Rousseau, Jean-Jacques

Average customer rating:

Post-Modern Child Rearing
great book, great translation
Nature, Education and Democracy
Not the Best Rousseau
The Unread Masterpiece

Emile: Or, On Education
Jean-Jacques Rousseau , and Allan Bloom
Manufacturer: Basic Books
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

Historical | Genre Fiction | Literature & Fiction | Subjects | Books

General | Education | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

History, 17th & 18th Century | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Education | Professional & Technical | Subjects | Books

Look Inside Fiction Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books

Look Inside Nonfiction Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books

Qualifying Textbooks - Spring 2007 | Stores | Books
Similar Items:

Confessions (Oxford World's Classics)
Democracy And Education
A Treatise of Human Nature
Rousseau: 'The Discourses' and Other Early Political Writings (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought)
Julie, or the New Heloise: Letters of Two Lovers Who Live in a Small Town at the Foot of the Alps (Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, Works. Vol. 6.)

ASIN: 0465019315

Book Description

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

Customer Reviews:

Post-Modern Child Rearing.......2007-04-13

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.......2004-11-12

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.......2002-10-21

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.......2002-02-15

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.......2000-05-25

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 Corner Stone to Rousseau's "Discourse on the Sciences and Arts" & "Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality." Rousseau's imaginary pupil, Emile, will "get his lessons from nature and not from men." Rousseau is not concerned with teaching Emile numerous facts, but with instructing the child to be able to think for himself.

Emile will have one mentor, Robinson Crusoe. Crusoe is Rousseau's modern natural man. Crusoe is "on his island, alone, deprived of the assistance of all the arts, providing nevertheless for his subsistence." Rousseau goes to extremes to create a childhood that is free from habit, and one that provides Emile with the greatest adaptability to his surroundings, whatever they may be, for the rest of his life.

Rousseau's ideas are profound. Though he is far less well known than Marx, Nietzsche, and or Weber, to name a few, his ideas are the basis for the philosophies' of these men, who have in return influenced society. Along with Rousseau's Two Discourses, Emile is a must read. (I recommend reading the Discourses before Emile.) However, do not expect Rousseau to tell you everything because he does not spend an extensive time explaining all of the minute details, especially those regarding the first few years of Emile's life. Rather, he says, "if you have to be told everything, do not read me."

Book Description

Censored in its own time, the Social Contract (1762) remains a key source of democratic belief and is one of the classics of political theory. This new translation is fully annotated and indexed. The volume also contains the opening chapter of the manuscript version of the Contract, together with the long article on Political Economy, a work traditionally between the Contract and Rousseau's earlier masterpiece, the Discourse on Inequality.

Download Description

THE first and most important deduction from the principles we have so far laid down is that the general will alone can direct the State according to the object for which it was instituted, i.e., the common good: for if the clashing of particular interests made the establishment of societies necessary, the agreement of these very interests made it possible.

Customer Reviews:

Still a Timely Study on Liberty.......2007-01-29

Immanuel Kant had one portrait hanging in his house in Konigsberg. The portrait was of Rousseau. What an honor, to be memorialized while alive by THE leading figure of the enlightenment!

Rousseau never coined the term 'noble savage'. This is a popular misunderstanding and outright lie. He was himself though, a seeming savage. He carried on love affairs, abandonded children, spoke of heresy, and so on.

But on to 'The Social Contract'. It is the houses, no matter how prettily and well built they be, that make up the town, but it is the citizen, gloriously free citizen who makes up the city.

So Rousseau to me ironically leaves the countryside behind and sets himself up in the city.

Here, man, at least enlightened man, democratically chooses his leaders and magistrates and allows them to rule by choice. This enlightened man is subject to the law and not to the magistrate, and Liberty, Sweet Liberty, is the penultimate Virtue of the now ennobled citizen.

Death is to be preferred to loss of it.

It can be won.

It cannot be won again.

Once you lose it, it's gone forever, this Liberty.

Timely indeed.

