Product Description
This book was converted from its physical edition to the digital format by a community of volunteers. You may find it for free on the web. Purchase of the Kindle edition includes wireless delivery. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

Rousseau wrote better than he thought.
Okay, so Rousseau's deal is that in his totally imaginary (which he freely admits) State Of Nature, people are good and happy because they don't have to deal with each other -- it's only when people come into contact with each other that they become unhappy and status competitions begin, so society should be working for a point where... people won't come into contact with each other anymore?It's barely even an interesting thought experiment anymore, as it's been so frequently parroted by modern nostalgia for a simpler time when, really, there weren't many people in the world and even fewer of them that each individual knew to care about.This isn't great philosophy: he's using a false premise to essentially complain about the way he chose to live his life.

nice
In this work / the author does a fine job of presenting a theory on the inequalities of man.It is his first publication and it does seem to show less refinement than later works.This piece is much shorter than Emile but it echoes of it.It is sort of Darwinian / just a century before Darwin.I give this an Aminus.It is highly recommended. ... Read more

Product Description
The Confessions of J. J. Rousseau - Volume 09 is presented here in a high quality paperback edition. This popular classic work by Jean-Jacques Rousseau is in the English language. If you enjoy the works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau then we highly recommend this publication for your book collection. ... Read more

Product Description
The Confessions of J. J. Rousseau - Volume 02 is presented here in a high quality paperback edition. This popular classic work by Jean-Jacques Rousseau is in the English language. If you enjoy the works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau then we highly recommend this publication for your book collection. ... Read more

Product Description
The Confessions of J. J. Rousseau - Volume 07 is presented here in a high quality paperback edition. This popular classic work by Jean-Jacques Rousseau is in the English language. If you enjoy the works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau then we highly recommend this publication for your book collection. ... Read more

Product Description
Rousseau's major works, available for the first time in a uniform English edition, continue with translations of three works from his final decade. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

Rousseau's Forgotten Botanical Writings now available
This volume is unusually important because it contains for the first timea complete translation of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's botanical writings and athorough, indeed excellent set of notes.The translation and the notes arethe work of Alexandra Cook; she also co-wrote the volume's Introductionwith Christopher Kelly.Rousseau has long been known to scholars as aphilosopher of nature.Cook's work allows us to see for ourselves whatJean-Jacques actually knew about one great sphere of nature, i.e. plantsand their metamorphosis (Geothe takes his term and his theory fromRousseau's inspiration).Rousseau was one of the fathers of field botany,a champion of Linnean terminology but also of the natural system ofclassification formulated by the Jussieus.Cook's will legitimately be thedefinitive translation for many years to come; her translation is animportant event.I await her monograph on the subject. ... Read more

Product Description
The Confessions of J. J. Rousseau - Volume 03 is presented here in a high quality paperback edition. This popular classic work by Jean-Jacques Rousseau is in the English language. If you enjoy the works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau then we highly recommend this publication for your book collection. ... Read more

Product Description
This is an OCR edition without illustrations or index. It may have numerous typos or missing text. However, purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original rare book from GeneralBooksClub.com. You can also preview excerpts from the book there. Purchasers are also entitled to a free trial membership in the General Books Club where they can select from more than a million books without charge. Volume: 2; Original Published by: Privately printed by Oliver and Boyd in 1904 in 473 pages; Subjects: Biography & Autobiography / Philosophers; Family & Relationships / Family Relationships; Literary Criticism / European / French; Philosophy / History & Surveys / General; Philosophy / History & Surveys / Modern; ... Read more

Customer Reviews (22)

