Status
Disponível
Genres
Collections
Publication
São Paulo : Nova Cultural, c1999
Description
Philosophy. Politics. Nonfiction. HTML: The searing indictment of man-made inequality in all its many forms that Rousseau offers in Discourse on Inequality is a must-read for philosophy buffs and supporters of social justice. This artfully composed argument sets forth the core elements of Rousseau's philosophical views, including his unique take on Hobbes' concept of nature and natural law..
User reviews
LibraryThing member jpsnow
Rousseau starts with the proposition that inequality is based on either natural or political reasons. He then fully expands on each. He takes us through the natural development of man into a social being. The natural man evolved enough to value the self, and then saw certain opportunities for
Given the primacy of the state of nature grounded in pre-society, he doesn't give us much basis to solve the modern problem. If he focused more on the post-civilization's natural state, we would have a practical foundation, it seems. Still, this work was a key step in the evolution of political philosophy and it remains an important classic.
Show More
interdependence, which led to society and man's growing softer all the way. Once social beings organize into groups, the strongest can and do prevail. Walking us through the natural development of man, Rousseau discusses the nature of mate selection, the development of skills, the learning of the use of fire, metallurgy, and agriculture. He refutes Hobbes assertion that man is inherently lacking in virtue -- in the state of nature, there is no virtue save strength and constitution. Rousseau also allows that man has a natural compassion that helped him become social. He is not totally "brutish." His explanation of property became the basis for property law, including the homesteading process in the USA. His summary of inequality: "In this state of affairs, equality might have been sustained, had the talents of individuals been equal, and had, for example, the use of iron and the consumption of commodities always exactly balanced each other; but, as there was nothing to preserve this balance, it was soon disturbed; the strongest did most work; the most skillful turned his labour to best account; the most ingenious devised methods of diminishing his labour: the husbandman wanted more iron, or the smith more corn, and, while both laboured equally, the one gained a great deal by his work, while the other could hardly support himself." [recorded quote sans name of translator] This inequality causes insecurity and by the end, we have Rousseau crying out against the trouble man has brought against himself in seeking personal property: war, piracy, illness (caused both by poor nutrition in the poor and indulgence by the rich), a weakened constitution, arranged marriage (between "ill-starred" couples), urban living, and abortion. Given the primacy of the state of nature grounded in pre-society, he doesn't give us much basis to solve the modern problem. If he focused more on the post-civilization's natural state, we would have a practical foundation, it seems. Still, this work was a key step in the evolution of political philosophy and it remains an important classic.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Ramirez
Rousseau is a strange philosopher. Some of his idea are dangerous, too.
For example, his theory of social contract doesn't provide any limitation to the power of the 'General Will': the opposite of the other equally famous theory, Locke's one, which requires some check and balances and doesn't have
Aside from that, Rousseau's account of the birth of human societies (the argument of this book) is bit fuzzy and misleading.
I think that Hobbes' one -100 years older- is far more near to reality: the first societies arose out of men's desire of selfpreservation and this happend always with the absolute subjection of them to a central authority, a leader (though obviously Hobbes approves this absolute power and we do not).
Rousseau brings a fundamental detail to this picture: the cause behind this association, the element that made an ever-continous (yer not very harmful) state of war a deep problem was agriculture.
Agriculture pushed men toward bigger and hierarchical societies: those societies thus gained a remarkable advantage toward the less efficent ones, and started the age of slavery .
For example, his theory of social contract doesn't provide any limitation to the power of the 'General Will': the opposite of the other equally famous theory, Locke's one, which requires some check and balances and doesn't have
Show More
absolute power toward the citizens (the results are easy to see: Rousseau's legacy are Napoleon and Urss, Locke's the United States).Aside from that, Rousseau's account of the birth of human societies (the argument of this book) is bit fuzzy and misleading.
I think that Hobbes' one -100 years older- is far more near to reality: the first societies arose out of men's desire of selfpreservation and this happend always with the absolute subjection of them to a central authority, a leader (though obviously Hobbes approves this absolute power and we do not).
Rousseau brings a fundamental detail to this picture: the cause behind this association, the element that made an ever-continous (yer not very harmful) state of war a deep problem was agriculture.
Agriculture pushed men toward bigger and hierarchical societies: those societies thus gained a remarkable advantage toward the less efficent ones, and started the age of slavery .
Show Less
LibraryThing member HistReader
I have read that Rousseau's writings provided a basis for Karl Marx's beliefs; it is obviously true after reading Discourse on the Origin of Inequality.
Although this text is heavily in the camp of communal, "I am my brother's keeper", modern economy has ruined man's nature, Rousseau comes through
As a philosopher, and one not originally writing in English, Rousseau pens a comprehensible and easily read book. His arguments, however one may agree or disagree with, are neither convoluted nor flimsy; he proves his beliefs with profound insight. But again, his conclusions may not be completely correct or agreeable to all, they are instrumental in the foundation of any government.
Although this text is heavily in the camp of communal, "I am my brother's keeper", modern economy has ruined man's nature, Rousseau comes through
Show More
with a smattering of lines which any of America's Founding Fathers could have written. As a philosopher, and one not originally writing in English, Rousseau pens a comprehensible and easily read book. His arguments, however one may agree or disagree with, are neither convoluted nor flimsy; he proves his beliefs with profound insight. But again, his conclusions may not be completely correct or agreeable to all, they are instrumental in the foundation of any government.
