
143 reviews for:
A Discourse on the Origin of Inequality (Translated by G. D. H. Cole)
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
3.52 AVERAGE
143 reviews for:
A Discourse on the Origin of Inequality (Translated by G. D. H. Cole)
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
3.52 AVERAGE
another read for my philosophy class! i found some of the arguments compelling and interesting to discuss in class, but there's a lot of hypocrisy and romanticization from a privileged perspective that i kept encountered soooo... both/and i guess
challenging
reflective
medium-paced
This infamous book is as good as its reputation, Rousseau bombastically deconstructs ideas of natural hierarchy and points us to the social origin of many deemed 'natural facets' of life.
The relevance of this is perhaps understated as we return to a society where the powerful and rich are re-given their pre-Enlightenment dignitas of having earned their position through the "nobility" of their supposed "hard-work", a viewpoint which has striking similarities to the way old aristocracies justified their immense power imbalance with everyday man.
Rousseau's writing is captivating and thoroughly exegetic as he takes time to open his concepts up as he proceeds through the text.
The book's content does not need selling as Rousseau's ideas stand in pre-eminence among thinkers of his time, a necessary read for anyone remotely interested in the origin of many common ideas about the human and social condition and for those interested by writers inspired by Rousseau such as Marx
The relevance of this is perhaps understated as we return to a society where the powerful and rich are re-given their pre-Enlightenment dignitas of having earned their position through the "nobility" of their supposed "hard-work", a viewpoint which has striking similarities to the way old aristocracies justified their immense power imbalance with everyday man.
Rousseau's writing is captivating and thoroughly exegetic as he takes time to open his concepts up as he proceeds through the text.
The book's content does not need selling as Rousseau's ideas stand in pre-eminence among thinkers of his time, a necessary read for anyone remotely interested in the origin of many common ideas about the human and social condition and for those interested by writers inspired by Rousseau such as Marx
Rousseau: you may think highways are good, but what about all the car accidents? huh? did you think of that? highways cause DEATH. go live out in a cave. you'll be happier. unfortunately, i've been educated and enlightened, so i'm going to live in society and obey the laws as best i can. (but i would've been happier gathering acorns. alas.)
Well, I don't agree with his premise, but I agreed with a surprising amount of his philosophy.
Well, I don't agree with his premise, but I agreed with a surprising amount of his philosophy.
It’s fun. Three stars because, not that I’m surprised, but too much on land ownership. It’s the plot of the book, so I can’t really say much.
challenging
dark
funny
informative
reflective
slow-paced
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
A philosophical contemplation on how far humanity has come from our natural state of being, and what conditions one may perceive as being natural are in fact the result of many years of civilization and government establishing cultural expectations. A lot of interesting ideas on why and how inequality became built into society.
dark
informative
reflective
medium-paced
The man is clearly a brilliant and evocative writer. And I want to believe that man is fundamentally good, and this is supposedly a work in that vein, but it's more like an argument that man is fundamentally aloof and indifferent to others?
The essay takes a LONG time to actually getting around to answering the title question, and the answer is technology + prices, which, well, makes sense. To quote:
" But from the moment one man began to stand in need of the help of another; from the moment it appeared advantageous to any one man to have enough provisions for two, equality disappeared, property was introduced, work became indispensable, and vast forests became smiling fields, which man had to water with the sweat of his brow, and where slavery and misery were soon seen to germinate and grow up with the crops.
Metallurgy and agriculture were the two arts which produced this great revolution...
In this state of affairs, equality might have been sustained, had the talents of individuals been equal, and had, for example, the use of iron and the consumption of commodities always exactly balanced each other; but, as there was nothing to preserve this balance, it was soon disturbed"
This seems basically right to me -- specialization and technology are what create wealth, so they are necessary for inequality.
I tried to include this quote in some forthcoming research about inequality in the US, but Erik B was against it. "Rousseau -- isn't he that anti-technology fanatic? We're pro-technology here *winking smile*".
As much as it pained me to eliminate such an erudite reference, I get where Erik's coming from. Rousseau's vision is disturbingly anti-progress, and to the extent he inspired Marx and other socialists, perhaps that strain has always been a dormant corruption.
Another angle -- Rousseau says inequality is artificial; Peterson says it's innate. Two metaphors: the solitary ape, and the hierarchical lobster. Which way modern man? IDK I guess humans are humans, not lobsters or apes.
The essay takes a LONG time to actually getting around to answering the title question, and the answer is technology + prices, which, well, makes sense. To quote:
" But from the moment one man began to stand in need of the help of another; from the moment it appeared advantageous to any one man to have enough provisions for two, equality disappeared, property was introduced, work became indispensable, and vast forests became smiling fields, which man had to water with the sweat of his brow, and where slavery and misery were soon seen to germinate and grow up with the crops.
Metallurgy and agriculture were the two arts which produced this great revolution...
In this state of affairs, equality might have been sustained, had the talents of individuals been equal, and had, for example, the use of iron and the consumption of commodities always exactly balanced each other; but, as there was nothing to preserve this balance, it was soon disturbed"
This seems basically right to me -- specialization and technology are what create wealth, so they are necessary for inequality.
I tried to include this quote in some forthcoming research about inequality in the US, but Erik B was against it. "Rousseau -- isn't he that anti-technology fanatic? We're pro-technology here *winking smile*".
As much as it pained me to eliminate such an erudite reference, I get where Erik's coming from. Rousseau's vision is disturbingly anti-progress, and to the extent he inspired Marx and other socialists, perhaps that strain has always been a dormant corruption.
Another angle -- Rousseau says inequality is artificial; Peterson says it's innate. Two metaphors: the solitary ape, and the hierarchical lobster. Which way modern man? IDK I guess humans are humans, not lobsters or apes.