Rating: 
Summary: A very good introduction to Rousseau
Review: Rousseau's ideas are well known. The introduction to this edition by the late Professor Maurice Cranston is very good. Cranston taught political science at the London School of Economics for a quarter century. His style is pecise and lucid. Rousseau's private life is another matter. Hardly anyone liked him. Voltaire, Hume and Diderot learned to dispise him His exploits will remind most readers of Slick Willie. Rousseau's Therese is like Slick's Monica.
Rating: 
Summary: Powerful, yet difficult and all too often contradictory
Review: Rousseau's treatise on the nature of people and their government has left a lasting imprint on political discourse. Though at times passionate and persuasive, most of the short book was simply too vague for Rousseau's semantic games to be indisputable, and sometimes even comprehensible. Some of his ideas are simply wrong, such as the "noble savage", while others quite clearly debatable, such as the social contract itself. I, for one, would fear to live in Rousseau's ideal world, where every right I have is only mine so long as the majority (who never can be wrong) wills it. Whether you agree with him or not, plowing through Rousseau's 150 pages is a necessity for anyone who wants to carry on high-level political discourse.
Rating:
Summary: Powerful, yet difficult and all too often contradictory
Review: Rousseau's treatise on the nature of people and their government has left a lasting imprint on political discourse. Though at times passionate and persuasive, most of the short book was simply too vague for Rousseau's semantic games to be indisputable, and sometimes even comprehensible. Some of his ideas are simply wrong, such as the "noble savage", while others quite clearly debatable, such as the social contract itself. I, for one, would fear to live in Rousseau's ideal world, where every right I have is only mine so long as the majority (who never can be wrong) wills it. Whether you agree with him or not, plowing through Rousseau's 150 pages is a necessity for anyone who wants to carry on high-level political discourse.
Rating:
Summary: A very good introduction to Rousseau
Review: This highly quotable book has a lot of fundamental democratic principles - though many seem borrowed. This text, at least in translation, is hardly lively or personal. It is more of a political theorist's attempt to break things down for its target audience (the one its ideas are cocnerned with) - the people. Some of Rousseau's beleifs regarding personal freedoms are rather cynical, and considering that he is writing a revolutionary free-thinking text, he seems to objectify his own theories more than is warranted while dismissing other possibilities. Still, Rousseau's vision of social will compromising personal freedoms in the name of social progress is nothing if not untuitively appealing. Some of his musings regarding socioeconomic factors and political attitudes are understandably cockamaney considering the lack of resources for sociological research druing his time. His discussion of liberty with regard to indirect representation is a critical one and should be read by all lovers of freedom - even "freedom in chains."
Rating:
Summary: Logical if not Inspiring
Review: This highly quotable book has a lot of fundamental democratic principles - though many seem borrowed. This text, at least in translation, is hardly lively or personal. It is more of a political theorist's attempt to break things down for its target audience (the one its ideas are cocnerned with) - the people. Some of Rousseau's beleifs regarding personal freedoms are rather cynical, and considering that he is writing a revolutionary free-thinking text, he seems to objectify his own theories more than is warranted while dismissing other possibilities. Still, Rousseau's vision of social will compromising personal freedoms in the name of social progress is nothing if not untuitively appealing. Some of his musings regarding socioeconomic factors and political attitudes are understandably cockamaney considering the lack of resources for sociological research druing his time. His discussion of liberty with regard to indirect representation is a critical one and should be read by all lovers of freedom - even "freedom in chains."
Rating: 
Summary: A Valuable Piece of History...