Social cohesiveness.......2007-01-27

From page 186:
"It is impossible to live in peace with people one believes to be damned"

From page 187:
"But anyone who dares to say `outside the church there is no salvation should be expelled from the state unless the state is the church and the Prince the Pontiff"

The Social Contract was written in 1762. It is my understanding many of the Founding Fathers of the United States had read the book and this work certainly had a major influence on French thought, therefore on the French Revolution. French society suffered many wrongs because of religious intolerance and it had a major effect on the author's thoughts. In my Faith, in my thoughts those who do not accept Jesus Christ as their Savior are damned to Hell. I believe there is one true Universal church. A church not made bricks and mortar, but of souls. While this definition of church does include a denomination, the theology is in disagreement with what Rousseau believed to be of a benefit to social cohesiveness. He be believed people should only have positive dogmas which did include earthly punishment for sin, that people should seek to do God's will; God has a watchful eye over people and government. The author certainly had a problem with one believing that God damns those of other Christian constructs. He wanted to outlaw or redefine the Catholic Faith and Protestantism to fit into his idea of social cohesiveness. His idea of religious tolerance gets a more sympathetic ear today then when written.

Rousseau contributed to the thoughts of man. That man gives up certain rights in a civil society. That only through government does anyone truly has his rights protected. That it is only through some sort of social agreement that ones civil rights and property rights are protected. My physical security is no longer just dependent on me. It is through the organization of men I can own, I can do without fear that another will deny simply because of my absence or more might.

Partiality and equality. Equality is not to have a right beyond that of another individual Partiality is to have more rights then another individual because who your Father is, wealth, friendship with the Prince, or any other reason. Rousseau did not dismiss partiality from society, but he did ask it only be set up through the general will of the people. He therefore argued that people should associate together for the purpose of forming a political argument. He wanted each person to come to conclusions based on the strength of argument. How debate could not be obtained without alliance and organization of debate is not dealt with. Freedom of association is not dealt with in the book.

The General Will is determined by the majority. Rousseau recognizes the particular will of the individual is often in disagreement with the general will. Compromise is needed and an individual is generally better off because of government action then if no action were taken. The author decries sectionalism ( beliefs or ideas that grow out of living in a different geographic area and beliefs coming forth from other associations). He does not have an idea how this can be eliminated.

The author speaks on many topics on the determination what is the best form of government. The author makes a distinction between the prince as the one who enforces the law and the lawmaker. Rousseau discusses how population, climate, geographic landscape, beliefs of the public and education effect the form of government and the ability to be governed. This book I believe made a major contribution on how we think about government and society.

A masterpiece of political thought.......2007-01-10

The issues of liberty and democracy, monarchy and legitimacy, are never better explained that in The Social Contract by Rousseau. Rousseau explains every thought on to the page, from the most abstract thoughts of the ideal society to every day issues of Lobbying (which he finds a major detriment to society) and Suffrage (which Rousseau demands of society). The book is wonderfully written, every word is deliberate (I must pay my respect for the translator on such a splendid job) and shows how important understanding language is in order to understand the great ideas that are discussed by language. Liberals will see this book as a beautiful light of democracy, conservatives might see this book as proof of authoritarian beliefs. The truth is that both can be read in the book. Because the book not only conveys to the reader what Rousseau thinks, it inspires the reader to think for him or her self.

Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.......2006-12-18

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 tempted or 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.

great audio book.......2006-08-16

The Social Contract, Or Principles of Political Right (1762) by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, is the book in which Rousseau theorised about social contracts.

Rousseau expounded the belief that the ideal society is one in which a man's contract was between himself and his fellow men, not between he and a government.

Like John Locke, Rousseau believed that a government can only be legitimate if it has ben sanctioned by the people, in the role of the sovereign. Rousseau claimed that a perfect society would be controlled by the "general will" of its populace.

While he does not define exactly how this should be accomplished (as there are many possible ways, each suited to different situations), he suggests that assemblies be held in which the every citizen can assist in determining the general will. Without this imput from the people, there can be no legitimate government. Importantly, this input cannot come from representatives, but must be from the people themesevles.