Portrait of the soul's interior monologue
This book is a revelation as it seemed to me a portrait, or perhaps a mask, of the heightened sensibilities of the interior monologue of a genius. "Since my name is certain to live on among men, I do not want the reputation it transmits to be a false one." Indeed, his honesty is remarkable as he writes about the abandonment of his children, his relationship with lovers and his intimate proclivities. Rousseau's life was a fascinating study of an extraordinary and innovative mind. He dined "sometime with princes at noon and supped with peasants at night." Musically self-taught, he invented an alphabetical code for writing music and wrote an opera performed with it in "The Village Soothsayer." His "Social Contract" inspired constitutions in nations struggling with revolution against monarchies to become democracies which earned him threats of sedition and cruel acts of political scorn. His books were burned, the church sought to excommunicate him, his house was stoned and he escaped in exile en route to Berlin through the good graces of philosopher David Hume to England toward the end of his life. At times, often enough, he seems the narcissist subtly engrossed in his many virtues masked in false humility and yet the final, lasting impression is of a masterpiece forged from the crucible of a tormented soul bent upon the diligent and inspired study of the journey of the maturing human heart. Like Voltaire toward the end of his life but before his exile, we find Rousseau living on a lake isle longing only to finish his life in the practice of avid gardening and intellectual pursuits. The translation here by Angela Scholar is richly, gorgeous prose which reminded me of Proust, who I'm confident must have been influenced by Rousseau. This book is, as Rousseau described it, the "most secret history of my soul" and ranks highly on my Top 25 Novels of All Time among the holy literary trinity of France's Proust in "The Remembrance of Lost Time" and Balzac's "Lost Illusions." I really can't urge you strongly enough to carve out the time to read this brilliantly conceived autobiography.

A Master of Passion
Rousseau claims that he may have the most intense passions, feelings and sentiments of any man to have ever lived. After you read this book, it is tempting to believe him.

Rousseau claims that his goal is to portray a man honestly with all his virtue and all his vice. While he doctors the facts, Rousseau leaves the reader with the most complete understanding of human sentiment possible. The book adheres to Rousseau's philosophy that humans are controlled by their passions rather than by reason. To prove this point Rousseau articulately describes the feelings and passions that he has felt throughout his life and what they caused him to do.

Rousseau is a master of rhetoric. He describes the passions and sentiments commone to all people in vivid language that will leave you both laughing and longing. You want to experience life as Rousseau experienced it--no thoughts just the pure sentiment of every moment. Rousseau is not honest about the events of his life, but he is honest about his feelings. And he expresses these feelings with the art of an excellent writer. This book is required reading for any romantic, any philosopher, and any lover of great literature. No matter your interests, I guarantee that several of Rousseau's well-turned stories of passion will stick with you.

A Must Read
When I began reading this book, I immediately realized that this was no ordinary book.Though I am relatively young, I had the feeling that this may be the most important book I will ever read.And it was.After reading this, I picked up his philosophy and was filled with indignation and remorse that I had never even heard of this man (and I am a English Graduate!).I suspect his philosophy is too passionate and subversive for a school curiculum, but nevertheless to deprive children of this knowledge is horrible.I was amazed when I questioned my professors and found that THEY have little to no knowledge of Rousseau.But I suppose I should not really be surprised.The Confessions is filled with so many memorable incidents of Rousseau's life.You really feel like you know the man.I found the first book, detailing his early years, infinitly more enjoyable than the second book, but this is how it must be.He admits that he himself enjoyed with pleasure writing the first book, but found the second much more grueling and difficult, because of the tragic quality of it all.In a word, your life will be immeasurably richer if you allow this charming individual in, and it is easier than you think.

Modern Prototype
Rousseau's 'Confessions' is a rarely intimate reflection of a classical philosopher's life and observations. The Confessions is also a sort of aesthetic precursor to Flaubert and Proust, a kind of interior amalgam of social reflection. Rousseau lived as exciting a life as practically anyone-he was friendly with the giants of his era, Voltaire, Diderot, D'lambert. He was also a bitter and paranoid provocateur who split with these figures as well as the enlightenment project as a whole. I honestly found sections of this text hard going, but I find it fascinating for its preoccupation with the text itself. Rousseau indicates that his life had been meaningless until he had begun writing his 'Confessions,' an admission of the centralityof this project to his life as a whole. Rousseau remains an admirable thinker for his clarity and honesty. Although he was pretty insane by the time he wrote the 'Confessions,' it remains a wildly entertaining and illuminating entry into the mind of one of our greatest minds.