Review: This is a valuable historical document, because it shows us the thinking that led up to the French Revolution. Rousseau wrote: "Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains." What Rousseau means by this is that Man is born free in the State of Nature - it is society, government, and urban life that are the corruptive forces. Without those things, Rousseau argues, man would exist in peaceful co-habitation. What is striking to the modern reader about this claim is how blatantly wrong it is. Rousseau was trying to refute Thomas Hobbes who wrote that the State of Nature is the same as the State of War. Apparently Hobbes got the better of the argument because, as soon as the French Revolution took effect, peaceful liberty went out the window in favor of the Reign of Terror. But, back to Rousseau. He claims that, even though men in nature peacefully co-exist, it is more beneficial for them to come together to form a society. Thus they SHOULD come together and form a Social Contract. The ideal contract for Rousseau would entail the individual GIVING UP ALL HIS RIGHTS on entering the contract with the understanding that he will get them all back from the Sovereign. Who is the Sovereign? Well, for Rousseau, the Sovereign is the People. If Rousseau's Ideal State were an organism, it would be a large one-celled organism with no differentiation. This is very much unlike Hobbes' Leviathan, with the Sovereign at the head and each part assigned its individual task. For Rousseau, only the SOCIETY AS A WHOLE has the right to govern. Of course, this system is incredibly unwieldy, that is why - in Rousseau's world - there are a whole bunch of little city-states, like ancient Athens. HERE COMES THE SCARY PART. Once the whole population gets together and makes a decision, that decision is infallible. "THE GENERAL WILL CANNOT BE WRONG." Those minorities who are disaffected by this general rule shall be "FORCED TO BE FREE." In the case of the French Revolution, that was the freedom of one's head from one's shoulders. According to Simon Schama in his wonderful book, Citizens, the importance of the Social Contract has been overestimated. Rousseau's love of the State of Nature (which was the spirit of the French Revolution) had more of an effect on the public through his novels Emile and La Nouvelle Heloise. The Social Contract must be viewed in its historical context as a piece of history in itself. If one reads it for philosophic reasons only, it will come of sounding either frightening or painfully naïve. One sentence caught my imagination however - Rousseau saw the island of Corsica as the perfect candidate for his ideal state. "I have a presentiment that this little island will one day astonish Europe." It did. It produced the greatest warlord the world had ever seen - Napoleon.
Rating:
Summary: A Valuable Piece of History...
Review: This is a valuable historical document, because it shows us the thinking that led up to the French Revolution. Rousseau wrote: "Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains." What Rousseau means by this is that Man is born free in the State of Nature - it is society, government, and urban life that are the corruptive forces. Without those things, Rousseau argues, man would exist in peaceful co-habitation. What is striking to the modern reader about this claim is how blatantly wrong it is. Rousseau was trying to refute Thomas Hobbes who wrote that the State of Nature is the same as the State of War. Apparently Hobbes got the better of the argument because, as soon as the French Revolution took effect, peaceful liberty went out the window in favor of the Reign of Terror. But, back to Rousseau. He claims that, even though men in nature peacefully co-exist, it is more beneficial for them to come together to form a society. Thus they SHOULD come together and form a Social Contract. The ideal contract for Rousseau would entail the individual GIVING UP ALL HIS RIGHTS on entering the contract with the understanding that he will get them all back from the Sovereign. Who is the Sovereign? Well, for Rousseau, the Sovereign is the People. If Rousseau's Ideal State were an organism, it would be a large one-celled organism with no differentiation. This is very much unlike Hobbes' Leviathan, with the Sovereign at the head and each part assigned its individual task. For Rousseau, only the SOCIETY AS A WHOLE has the right to govern. Of course, this system is incredibly unwieldy, that is why - in Rousseau's world - there are a whole bunch of little city-states, like ancient Athens. HERE COMES THE SCARY PART. Once the whole population gets together and makes a decision, that decision is infallible. "THE GENERAL WILL CANNOT BE WRONG." Those minorities who are disaffected by this general rule shall be "FORCED TO BE FREE." In the case of the French Revolution, that was the freedom of one's head from one's shoulders. According to Simon Schama in his wonderful book, Citizens, the importance of the Social Contract has been overestimated. Rousseau's love of the State of Nature (which was the spirit of the French Revolution) had more of an effect on the public through his novels Emile and La Nouvelle Heloise. The Social Contract must be viewed in its historical context as a piece of history in itself. If one reads it for philosophic reasons only, it will come of sounding either frightening or painfully naïve. One sentence caught my imagination however - Rousseau saw the island of Corsica as the perfect candidate for his ideal state. "I have a presentiment that this little island will one day astonish Europe." It did. It produced the greatest warlord the world had ever seen - Napoleon.
Rating:
Summary: The Social Contract by Rousseau
Review: This work attests to the application of human freedoms within the
context of organizational structures and governmental institutions . The author explains how the general or collective
will intervenes when it is proper to do so. In addition, the will
is believed to be omnipotent. In the long run, states tend to act in ways that promote self-preservation and perpetuation.
Governments are divided into democracies, monarchies, royalties
and in other organizational frameworks consistent with accomplishing a variety of missions. The State is far removed
from the family. Nevertheless, it is charged with promulgating
laws and conventions agreeable to the general or collective will.
This work is an important contribution to comparative governmental organizations and structures. It explains the
applicable rationale for implementing political distinctions
of virtually every variety and type.
| 