"THE Sovereign, having no force other than the legislative power, acts only by means of the laws; and the laws being solely the authentic acts of the general will, the Sovereign cannot act save when the people is assembled."[Book III, 12. HOW THE SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY MAINTAINS ITSELF]

"Every law the people has not ratified in person is null and void -- is, in fact, not a law." [Book III, 15. DEPUTIES OR REPRESENTATIVES]

"The legislative power belongs to the people, and can belong to it alone"[Book III, 1. GOVERNMENT IN GENERAL]

The Social Contract was a progressive work that helped inspire political reforms or revolutions in Europe, especially in France. The Social Contract finally expelled the myth that the King was appointed by God to legeslate; as Rousseau asserts, only the people, in the form of the sovereign, have that all powerful right.

The stated aim of the Social Contract is to determine whether there can be a legitimate political authority. "Man was born free, but he is everywhere he chains." In order to accomplish more and remove himself from the state of nature, a man must enter into a Social Contract with others. In this social contract, everyone will be free because all forfeit the same amount of freedom and impose the same duties on all. Rousseau also argues that it is illogical for a man surrender his freedom for slavery, and so, the participants must be free. Furthermore, althought he contract imposes new law, especially on property, a person can exit it at any time (except in a time of need, for this is desertion), and is again as free as when he was born.

Rousseau seems to prefer a benevolent Tyrant over any other form of leadership (including a true democracy); however, he remains obscure on this point.

Rousseau posits that any administration, whatever form it takes, should be divided into two parts. First, there must be the sovereign (which could be the whole population if that is the majority's desire) who represents the general will and is the legeslative power within the state. The second division is that of the government, being distinct from the sovereign. This division must be since the sovereign cannot deal with particular matters (it is then acting as particular wills and not the general will--the sovereign is no longer whole and therefore ruined), like applications of the law. Therefore a government must be sperate from that of the sovereign body.

[Rousseau] claims that the size of the territory to be governed often decides the nature of the government. Since a government is only as strong as the people, and this strength is absolute, the larger the territory the more strength the government must be able to exert over the populace. In his view, a monarchal government is able to wield the most power over the people since it has to devote less power to itself, while a democracy the least. In general, the larger the bureaucracy, the more power required for government discipline. Normally, this relationship requires the state to be an aristocracy or monarchy. In light of all this, Rousseau seems to prefer a benevolent Tyrant over any other form of leadership (including a true democracy); however, he remains obscure on this point.

Main Ideas

Of the State of Nature

Rousseau scorns the state of nature as a state of perpetual war. In this state there is no private property--in fact, the only property that is truely one's own, is property that no one else wants.

In this state of nature, strength rule, not by legitemacy, but by force itself. It is in this way that in a state of nature, man is only as free as he is strong. Furthermore, there is no pretection from others.

It is from both of these detestable qualities that people enter into a Social Contract; it is to empower themselves to thereby be able to accomplish more--with the help of others--than would be possible in a state of nature. The elementary point in this social contract though is legitemate leadership and freedom. The freedom to be the same as others (no special burden unique to one person) and the freedom to leave the social order and revert back to a state of nature.

Of Wills

One of the most important distinctions throughout the treatise is that of the seperate wills of people and government. For the people, there is the general will, the personal will, and the will of all. The general will desires what is best for the society as a whole, the personal will wants what is best for an individual, and the will of all is the summation of all personal will--not the general will. In government, there are three wills again: the general will, the coporate will, and personal will. The general will of the government is the same as those of the populace (as members of said populace make up the government), the coporate will desires the longevity of the government, and the personal will, as in the former case, is merely what people want for themselves.

Of Government

"Every free action has two causes which concur to produce it, one moral--the will which determines the act, the other physical--the strength which executes it. [...] The body politic has the same two motive powers--and we can make the same distinction between will and strength, the former is legislative power and the latter is executive power." (Book III, Chater 1)