Amazing mind in amazing times
I teach an acting class and as part of it I try to introduce students to great mindsand lives of the past they are probably unaware of having been educated in American in the 20th Century.One way I do this is through first person texts.What did that man experience?What did he think?What was his life?Not as told from a biographer but from the man himself.Rousseau's ideas on man, and freedom, and government framed thinking in the Enlightenment that in turn became an element of the American model of freedom.How did he get the way he was?Being raised without a father?Having health problems that made him embarrassed to be around women and society.All interesting from an historical, a philosophical, and human perspective. ... Read more

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

Customer Reviews (2)

Review of Gourevich's Rousseau II
The translation of this work is great, but its about the only redeeming feature of this work. The introduction really only addresses the Social Contract, and the editor didn't use footnotes to supplement those of Rousseau. I would have liked to see more scholarship in this work; it's just the reader and Rousseau, which can be uncomfortable, because he isn't a very friendly author. Also, I hate the covers on these Cambridge paperbacks; they're as stubborn as children.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


... Read more

Product Description
The Confessions of J. J. Rousseau - Volume 08 is presented here in a high quality paperback edition. This popular classic work by Jean-Jacques Rousseau is in the English language. If you enjoy the works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau then we highly recommend this publication for your book collection. ... Read more

Product Description
The Confessions of J. J. Rousseau - Volume 01 is presented here in a high quality paperback edition. This popular classic work by Jean-Jacques Rousseau is in the English language. If you enjoy the works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau then we highly recommend this publication for your book collection. ... Read more

Product Description
The Confessions of J. J. Rousseau - Complete is presented here in a high quality paperback edition. This popular classic work by Jean-Jacques Rousseau is in the English language. If you enjoy the works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau then we highly recommend this publication for your book collection. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

Sadly, only historically interesting
Whatever might be said about his other works, the "Confessions" are all to frequently highly reminiscent of today's culture wherein the good things that happen to us are because we are unquestionably smart, brilliant, deserving, etc. and when things go badly it is always because other people are evil, devious, or simply stupid.Rousseau takes only rare responsibility for his own misfortunes even when they are clearly due to his personal actions.Further, he is astonishingly adept at excusing actions he can't avoid... like putting all 5 of his chilren in an orphanage at birth, even after he had reached a point when he could have raised them.There also mysterious contradiction in his tale of life, one of the most frequent being how he bounces back and forth between a permanently impaired health and feeling just fine.His philosophical works are one thing; a few hundred pages of "Oh, poor me" are quite a different thing.Were it not for my inherent compulsion to read any book I start through to the end I'd have put "Confessions" down by the time I'd slogged through a third of it. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

Innacurate Account of the Truth
Lowell Bair, while providing the "essential" works of Rousseau, fails to provide an accurate account of what it was Rousseau truly wanted to say. Refer specifically to the Social Contract Book II, Chapters VI and VII, pertaining to the law and to lawgivers. Bair, through his own interest decides to cut out nearly every instance that Rousseau made regarding religion and God. As a religious man, Rousseau felt that it was extremly pertinent that religion, though it may cause conflict played an essential role in the formation of a state and the laws that bind it. For, there can really be no secular state. Now Bair, decided to cut this out, in several instances leaving the reader to only infer that religion was deep rooted in his writing. Whereas, In the true reading of the work, it is obviously clear. I think that this is a twisted version of the truth, and through reviews like the other one stated, that people who do not know but would like to know these writers will become blinded by authors who corrupt and throw their own "perspective" and "translations" into texts like the "Essential Rousseau" by Lowell Bair. You want to read the true account, read the original works, and even better in the original language it was meant to be read in!

