The example to be examined is the two works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. First one is Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, written in 1754, and the second one is On the Social Contract, written eight years later. The question is whether Rousseau maintains his position on the social contract as a trick of the rich over the poor in the second writing just as he suggested in the first one. Moreover, the clarification of the consequences of the compact in each work is proper to discuss.
Table of Contents
1. Preface
2. The Position of Rousseau on the Social Contract
Research Objectives and Themes
This essay explores whether Jean-Jacques Rousseau maintains a consistent philosophical position regarding the social contract across his major works, specifically analyzing the potential contradiction between the "trick of the rich" narrative in his earlier work and the idealized vision presented in his later writing.
- The relationship between inequality and the social contract.
- Distinction between the realistic critique of society and idealized political theory.
- The concept of the general will and its role in legitimate governance.
- The evolution of Rousseau's thought between 1754 and 1762.
- The definition and characteristics of a legitimate republic.
Excerpt from the Book
The Position of Rousseau on the Social Contract.
It would be wrong and ignorant to give an answer to the posted question without the close examination of the two works of the philosopher. First, because the purposes of those writings are not identified; secondly, the motives of writing those books are not determined but might influence the outcome greatly. So, to be precise, the purpose of writing the Discourse is arguing what the roots and consequences of inequality among men are; and the motive is a prize competition of the Dijon Academy. The purpose of the work On the Social Contract is a presentation of “some legitimate and sure rule of administration in the civil order, taking men as they are and laws as they might be.” (Rousseau, On the Social Contract, p.141) The motive is offering “the most considerable” “part of a longer work” “ to the public”. (Rousseau, On the Social Contract, p. 140) Then, it follows that the social contract is not a main concern of the first work unlike the second one’s. Besides, the Discourse is one of the steps towards the larger work [which is focused on the social compact] and can be considered as a part of it. To have a complete picture of the compact from the point of view of the political thinker is impossible just having read just one of the works. They are written in different times and are the independent books, nevertheless they fit each other and are complimentary. Accordingly, the idea of the contract as a trick of the rich over the poor [as suggested in the Discourse] doesn’t contradict the philosopher’s position on the contract as a whole but is a part of it.
Summary of Chapters
Preface: The author introduces the philosophical evolution of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and sets the stage for comparing his two seminal works written eight years apart.
The Position of Rousseau on the Social Contract: This section provides a comparative analysis of the "Discourse on the Origin of Inequality" and "On the Social Contract," arguing that Rousseau's views are complementary rather than contradictory regarding the social compact.
Keywords
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Social Contract, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, General Will, Inequality, Political Philosophy, Property, Civil Order, Sovereignty, Republic, Natural Liberty, Social Compact, Political Thought.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this essay?
The essay examines whether Jean-Jacques Rousseau's view of the social contract as a "trick of the rich" in his earlier work remains consistent with the political theories he develops in his later writings.
What are the primary thematic areas explored?
The analysis covers the roots of social inequality, the motivations behind Rousseau's major works, the distinction between ideal and real-world states, and the importance of the general will.
What is the central research question?
The paper asks whether Rousseau contradicts himself by framing the social contract as a tool of oppression in his early work while advocating for a legitimate social contract in his later work.
Which scientific method is applied?
The author uses a comparative textual analysis of primary sources, specifically "Discourse on the Origin of Inequality" and "On the Social Contract," to evaluate the development of the philosopher's ideas.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The main body discusses the differing purposes of Rousseau's writings, the concept of associations, the ideal state versus reality, and the long-term consequences of legitimate versus illegitimate social contracts.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include Rousseau, Social Contract, General Will, Inequality, Sovereignty, Republic, and Political Philosophy.
How does the author interpret the "trick" mentioned in the Discourse?
The author argues that the "trick" is not a contradiction of Rousseau's philosophy, but rather a specific observation regarding how associations of the rich seek to preserve their property at the expense of the poor.
What does the author conclude about the relationship between these two works?
The author concludes that the works are complementary; while the Discourse reflects on the reality of societal origins, On the Social Contract presents an ideal, equitable framework for governance that avoids such "bad seeds."
- Quote paper
- Irina Wolf (Author), 2001, The position of Rousseau on the Social Contract, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/130067