The quintessential form of this Social Contract would be a democracy; however, unless, as Rousseau states, the population is one of Gods, this true democracy is impossilbe and, therefore, the state must be either an aristocracy or a monarchy, or a mixture of any of the three. The only duty of the sovereign is the embodiment of the general will, and when the general will fails to dictate the laws of the society, the sovereign has failed. To protect themsevles from this, the people should have an active role in the government election of officials and the passage of laws and must not pass their rights off to representatives. As an example of this, Rousseau gives ancient Rome with a monarch and the three lawfully convined assemplies known as comitia. Through these assemblies all citizens were represented; however, the emperor had much power in all. As for the discussion and voting in assemblies, people should vote not according to their personal interests but according to the general will. If the executive (government) goes against the general will, it breaks the social contract and should be dissolved. Rousseau furthers this idea and suggests that the sovereign, like those in Rome, should legislate clear times for assemblies to be held which cannot be posponed by the leader(s) of the state. This safeguards the people from a government that is acting not for the general will, but for its own, corporate will by trying to extend beyond its constitutional power and act only in the interests of the administrations longevity.

Rousseau adds a caveat: in times that require a swiftness which a bureaucracy cannot attain, it is important to act quickly and in one of two ways: appoint one or two magistrates to act as the government, or place one man above the law--a dictator. Both are only temporary solutions and as soon as the danger that catalyzed the change in government abates, the officials must abdicate their position. This is in keeping with the general will because the safety of the state is its foremost concern and the suspension of laws and due process is sometimes, albeit rarely, the only method to ensure this.

Of Religion

Rousseau breaks religion into two catagories: religion of the man, and religion of the citizen. Religion of the man requires only an inner belief in a supreme being, the religion of the citizen, however, requires dogmas, rituals, external forms of worship, and views other religions as alien and backward.

Rousseau continues and adds that there is a curious, third form, that "one might call the religion of the priest." (Rousseau, 1762) This form bestows upon men two rulers, two motherlands, and two legislators, thus, placing the citizens in a paradox. Due to the inherint contradiction between church and state in this form of religion Rousseau declares it to be fatal to social unity and therefore utterly useless. He considers the religion of the Lamas, the Japanese, and that of the Catholic Christianity to be such religions. Due to their inate flaw, he does not expound further on this form, but focuses only on the first two.

The second form of religion is excellent for the state as it binds men to it via a divine being. Therefore, obeying the laws of the sovereign is, by proxy, obeying the laws of God. Similarily, dying for the state is, by proxy, viewed as dying for god, et cetera. In this case, the government is also the clergy (this is not the same as the clergy being the government). This form of religion does have its downsides though in that it decieves men and thereby makes them "credulous superstitous". Furthermore, this form of religion breeds intolerance and propagates bloodthirst because the citizens believe it a holy task to kill those that believe in other deities.

The first form of religion is more or less inert. It does not place men at odds with one another, but it also does not unite.

According to Rousseau, the dogmas of a "civil religion" must be simple and small in number. He gives as examples of positive dogmas: "the existance of an omnipotent, intelligent, benevolent being that provides and forsees; the life to come; the happiness of the just; the punishment of sinners; the sanctity of the social contract and the law;" et cetera. The only negative dogma Rousseau allows is for no intolerance. "Intolerance is something which belongs to the religions we have rejected."

The most important idea stemming from this chapter is the seperation of church and state. According to Rousseau, when the church becomes the government, the sovereign are no longer sovereign. Intolerance leads directly to this consequence. Due to this, there must be no national religion, but rather all should be embraced. The only exception to this is a religious dogma that forces people to be bad citizens--this must not be tolerated.

Interestingly, although Rousseau proves slavery unjust, he also posits that it maybe the only way for a society to be free. In otherwords in order to be free yourself, you must enslave another lest you both be slaves to someone else.

The Cambridge Companion to Rousseau (Cambridge Companions to Philosophy)

Average customer rating:

Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains

The Cambridge Companion to Rousseau (Cambridge Companions to Philosophy)
Patrick Riley
Manufacturer: Cambridge University Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

History & Surveys | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

History, 17th & 18th Century | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Modern | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Look Inside Nonfiction Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books
Similar Items:

The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes (Cambridge Companions to Philosophy)
The Cambridge Companion to Locke (Cambridge Companions to Philosophy)
The Cambridge Companion to Mill (Cambridge Companions to Philosophy)
The Cambridge Companion to Marx (Cambridge Companions to Philosophy)
The Cambridge Companion to Hume (Cambridge Companions to Philosophy)

ASIN: 0521576156

Book Description

Rousseau, the great political theorist and philosopher of education, was an important forerunner of the French Revolution, though his thought was too nuanced and subtle ever to serve as mere ideology. This is the only volume that systematically surveys the full range of Rousseau's activities in politics and education, psychology, anthropology, religion, music, and theater. New readers will find this the most convenient and accessible guide to Rousseau currently available, while advanced students and specialists will find a conspectus of recent developments in the interpretation of Rousseau.

