Scan barcode
jeremygoodjob's review against another edition
3.0
It makes sense to me that incels and young republicans love to read all this stuff: society is conceived of as a sand castle that can be reformed, destroyed, and re-constructed all according to what is rationally optimal. In Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau there are no dizzying complexities or vast bureaucracies; there are no racial disparities because race does not exist. My sense is that in Rousseau’s eyes these would all be unnecessary complications that highlight how democracy becomes burdensome and ineffective at large scale.
Similar to Locke, Rousseau’s conjecture on the history of society and various forms of government sounds like the rambling of an over-confident dorm-room philosopher. But he’s pretty funny, and his underlying thesis seems right to me: we are forever in chains, and our relationship with government and society is necessarily one of conflict over power. It’s striking to me that it’s more politically motivating today to allege a vast, devil-worshipping, child-grooming conspiracy than to simply frame a citizen’s relationship with their representatives as a lifelong fight, but it’s wild that JJ was writing this 250 years ago.
Similar to Locke, Rousseau’s conjecture on the history of society and various forms of government sounds like the rambling of an over-confident dorm-room philosopher. But he’s pretty funny, and his underlying thesis seems right to me: we are forever in chains, and our relationship with government and society is necessarily one of conflict over power. It’s striking to me that it’s more politically motivating today to allege a vast, devil-worshipping, child-grooming conspiracy than to simply frame a citizen’s relationship with their representatives as a lifelong fight, but it’s wild that JJ was writing this 250 years ago.
jonathanlibrarian's review against another edition
3.0
Citizens must choose freedom over comfort, engaging in public assembly. If this is true, what has become of most modern states? Interesting look at the justification of a social state through social contract. We are forced to be free in more ways than one. Not a fan of is advocacy of aristocracy, temporary dictatorships to save a state, totalitarian civil worship of state and role in it, and general religious aim. Overall, worth the read.
jerryw's review against another edition
4.0
Certainly a very interesting read. One feeling this book gave me was just how far we've come from the earliest of times. I found myself nodding to some statements (I'd still say a small portion though) mentioned in the book. I think my biggest takeaway is just how influential this work has been. It has influenced so many thinkers from the Enlightenment till modern history. It's such a monumental piece of work considering the ripples it has caused in history; it played a huge role in the French Revolution (and thus by extension other revolutions). I'm just amazed at how mankind has advanced through time and have come to realize that I take some of the things that seem to be so common sense now for granted.
Before I try to review the contents of this book in a slightly more subjective manner, I feel like there is really no point in taking anything personally.It's after all some old white guy thinking he can figure out what liberty is I think the best way to approach this book is just to accept that times are different now and we value drastically different things. If you're looking at this book with a modern lens, you'd be surprised how much Rousseau seems to back Totalitarianism. Rousseau often gives examples, but they all make the societies (e.g. the Roman comitia) seem so ideal. I can't believe that people can just agree to disagree and society would allegedly prosper. Or maybe that's just because how polarized we've actually become nowadays.
P.S. (I should also mention that this contains a very European-centric point of view on everything including governments. I can definitely imagine principles and concepts varying greatly if someone outside Europe wrote about how governments should be. So I suppose just read this objectively and don't take it too personal.)
Before I try to review the contents of this book in a slightly more subjective manner, I feel like there is really no point in taking anything personally.
Spoiler
I don't know if this is technically a spoiler-there's not much to spoil-but Rousseau essentially says that people should subscribe to the general will even if they hold different opinions, and should give up physical liberties for "civil liberty"; therefore we can be more "moral", because we are social creatures. I mean there is really not a shortage of controversial points, such as aristocracy being the best form of government and his views on slavery.P.S. (I should also mention that this contains a very European-centric point of view on everything including governments. I can definitely imagine principles and concepts varying greatly if someone outside Europe wrote about how governments should be. So I suppose just read this objectively and don't take it too personal.)
hanan_sheikh's review against another edition
4.0
Rousseau is one of those thinkers who you have to be careful with, in order to avoid throwing away the baby with the bathwater. While it is true that the irony was lost on the guy when he wrote a book about how to raise children, even though he abandoned all of his children, and that he declared that music and the arts are corrupting humanity, while making a living by composing music and writing literature. In short, Rousseau is probably the most easiest philosopher to use an ad-hominem against. But still, his ideas on political philosophy are, in my opinion, the best out of the three big social contractarian philosophers( Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau).