Excellent Classroom Edition
"The Essential Rousseau" is an edition of, as its name suggests, Rousseau's most essential works, including his "Discourse on the Arts and Letters" and "Discourse on the Origins of Inequality" in their entirity, as well as excerpts from other major works, including "The Social Contract" and "The Savoyard Priest".The translation is clear and accurate, the selection of tests is appropraite and accurately reflects what I would consider to be essential.There's a good brief sketch of Rousseau's life and work in the beginning, and a quick introduction to each work.All in all, this is a fine edition for assignment in the classroom and for students. ... Read more

Product Description
This excellent translation makes available a classic work central to one of the most interesting controversies of the eighteenth century: the quarrel between Rousseau and Voltaire. Besides containing some of the most sensitive literary criticism ever written (especially of Molière), the book is an excellent introduction to the principles of classical political thought. It demonstrates the paradoxes of Rousseau's though and clearly displays the temperament that led him to repudiate the hopes of the Enlightenment. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

Rousseau's Blast Against Falstaff as King
In this work Rousseau took to task the French theater and, to a great extent, much of what passed for enlightened thinking about censorship and republican government. It is difficult for a modern reader to tolerate his arguments after they have largely been displaced by the concepts of our own Media age: the essential goodness of total freedom of the arts, uncensored publications, and all that goes with these.
Rousseau's rhetorical criticism of the theater, and the French Enlightenment figures, such as Voltaire, is carefully considered and extensive. He separates the intellectual deceits from what he considers bedrock issues, such as the absolute importance of a virtuous citenzry, and offers up a strict, severe Calvinist indictment of the foibles of passing off political thought as scientific reasoning. Rousseau makes no cheap arguments - his attack on the French theater is not predicated on some cheap vulgar play deserving of our disdain, but instead he confronts Moliere's masterpiece, the Misanthrope. And Rousseau shows in a magnificent reading of the play, which he admires, how Moliere deliberately subverts the truth for the effect of comedy. In this, Rousseau believes, virtue has been damaged more than we recognize. Rousseau believes comedy, and comic characters, strike at the heart of society's greatest strengths, pride in civic virtue, unity of purpose, repect for its leaders. He concludes that the theater is far more dangerous than the simple divertisement and amusement we think it, that supporters would have us believe. And he roundly rails against those who suggest the theater has the ability to improve society.
Much of what Rousseau argues echoes in our own society. However reactionary it all sounds at first, there is a deeply troubling truth in the pictures he draws of the duplicity behind Enlightenment pronouncements. He is also quick to point out conceited Philosophical attitudes devoid of any strict self-appraisal or self-criticism. Much of what he writes sounds almost upside down from modern accepted belief.
Harsh it certainly is, but Rousseau is very challenging, and his final words, for this essay was written near the end of his life, are not easily dismissed as final rantings of old age and bitterness with the future.
Although I am certainly not a conservative, I would suspect this book would be interesting to anyone holding such political views. For others, it offers a chance to see the darker side of what many of us take too readily for granted: freedom of press, an open - wide-open - popular theater (i.e. the movies) and the certaintude that many Democrats have in the absolute rightness of their beliefs.Rousseau throws buckets of cold water on all of us, and plays Prince Hal as King to our infatuation with the Falstaffian ethos.
There is an excellent and very necessary introduction by Allan Bloom.

A counter-blast to the trumpets of elitism
In this work, Rousseau replied to an article in the great "Encyclopedie" penned by D'Alembert.The article concerned Rousseau's hometown -- Geneva, and D'Alembert was for the most part quite complimentary about that city.But he did quarrel with the absense of any theatre.He was surprised, he said, that "in a city where proper and correct theatre is forbidden, coarse and silly farces as contrary to good taste as to good morals are permitted."