Customer Reviews:

Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.......2006-12-18

Average customer rating:

It is a work of a genius!!!
A classic autobiography
'Feelings can only be described in terms of their effects'
How to understand your life-- the best autobiography ever written
The authenticity of a personal fiction

Confessions (Oxford World's Classics)
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Manufacturer: Oxford University Press, USA
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

Authors | Arts & Literature | Biographies & Memoirs | Subjects | Books

General | Biographies & Memoirs | Subjects | Books

General | Historical | Biographies & Memoirs | Subjects | Books

Philosophers | Professionals & Academics | Biographies & Memoirs | Subjects | Books

Classics | General | Literature & Fiction | Subjects | Books

French | World Literature | Literature & Fiction | Subjects | Books

General | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Arts & Photography | Subjects | Books

General | Performing Arts | Arts & Photography | Subjects | Books

Look Inside Art Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books

Look Inside Biographies | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books

Look Inside Entertainment Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books

Look Inside Fiction Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books

Look Inside Nonfiction Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books
Similar Items:

Reveries of the Solitary Walker (Penguin Classics)
A Discourse on Inequality (Penguin Classics)
Emile: Or, On Education
Candide and Other Stories (Oxford World's Classics)
Jacques the Fatalist (Oxford World's Classics)

ASIN: 0192822756

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.

Customer Reviews:

It is a work of a genius!!!.......2007-04-08

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.......2007-03-11

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'.......2007-01-04

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.......2007-01-01

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.......2006-11-30

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.

Average customer rating:

Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains
A great collection of works by an unequalled thinker
Rousseau's influence on Kant
Rousseau Comments on Society and the General Will of Man
Attention Poly Sci Students

Basic Political Writings
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Manufacturer: Hackett Publishing Company
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

Modern | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Political | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Look Inside Nonfiction Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books

jp-unknown2 | Specialty Stores | Books

All 4-for-3 Deals | 4-for-3 Books Store | Stores | Books

Qualifying Textbooks - Spring 2007 | Stores | Books
Similar Items:

Second Treatise of Government
Leviathan (Penguin Classics)
Leviathan: With Selected Variants from the Latin Edition of 1668
The Marx-Engels Reader
The Prince (Bantam Classics)

ASIN: 0872200477

Customer Reviews:

Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.......2006-12-18

A great collection of works by an unequalled thinker.......2005-05-29

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.......2004-05-13

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.......2000-03-26

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 political economy, to describe the basic policies of then modern society. Rousseau describes the creation of society as a threat against the laws of nature. Rousseau also explains that the origin of society coincides with the concept of personal property. From there society develops by who controls whom 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, and everywhere he is in chains." Books two and three describe the attitudes of a nation and its responsibilities to both other nations and its own people. The final book of "The Social Contract" affirms the point that a nation cannot destroy the general will of the people. "The Basic Political Writings" are considered an excellent resource on society simply for its commentary on the general will. Rousseau's writings are amazing when coupled with the later thoughts of Karl Marx in "The Communist Manifesto." Obvious correlation's can be made between Rousseau's commentary and Marx's ideals of the creation of a communist society. Although these writings may not be for the average reader, the points they make extremely thought provoking.

Attention Poly Sci Students.......2000-03-25

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 any societal influences governed his actions. He then explains how man left this initial state of nature to form society's. According to Rousseau, reason and cooperation, which led to the sciences and arts, are what forced us 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 ideal society should be. Enjoy your reading...

