Discourse on the Origin of Inequality (Barnes & Noble Library of Essential Reading)

By Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Patrick Riley

Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Discourse on the Origin of Inequality (the Second Discourse) is one of the most important works of social philosophy of the Enlightenment. The Discourse is recognized today as a provocative and radically innovative text that anticipated anthropology, Marxist theory, the passionate rhetoric of Romanticism, and more broadly, an entire modern spirit of discontent with civilization. The debate in which Rousseau engaged himself with the Second Discourse was already well established in the mid-eighteenth century: inequality and its relation to natural law. His answers, however, were anything but familiar, and they retain a remarkable freshness and urgency for the contemporary reader.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Barnes & Noble
• Release date: Sep 1, 2009
• ISBN: 9781411429635

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Jean Jacques Rousseau was a writer, composer, and philosopher that is widely recognized for his contributions to political philosophy. His most known writings are Discourse on Inequality and The Social Contract.

Reviews for Discourse on the Origin of Inequality (Barnes & Noble Library of Essential Reading)

[histreader · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

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 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.

[bookomaniac-1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Duidelijk geniaal werk, maar zeker niet af. Mooi gedachtenexperiment dat de teneur van Rousseau’s stellingen duidelijk blootlegt: beschaving heeft verval meegebracht, maar er is geen weg terug.Gebruik diverse termen voor natuurmens: ‘sauvage”’, l’homme originel, l’homme naturelDikwijls verwijzing naar stammen in suriname en in caraïben

[sbloom42 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

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 wealthy devised the State as a way to coerce the poor into defending the property of the rich is an interesting argument.

[jpsnow · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

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 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.

[ramirez_3 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

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 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 .