Rousseau was right to see elitism in those words.The intellectuals of D'Alembert's crowd naturally thought that they could decide for everybody what it "proper and correct," what is "coarse." Rousseau was right, furthermore, to issue this counterblast.

I'm not an advocate of every sentiment here, but I think I get the general drift of Rousseau's contention about art, festivals, and the public good.And I believe he got the better of the argument. ... Read more

Product Description
This title has fewer than 24 printed text pages.

Quotes and Images From The Confessions of J. J. Rousseau is presented here in a high quality paperback edition. This popular classic work by Jean-Jacques Rousseau is in the English language. If you enjoy the works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau then we highly recommend this publication for your book collection. ... Read more

Product Description
This is a new edition of Rousseau's timeless classic. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (27)

Open to intrepretation
I'm still not entirely certain how to take Rousseau. He seems self-certain, but I read this as his own naivete.

The work is often quotable, but without getting too far into detail I am troubled with the sometimes ambiguous nature of the text. This allows for multiple readings and interpretations which trouble me.

However, I do understand how this can be a foundational text for enlightenment and post-enlightenment thinkers, so I will not allow myself to be troubled and just accept the work as an important historical document.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau
The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Recommended reading for anyone interested in philosophy, political science, history and, psychology.

A civil society, dream on my friend...
When the Social Contract was published in 1762, Rousseau became a wanted man in France and Switzerland, but in 1794 after the French revolution, his remains were buried in Paris as an international hero.
In 1814, religious fundamentalists stole the remains of Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau and dumped them in a pit full of quicklime, a cruel burial reserved for individuals condemned by the church.

In the Social Contract, Rousseau postulates that a legitimate political authority in a civil society comes only from a social contract intended for their mutual preservation and agreed upon by all citizens (the sovereign). The sovereign that expresses the general will that aims at the common good has absolute authority over public matters. The state that is protecting citizens should follow laws of equality and liberty that are interestingly created by non-citizen lawgiver, and the state should also have a government to exercise executive power and daily business.

The social contract might sound very basic, utopia like and naive to many readers but considering the political nature of that time and the topics debated such as liberty, free will, and the state of nature, this work is absolutely a rebellious scream, which was much needed at the time.

Rousseau dreamed of a civil society, but given alone the way his remains were treated in 1814, it seems unlikely a civil society will ever exist. However, if we are not free in any way (or as Rousseau puts it: Man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains), we are still free to dream. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a free spirit who dared to dream, though imperfectly, had the courage to speak up; and for that alone his dream should be praised.

1984Anyone?
I picked up a copy of this book in a shop in Hong Kong with high expectations. I had heard of it but had not yet read it and was rather shocked to find an english language copy in a place like Hong Kong. It is very persuasive in some of it's arguments but is essentially little more than a book advocating totalitarian government systems and as I read it I couldn't help but wonder if the former Texas governer had a member of his staff read it to him sometime during his recent administration.
Aside from a few clever quotations and a few speechlike chapters this book is little more than a more elegant political pundit book. It proves little more than one Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh would reason if they had a stronger command of the English language. One difference would be that Rousseau believed, at least in some parts of the book, that religion weakened government.

Collectivism Against Individuality
The fallacy is in his assumption that individuals must forfeit all sovereignty to the state. The second specious argument is in the creation of a General Will. The third is that the general will will not do anything to harm any of the individuals within the collective.

The collectivist social contract was most assured well intentioned, but it's opposition to individualism has obviously anti-individualist consequences.

This is evident in his support of democratic censorship. If the general willis offended, then censorship is justified.

In his desire to create equality, he justifies both socialism and communism, and democracy in its purest form - majority rule.

... Read more

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

Customer Reviews (1)

Man is born free and everywhere lives in chains
I read this book for a graduate class in Philosophy.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.