Autobiographical, Scientific, Religious, Moral, and Literary Writings (Collected Writings of Rousseau)

Average customer rating:

Autobiographical, Scientific, Religious, Moral, and Literary Writings (Collected Writings of Rousseau)
Jean Rousseau
Manufacturer: Dartmouth College Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Library Binding

General | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

History, 17th & 18th Century | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Look Inside Nonfiction Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books
Similar Items:

The Plan for Perpetual Peace, On the Government of Poland, and Other Writings on History and Politics (Collected Writings of Rousseau)
Letter to D'Alembert and Writings for the Theater (Collected Writings of Rousseau)
Essay on the Origin of Languages and Writings Related to Music (Collected Writings of Rousseau)
Leo Strauss: An Intellectual Biography
Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Restless Genius

ASIN: 1584655992

Book Description

Newcomers to Rousseau's works and those who are familiar with his writings will find something to surprise them both in this wide variety of short pieces from every period of his life.

Among the important theoretical writings found here are the "Fiction or Allegorical Fragment on Revelation" and the "Moral Letters," which are among Rousseau's clearest statements about the nature and limits of philosophic reasoning. In the early "Idea of a Method for the Composition of a Book," Rousseau lays out in advance his understanding of how to present his ideas to the public. He ponders the possibilities for and consequences of air travel in "The New Daedalus." This volume also contains both his first and last autobiographical statements.

Some of these writings show Rousseau's lesser-known playful side. A comic fairy tale, "Queen Whimsical", explores the consequences--both serious and ridiculous--for a kingdom when the male heir to the throne, endowed with the frivolous characteristics of his mother, has a sister with all the characteristics of a good monarch. When Rousseau was asked whether a fifty-year old man could write love letters to a young woman without appearing ridiculous, he responded with "Letters to Sophie," which attempt to demonstrate that such a man could write as many as four--but not as many as six--letters before he became a laughingstock. In "The Banterer," he challenges readers to guess whether the work they are reading was written by an author who is "wisely mad" or by one who is "madly wise." When Rousseau was challenged to write a merry tale, "without intrigue, without love, without marriage, and without lewdness," he produced a work considered too daring to be published in France.

Julie, or the New Heloise: Letters of Two Lovers Who Live in a Small Town at the Foot of the Alps (Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, Works. Vol. 6.)

Average customer rating:

A Superb Story

Julie, or the New Heloise: Letters of Two Lovers Who Live in a Small Town at the Foot of the Alps (Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, Works. Vol. 6.)
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Manufacturer: Dartmouth College Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

French | World Literature | Literature & Fiction | Subjects | Books

European | World Literature | Literature & Fiction | Subjects | Books

Classics | General | Literature & Fiction | Subjects | Books

Historical | Genre Fiction | Literature & Fiction | Subjects | Books

General | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Look Inside Fiction Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books
Similar Items:

The Confessions and Correspondence, Including the Letters to Malesherbes (The Collected Writings of Rousseau, Vol 5)
Emile: Or, On Education
Reveries of the Solitary Walker (Penguin Classics)
Confessions (Oxford World's Classics)
Politics and the Arts: Letter to M.D. Alembert on the Theatre (Agora Paperback Editions)

ASIN: 0874518253

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.

Customer Reviews:

A Superb Story.......2003-07-07

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.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Restless Genius
Average customer rating:

Master of no one, mastered by no one

Much more than just his philosophy.

Dialectic of the Enlightenment

Who is Rousseau? He is us.

Philosophy rooted in personality

Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Restless Genius
Leo Damrosch
Manufacturer: Houghton Mifflin
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

Authors | Arts & Literature | Biographies & Memoirs | Subjects | Books
General | Biographies & Memoirs | Subjects | Books
General | Historical | Biographies & Memoirs | Subjects | Books
Political | Leaders & Notable People | Biographies & Memoirs | Subjects | Books
Look Inside Biographies | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books
Similar Items:

Voltaire Almighty: A Life in Pursuit of Freedom

Rousseau's Dog: Two Great Thinkers at War in the Age of Enlightenment

Friedrich Nietzsche

Flaubert: A Biography

The Courtier and the Heretic: Leibniz, Spinoza, and the Fate of God in the Modern World