Show Less
LibraryThing member sbloom42
Very well reasoned and well argued, but coming from a 21st century perspective, I found it difficult to overlook Rousseau's lack of scientific rigor when he assumes contain key facts about the evolution of man. Overlooking that, his idea that property is the source of inequality and that the
Show More
wealthy devised the State as a way to coerce the poor into defending the property of the rich is an interesting argument. Show Less
LibraryThing member drbrand
Let us conclude then that man in a state of nature, wandering up and down the forests, without industry, without speech, and without home, an equal stranger to war and to all ties, neither standing in need of his fellow-creatures nor having any desire to hurt them, and perhaps even not
It's actually quite amazing how wrong Rousseau was about human nature. Read and see for yourself.
Show More
distinguishing them one from another; let us conclude that, being self-sufficient and subject to so few passions, he could have no feelings or knowledge but such as befitted his situation; that he felt only his actual necessities, and disregarded everything he did not think himself immediately concerned to notice, and that his understanding made no greater progress than his vanity.It's actually quite amazing how wrong Rousseau was about human nature. Read and see for yourself.
Show Less
LibraryThing member stillatim
I'm occasionally struck by how bad the great classics of political philosophy are. Consider that, when teaching philosophy, we spend an awful lot of energy convincing students that their arguments have to be tight, they have to avoid fallacies, they have to back up their reasoning, and they have to
That said, once you decide this isn't a work of philosophy, it gets much better; it's not. It's pretty clearly a work of rhetoric, seeking to persuade rather than to reason. The first part, in particular, is utterly ridiculous taken as an argument of any kind: we have no reason to think that human beings outside of society are happy vegetables, but that's how Rousseau presents them. His 'argument' is entirely inconsistent; one minute he says these 'savages' have no need of tools or weapons, since they can just eat acorns, the next minute he's happily supplying them with spears to fight off wild beasts. Taken as a rhetorical attack on previous state-of-nature theories, however, and on the idea that civilization is always all good, it's okay. It's too silly to be anything other than okay, but that's fine. Read it ironically, and it makes sense: Rousseau's picture is no sillier than Hobbes', or Locke's, and his name is a lot less silly than Pufendorf's.
Part II is a bit more serious. Here Rousseau takes a lot from Hobbes (one of the few philosophically solid classics of political philosophy), his analysis tightens up, and we're suddenly faced with a whole bunch of fascinating questions: how did it happen that humans because social? how did it happen that some people get the power and wealth, while others get nothing? can that be justified?
His answers aren't particularly good, but as a way of showing us how difficult and important these questions are--and, pace Hobbes/Locke/et al., how difficult they are to solve--Rousseau's book works very nicely. It's much harder to justify inequality than previous philosophers had argued (slash some philosophers still argue), it's much harder to provide a rational basis for human society than most of us like to think, and it's very hard indeed to imagine how human institutions came into being.
Sadly, Rousseau seems to have led more people towards naturalism than away from it, even though you can easily read this book as an attempt to do the latter. The point about the 'state of nature' is that it probably never happened, not that we should return to it; if we can get out of the habit of thinking that there's some nature we can get back to, we can also get out of the habit of thinking we can justify our institutions and actions based on the 'fact' that they're 'natural.'
Show More
avoid special pleading. Then we give them Locke's treatises, or The Prince, or this great turd of philosophical unreason. That said, once you decide this isn't a work of philosophy, it gets much better; it's not. It's pretty clearly a work of rhetoric, seeking to persuade rather than to reason. The first part, in particular, is utterly ridiculous taken as an argument of any kind: we have no reason to think that human beings outside of society are happy vegetables, but that's how Rousseau presents them. His 'argument' is entirely inconsistent; one minute he says these 'savages' have no need of tools or weapons, since they can just eat acorns, the next minute he's happily supplying them with spears to fight off wild beasts. Taken as a rhetorical attack on previous state-of-nature theories, however, and on the idea that civilization is always all good, it's okay. It's too silly to be anything other than okay, but that's fine. Read it ironically, and it makes sense: Rousseau's picture is no sillier than Hobbes', or Locke's, and his name is a lot less silly than Pufendorf's.
Part II is a bit more serious. Here Rousseau takes a lot from Hobbes (one of the few philosophically solid classics of political philosophy), his analysis tightens up, and we're suddenly faced with a whole bunch of fascinating questions: how did it happen that humans because social? how did it happen that some people get the power and wealth, while others get nothing? can that be justified?
His answers aren't particularly good, but as a way of showing us how difficult and important these questions are--and, pace Hobbes/Locke/et al., how difficult they are to solve--Rousseau's book works very nicely. It's much harder to justify inequality than previous philosophers had argued (slash some philosophers still argue), it's much harder to provide a rational basis for human society than most of us like to think, and it's very hard indeed to imagine how human institutions came into being.
Sadly, Rousseau seems to have led more people towards naturalism than away from it, even though you can easily read this book as an attempt to do the latter. The point about the 'state of nature' is that it probably never happened, not that we should return to it; if we can get out of the habit of thinking that there's some nature we can get back to, we can also get out of the habit of thinking we can justify our institutions and actions based on the 'fact' that they're 'natural.'
Show Less
LibraryThing member Adrianmb
Lately many of the ills of liberalism have been ascribed to Rousseau: "man being born free but everywhere is found in chains" and the myth of the noble savage. Reading Rousseau made me realize how distorted are some of the claims about his philosophy. He is definitely not the caricature which
Show More
others make of him and his thought is original and well developed. Of course, some times is difficult to agree with what he says and others he is totally off. Show Less
Language
Original publication date
1754