Recommended reading for anyone interested in philosophy, political science, history and, psychology.
... Read more

Product Description
Two works in one volume ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

Intellectual Godfather of the French Revolution
Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "The Social Contract and the Discourses" is composed of five essays, and together they show the radical nature of Rousseau's political thought as well as place Rousseau in the intellectual history of the West.To modern Western readers there is no denying the tragic failings of Rousseau's ideas, but there is also no denying the tragic power of his words.Rousseau's words would give birth to the French Revolution, and would help shape many dangerous revolutions after that.When Edmund Burke published "Reflections on the Revolution in France" in 1790, he was responding less to the tumult in France than to the political thought of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, twelve years after his death.

If Rousseau were a student at today's Oxford or Harvard and he were to turn in any of his now famous political essays here's what his political science professor would write:"You make wildly unsubstantiated claims, and commit numerous logical fallacies, the two most egregious being circumlocution and inductive reasoning.Your paper digresses to the point of distraction.Overall, you rely too much on stirring people's sentiments rather than logically, thoughtfully arguing your thesis, which is more an emotional over-reaction than a nuanced and balanced synthesis of knowledge and experience.I will grant that you write superbly and with flourish.Make haste to transfer to the poetry major."

Indeed, Rousseau is a master stylist, who saves a faulty and often nonsensical argument with the beauty of his style and the power of his conviction.There is a great joy in reading Rousseau's writing, for each sentence is pithy and pregnant with meaning, each paragraph a world onto itself.But that is also the dangerous evil in Rousseau:it is so easy to take his ideas and paragraphs out of context, with the consequence that his words would make concrete and focused one's otherwise directionless anger and fury.In his beautifully written essay "A Discourse on the Origin of Inequality," Rousseau harks back to man's natural state, where he is compassionate, virtuous, and just; in Rousseau's calibration, private property is what upsets the natural world of equality and destroys man's virtue.These ideas fuel the French Revolution, anticipate Marx, and tragically help shape the fanatical flattening of totalitarian communism.

In "A Discourse on the Arts and Sciences," he praises the Spartans and early Romans for their simplicity and ignorance, which makes them steadfastly loyal to their equality and virtue.The arts and sciences in a society that is already corrupted by wealth and luxury (and in fact the arts and sciences could only flourish in a corrupt wealthy society, in Rousseau's worldview) only make the body politic that much more enervated and lethargic, prone to revolution or invasion.

The most dangerous of all Rousseau's ideas can be found in his most famous essay "The Social Contract" (although oddly it is the most haphazard and least convincing of all five essays):the idea of the General Will.The Sovereign is the body politic, the General Will is the collective norms and values of the citizenry, and the laws are the emanations of the General Will.In a perfect society there is a perfect harmonization of the Sovereign, the General Will, laws and legislators, the state and the individual so that equality and virtue are ever present, and laws and legislators are in fact unnecessary.

What is so dangerous about the General Will is that it supersedes everything because it is meant to be the one and everything:laws and legislators, individual rights and state rights, the monarch and the citizen must all be subservient to its absolute, inalienable, indivisible rule -- and no one can have a choice or say in the matter.That's because the General Will is the source of the supreme good, the supreme good, and the supreme interpreter and arbiter of the supreme good.To use a very inexact analogy, the General Will is the framers of the American constitution, the American constitution, the Supreme Court, and the legislators which can make amendments all rolled into one neat concept.

Thus, the General Will is Rousseau's ultimate circumlocution in a book of many circumlocutions.The ultimate irony in this book of many ironies (a gifted rhetorician decrying the corrupting power of the arts and knowledge is the most obvious) is that Rousseau in trying to fashion a system that is most fair and just, equal and virtuous locates all power in one concept that permits one man to be God:nothing can restrain -- neither laws nor customs nor traditions nor his fellow men and especially not himself -- a man who promises to represent the General Will.

Edmund Burke was right:the French Revolution would cause the rise of Napoleon, and the legacy of the French Revolution would legitimize the rise of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.