ASIN: 0618446966

Book Description

Motherless child, failed apprentice, autodidact, impossibly odd lover, Jean-Jacques Rousseau burst unexpectedly onto the eighteenth- century scene as a literary provocateur whose works electrified readers from the start. Rousseau's impact on American social and political thought remains deep, wide, and, to some, even infuriating. Leo Damrosch beautifully mines Rousseau's booksThe Social Contract, one of the greatest works on political theory and a direct influence on the French and American revolutions; Emile, a groundbreaking treatise on education; and The Confessions, which created the genre of introspective autobiographyas works still uncannily alive to us today. Damrosch's triumph is to integrate the story of Rousseau's extraordinarily original writings with the tumultuous life that produced them. Rousseau's own words and those of prople who knew him help create an accessible, vivid portrait of a questing man whose strangeness as punishing and punished lover, difficult employee, and father who famously consigned his children to foundling homesdoes not go away. This, the first single-volume biography of Rousseau in English, and the first to treat the final ten years of his life, is as masterfully written as it is definitive.

Customer Reviews:

Master of no one, mastered by no one.......2007-01-30

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........2006-07-19

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.......2006-06-02

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........2006-05-27

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.......2006-02-19

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, written such a vivid and amazingly self-revealing autobiography, the famous Confessions. Especially as far as the first half of 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 the Confessions, and I was particularly taken with his comparisons between Rousseau'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 beyond what 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.

Three reformers: Luther--Descartes--Rousseau

Average customer rating:

Three reformers: Luther--Descartes--Rousseau
Jacques Maritain
Manufacturer: Sheed & Ward
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Unknown Binding
ASIN: B0007JR2ZA

Rousseau's Dog: Two Great Thinkers at War in the Age of Enlightenment

Average customer rating:

A Lap Dog of a Book
Not enough woof
Hard to trust
Gossip Column from the 18th Century.
Engaging and Intelligent

Rousseau's Dog: Two Great Thinkers at War in the Age of Enlightenment
David Edmonds , and John Eidinow
Manufacturer: Ecco
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

General | Biography | Bargain Books | Stores | Books

Wittgenstein's Poker: The Story of a Ten-Minute Argument Between Two Great Philosophers
The Courtier and the Heretic: Leibniz, Spinoza, and the Fate of God in the Modern World
Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Restless Genius
Voltaire Almighty: A Life in Pursuit of Freedom
Betraying Spinoza: The Renegade Jew Who Gave Us Modernity

ASIN: B000KHXCE4

Customer Reviews:

A Lap Dog of a Book.......2007-01-19

Using the same formula the authors had with "Wittgenstein's Poker", this book is an excellent popular work of intellectual history. Using a single incident for the jumping off point, it allows for an opening for a broad view of Enlightenment society and the state of philosophy in that era. Full of juicy gossip like a modern scandal sheet, the characters of David Hume and Jean-Jacque Rousseau are brought to life, often in their own words, to remind us that even the wisest of philosophers are still human.

Not enough woof.......2006-11-10

I read about half of this book. There was a lot detailed information about Hume's positioning in English and French Societies and Rousseau's many problems, but nothing that engaged me with these characters. It was not very novelistic and there was not much discussion of their ideas or of the broad social and intelectual contexts that made them interesting. Maybe things picked up in the second half.

Hard to trust.......2006-08-14

Anyone who can say, on page 6, that a man whose mother's death when he is 10 days old causes him to "suffer from a devastating loss and its concomitant anger" is more a cliched than a clear thinker.

Gossip Column from the 18th Century........2006-07-07

Two great thinkers of the mid 18th Century David Hume and Jean Jacques Rousseau got into a petty squabble over a pension for the exiled philosophe from George III. Though warned that Rousseau was a fruitloop beforehand by French Friends, Hume had helped him get setup with lodging in England and was taken aback by the mad frenchman's antagonism over the funds. Rousseau took great pride in seeming to be free of any other person's credit or due and took an open offer of help as an affront.

Hume took his rantings personally and thus began a scandalous campaign of letter writing from the two lierary heavyweights to the tabloids of London and the denizens of the Salons of Paris. Hume comes out looking worse for wear as he took the affront to his honor out of proportio