Firstly, the idea of the general will is brilliant. The general will can be broadly described as the collective abstraction of the wills of all the individuals in a society, aimed towards the common goal of self-preservation, and general well-being. For instance, imagine yourself stranded in an island, and you find other individuals in that island who're also stranded. All of you cooperate and work together to survive, for the common goal of self-preservation. Now, that social pact you form with the other individuals, for obtaining the common goal of survival, is the general will. Rousseau also makes an important distinction between the government and the general will. The government is bestowed the task of actualizing the general will, but it isn't the general will, in fact it has its own seperate particular will, which if given the chance will disregard the general will( something that happens most of the time).
Another point that Rousseau makes which isn't a big theme in this particular book is that property and wealth are only acquired after the social pact is made. This obvious observation disproves Locke's theory for a social contract, according to which we form societies to protect property. Now, I'm not going to discuss Locke in detail here, for obvious reasons, but will just add a remark that Locke was aware of Native Americans, who didn't have the concept of private property at all. Yet, he proposed that societies began to protect properties. It quite obvious to me that his work was just him trying to justify his political ambitions, and similarly the people who still take that main premise seriously are doing the exact same thing.
The last point I want to write about is that Rousseau was really fixated on his view that the governing bodies should not have legislative power. In fact, he even proposes that an outsider ought to write the constitution, so that no one might form the constitution in such a way that it overtly benefits their particular will.
Firstly, the idea of the general will is brilliant. The general will can be broadly described as the collective abstraction of the wills of all the individuals in a society, aimed towards the common goal of self-preservation, and general well-being. For instance, imagine yourself stranded in an island, and you find other individuals in that island who're also stranded. All of you cooperate and work together to survive, for the common goal of self-preservation. Now, that social pact you form with the other individuals, for obtaining the common goal of survival, is the general will. Rousseau also makes an important distinction between the government and the general will. The government is bestowed the task of actualizing the general will, but it isn't the general will, in fact it has its own seperate particular will, which if given the chance will disregard the general will( something that happens most of the time).
Another point that Rousseau makes which isn't a big theme in this particular book is that property and wealth are only acquired after the social pact is made. This obvious observation disproves Locke's theory for a social contract, according to which we form societies to protect property. Now, I'm not going to discuss Locke in detail here, for obvious reasons, but will just add a remark that Locke was aware of Native Americans, who didn't have the concept of private property at all. Yet, he proposed that societies began to protect properties. It quite obvious to me that his work was just him trying to justify his political ambitions, and similarly the people who still take that main premise seriously are doing the exact same thing.
The last point I want to write about is that Rousseau was really fixated on his view that the governing bodies should not have legislative power. In fact, he even proposes that an outsider ought to write the constitution, so that no one might form the constitution in such a way that it overtly benefits their particular will.
username999's review
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
2.0
Okay so, regardless of some very good points and this book being ahead of it's time (As instead of discussing about specific political identifies and whatnot - the point that democracy has value only if it's from the people as this can relate to the modern day of big corporations ruling the USA. And that not just voting for new members but more easily being able to also to vote on improving the institutions over time so it can be more fitted to the times and to the people of that particular generation) And I really did think that this book did a good job in being very practical and describing concrete steps in how we being equal is important. I might not have agreed with everything that was said, but I think that the message here is important and I think even better explained than the communist manifest. Now I've never read that, but he brought up many things that I do know about it which was interesting to see and how it was described in a different perspective which I haven't seen before. And again, even if I don't agree with everything, it was still nevertheless refreshing to see it the way it was here without cynicism that I feel often comes from it, directly or indirectly.
So why did I give this 2 stars? Omg because it was very painful to get through. I absolutely hated the writing in this book with a passion. I understand it's an older book, but the reading experience was one of the worst I've ever read. At least there wasn't anything problematic about it, but omg my eyes were rejecting the pages even though I was happy with the content? I dunno, if the book was more direct in what it was trying to convey without all of it's completely unnecessary flowery language the experience would be so much different. And even in spite of the good things I have to say about it, I don't recommend this book to anything. And if anyone is interested in the subject material, I would try reading another account that can better describe what this book was trying to convey so you can save yourself from the pain I went though as I was reading this.
So why did I give this 2 stars? Omg because it was very painful to get through. I absolutely hated the writing in this book with a passion. I understand it's an older book, but the reading experience was one of the worst I've ever read. At least there wasn't anything problematic about it, but omg my eyes were rejecting the pages even though I was happy with the content? I dunno, if the book was more direct in what it was trying to convey without all of it's completely unnecessary flowery language the experience would be so much different. And even in spite of the good things I have to say about it, I don't recommend this book to anything. And if anyone is interested in the subject material, I would try reading another account that can better describe what this book was trying to convey so you can save yourself from the pain I went though as I was reading this.
More...