It is intellectually invigorating to be able to discover that the wild and inexplicable, cold and calculated madness of the twentieth century can in fact be found partly in a collection of essays written by a genius more obsessed with his own internal failings (Rousseau was a paranoid at the end of his life, and most certainly a bipolar throughout most of his life) than the injustices of the world around him.Rousseau's ideas launched revolutions, and reading "The Social Contract and the Discourses" is a powerful reminder of the beauty of words to inspire or confuse and the power of ideas to create or destroy.

Man is born free and everywhere lives in chains
I read this book for a graduate class in Philosophy.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.

Recommended reading for anyone interested in philosophy, political science, history and, psychology.
... Read more

Product Description
This book was converted from its physical edition to the digital format by a community of volunteers. You may find it for free on the web. Purchase of the Kindle edition includes wireless delivery. ... Read more

Product Description
After a period of forced exile and solitary wandering brought about by his radical views on religion and politics, Jean-Jacques Rousseau returned to Paris in 1770. Here, in the last two years of his life, he wrote his final work, the Reveries. In this eloquent masterpiece the great political thinker describes his sense of isolation from a society he felt had rejected his writings - and the manner in which he has come to terms with his alienation, as he walks around Paris, gazing at plants, day-dreaming and finding comfort in the virtues of solitude and the natural world. Meditative, amusing and lyrical, this is a fascinating exploration of Rousseau's thought as he looks back over his life, searching to justify his actions, to defend himself against his critics and to elaborate upon his philosophy. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (10)

Philosophical Mutterings
I love this thing - I carry it around with me everywhere.If I'm feeling a little bored or in need of wordy inspiration, I pull it out of my backpack and open to whatever page flies out.I also use it to hold bills and other mundane paper goods.

Philosophical Solitude
Aristotle said that, in order to lead a solitary life, one would have to be either an animal or a god. Nietzsche added a third alternative: one would have to be a philosopher. The "Reveries" is closely followed by the "Confessions" as my favourite of Rousseau's writings. In it, Rousseau gives reason to doubt that he himself has achieved real solitude in his life (and not just loneliness). It is nevertheless my favourite because it is here that Rousseau presents solitude, not as an escape from the world, but as the most philosophical way of embracing it and of living in it.

the admirable and the regrettable
When I read Rousseau's 'Confessions' I admired the man so much. But two issue compromised my view of him. Firstly his report of assigning his five children to the Foundling Hospital soon after birth - what a thing to do (and if he had investigated that prospect he would surely have realised that would have been as bad for them as any shortcomings he saw in what he could provide) - and what a thing to impose on his partner! Secondly was the negative view he had of people. Maybe some were against him, but somehow what he wrote didn't really convince me.

In Peter France's introduction to his translation he suggests that some historians have wondered if Rousseau actually did have children - something I wondered about in my review. Am I making too much of this?

In these ten reveries the matter of the children does recur. And in one of them he discusses what it means to tell lies - not without real insight - and how it can be justifiable. In the same breath he talks about his children. Perhaps we can draw our own conclusions. Something is not quite right for me here - the thinking processes of one of the world's great thinkers - at least as he committed them to paper. But strangely, after reading the reveries I am less convinced that there were, in fact, no children.

These reveries 'scared' me a bit - there was a lot of what I see for myself as I get old - and I'm not ready for that yet! But I did enjoy Rousseau's puzzles, his anecdotes, his travel tales.

Rousseau's final reexamination of his own life
Rousseau was, along with Schopenhauer and Richard Nixon, one of the great paranoids in human history.There is ample evidence of this in REVERIES OF THE SOLITARY WALKER, but vastly more from any solid account of his life or of one of the people with whom he came in contact.I have read multiple bits in Maurice Cranston's acclaimed scholarly biography of Rousseau's life and it can be a depressing affair.I also many years ago read Mossner's biography of David Hume.It is heartbreaking to read the parts where Hume went out of his way to give Rousseau safe haven during a period of prosecution, but Rousseau's paranoia flamed and he accused Hume of offering him a place to stay merely so that he could still Rousseau's ideas.Paranoia is not a disorder that leads to rational reflection on things.Why Rousseau could possibly have imagined that a philosopher the stature of Hume would want to steal his ideas is difficult to imagine, but Rousseau needed little reason to build up conspiracy theories.Rousseau puts me in mind of the famous quip:Just because your paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you.Unfortunately, many people were out to get Rousseau, which with his preexisting paranoia was very much like pouring gasoline on an open flame.

This book is very important for understanding Rousseau's psyche, but I find it almost impossible to read as a book of wisdom.It reads very much, if you know much about the details of Rousseau's life, as a map of advanced mental illness.There is no question that Rousseau had had very real problems, but the book records so many fantasies of abuse and mistreatment that it is painful at times to read.Painful yet fascinating.He writes constantly of "traps" throughout the book.He talks constantly of the conspiracies and plans that others have concocted with him as their intended victim.The result is that you can't quite trust whether any of his accounts of any of the events he describes in the book are true or not.He writes that upon playing with a small child he spotted one of the men sent to follow him about.Truth or paranoia?He writes that a man gives him a obituary written by d'Alembert of a patron of the arts that talks of how deeply she loved children and despite the fact the man finds the review hysterically funny it is, to him, badly written, Rousseau interprets his reading the piece to him as a thinly veiled attack on him.Rousseau had taken his own children to a foundling home.Although Rousseau attempts to defend himself, it was an act that any minimally civilized human being will rightfully find abhorrent.

So it is a book that most readers -- unless they know little or nothing about Rousseau's life -- will find trouble trusting.There is substantial evidence that Rousseau was not merely paranoid -- in a modern clinical sense -- but a borderline sociopath.Cranston's biography recounts numerous instances when Rousseau was ungrateful, unkind, or downright nasty to even his closest friends and would be benefactors.So we have Rousseau's account of his kind heart and his profound sympathy for others on the one hand and the almost universally contradictory accounts of those who met him.It is quite likely that Rousseau, as mean-spiritedness and cruel as he was, truly did think of himself as a kindly soul.

So this book is valuable mainly for the light his sheds on Rousseau's broken and shattered soul.The book is, with his great masterpiece THE CONFESSIONS and his less widely read but still important dialogues, the third piece of what could be viewed as his ongoing autobiographical project.For the reasons I've stated, I find it very difficult to read for any philosophical content.Besides, the great subject of the book is Jean-Jacques himself.If you want to delve into Rousseau's ideas, the places to go are the early discourses, ON THE SOCIAL CONTRACT, CONFESSIONS, and EMILE.You go to this book to learn about Rousseau himself.

So what do we get in the end?We get a portrait of a man whose life has been destroyed as much by his own refusal to see anything but the direst hatred and most insidious intentions of his fellow human beings, his (in his mind) so-called friends as much as his most vociferous enemies.Although in another sense, he truly was as much of a victim has he believed.Surely no one willingly chooses to believe that all of one's friends are truly enemies.Surely no one by choice interprets every well-intended gesture as a devious trap.Yet this is where Rousseau's life ended up.The key word in the title is "Solitary."Rousseau's dire illness cut him off from other human beings.In the end he isolated himself from the rest of humanity more effectively than his most avid enemy -- and like I said, even though he was paranoid, there were a lot of people truly out to get him -- could even have hoped to achieve.To me this reads as one of the saddest books I've ever worked my way through.

Such a lovely short book
A reader will love then short stories described by JJ Rousseau. For me, JJR's writings about his internal feelings are less interesting; however, this is one of the most beautiful books in all the literature I have ever read. I highly recommend the tenth (and unfinished) Reverie - I have never read more touching words. ... Read more