Philosophy

The Social Contract

The Social Contract

  • Downloads：6134
  • Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
  • Create Date：2021-05-01 10:55:59
  • Update Date：2025-09-07
  • Status：finish
  • Author：Jean-Jacques Rousseau
  • ISBN：1853267813
  • Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
  • Download

Summary

With an Introduction by Derek Matravers。

In The Social Contract Rousseau （1712-1778） argues for the preservation of individual freedom in political society。 An individual can only be free under the law， he says， by voluntarily embracing that law as his own。 Hence， being free in society requires each of us to subjugate our desires to the interests of all， the general will。

Some have seen in this the promise of a free and equal relationship between society and the individual， while others have seen it as nothing less than a blueprint for totalitarianism。 The Social Contract is not only one of the great defences of civil society， it is also unflinching in its study of the darker side of political systems。

Download

Reviews

Miki ，

Бид яагаад өөрийн байгалиас заяагдсан юуг ч хийж болох эрх чөлөөт байдлыг эдлэлгүйгээр хууль болон дүрэм журманд захирагдаж， нийгмийн нэг хэсэг болж амьдардаг вэ， энэ нь эргээд эрх чөлөө болох талаар тайлбарласан байна

Maximilien Duclos ，

Il faut prendre le temps de bien comprendre chaque phrase。 Ce livre est essentiel pour la compréhension des formes de régimes occidentaux。 Le concept du contrat social est très intéressant。

Joe Webb ，

read this （alongside Discourse on Inequality） for a 1st year political philosophy module and really enjoyed it。 definitely a more inspired thinker than Locke or Hobbes。。。 and he really nearly had me！ until he fucks it completely on the 'force them to be free' line， Rousseau nails it; afterwards， it's slightly terrifying。 DOI is probably more interesting but this is a necessary （and probably more influential） companion。 read this （alongside Discourse on Inequality） for a 1st year political philosophy module and really enjoyed it。 definitely a more inspired thinker than Locke or Hobbes。。。 and he really nearly had me！ until he fucks it completely on the 'force them to be free' line， Rousseau nails it; afterwards， it's slightly terrifying。 DOI is probably more interesting but this is a necessary （and probably more influential） companion。 。。。more

Samuel ，

You can agree with Rousseau， or you can disagree with him， but if you care at all about political theory， eventually you have to confront him。 Parts of this book are so much ingrained in contemporary politics that it's easy to take them as a given （such as the need for a division between executive and legislative powers）。 Some seem naive （is the ideal state really a city-state with direct democracy？）， tiresome （I recognize that you had to prove your Enlightenment cred by gushing about the Roman You can agree with Rousseau， or you can disagree with him， but if you care at all about political theory， eventually you have to confront him。 Parts of this book are so much ingrained in contemporary politics that it's easy to take them as a given （such as the need for a division between executive and legislative powers）。 Some seem naive （is the ideal state really a city-state with direct democracy？）， tiresome （I recognize that you had to prove your Enlightenment cred by gushing about the Roman Republic， but that section is awfully long for a book this short）， or absurd （literally everything about the part where he tries to explain the effects of climate on the state）。 But it's worth reading this if you want to understand where modern republics come from -- the Founding Fathers of the United States spent a ton of time reading Rousseau， even if they seem to have skipped over all the parts on slavery， and Rousseau's influence continues to ripple onward today。 。。。more

Munkhbayar Baatarkhuu ，

A milestone in man's search for omnipresent bliss。 Capitalized on Plato， Thomas More， Tommaso Campanella， and Francis Bacon， Jean Jacques Rousseau definitely brewed the bones and marrows of our societies。 A milestone in man's search for omnipresent bliss。 Capitalized on Plato， Thomas More， Tommaso Campanella， and Francis Bacon， Jean Jacques Rousseau definitely brewed the bones and marrows of our societies。 。。。more

Tuan Bui ，

Cần đọc lại nhiều lần。

Scotty ，

This book is just a blueprint for dictatorship ruling in the name of the people， he wants people to be equal but for some to be more equal than others， no masters yet wants the majority to be ruled by a minority。 Truly a bundle of contradictions。 His only problem with monarchy is that the position is inherited。Rousseau is very idealistic， he thinks property should be based on first occupancy but fails to think about how that would work when everything is property， when everything is occupied。 He This book is just a blueprint for dictatorship ruling in the name of the people， he wants people to be equal but for some to be more equal than others， no masters yet wants the majority to be ruled by a minority。 Truly a bundle of contradictions。 His only problem with monarchy is that the position is inherited。Rousseau is very idealistic， he thinks property should be based on first occupancy but fails to think about how that would work when everything is property， when everything is occupied。 He also has a strange idea of what a state is and defines it as any organised community that is larger than the small bands people used to be in based around family， and seems to think that stateless societies are incapable of warfare （clearly never heard of the Yanomami）。 He is however to some extent against private property and thinks that there should only be personal property based on occupancy and use。His naivety continues as he claims a state can't exist without consensus and that its objective is the common good in opposition to private interests， adding that "unless there were some point in which all interests agree， no society could exist"。 In reality the state violently enforces the private interests of one class （a minority） over another （the majority） that does not consent and has to labour to enrich them with their surplus。 He thinks that as soon as there is a master and "the nation simply promises to obey 。。。 there is no longer a sovereign， and forthwith the body politic is destroyed"， this is clearly false as they maintain sovereignty through their ideology which as much as he may disagree is upheld through force。 The "general will" is not what is persued but rather the will of the minority who make up the state and own the means of production， the sovereign is the ruling-class not the people as he thinks。His touch with reality slips even more on ch。 3 when he declares that "the general will is always right and always tends to the public advantage"， through ruling-class ideology the people can be convinced to vote against their interests。 He appears to advocate for the abolition of parties to avoid this saying "in order to have a clear declaration of the general will， that there should be no partial association in the state， and that every citizen should express only his own opinion"， this unfortunately seems to extend to all factions which would exclude groups that advocate for oppressed communities and would undoubtably be done so by labelling them as "to the detriment of the whole society"。He fails to understand that we are not in fact equal when he says "the social compact establishes among the citizens such an equality that they all pledge themselves under the same conditions and ought all to enjoy the same rights"。 Also naively believes of the state that "Their lives 。。。 are continually protected by it"。 He also believes everybody together makes the laws and that they're "acts of the general will" which is clearly false， adding "Nothing that we propose to you， they said to the people， can pass into law without your consent。 Romans， be yourselves the authors of the laws"。He thinks that a government headed by a king/prince would execute laws for the "maintenance of liberty" which is pure delusion。 Then he makes an argument for a dictator saying that the less people involved in administration of the state the better saying "the despatch of business is retarded in proportion as more people are charged with it"， and makes a ridiculous claim that "the more numerous the people is， the more ought the repressive force to be increased"， obviously the inverse is true。He claims that democracy only works in small poor states which is bollocks just like his claim that direct democracy has never existed （has he never heard of Athens？） saying that "It is contrary to the natural order that the majority should govern and that the minority should be governed"， naturalising his ideology of dictatorship and minority rule。His idea of assembly contradicts his previous statements， he believes that "the sovereign can act only when the people are assembled"， and also that "excepting these assemblies which are lawful by their date alone， every assembly of the people that has not been convoked by the magistrates appointed for that duty and according to the prescribed forms， ought to be regarded as unlawful and all that is done in it invalid"， which effectively outlaws protest。 He then opposes representitive democracy and calls for delegates "The deputies of the people， then， are not and cannot be its representitives; they are only its commissioners and can conclude nothing definitely"。 This sounds exactly like the direct democracy he earlier claimed was against human nature but then again these assemblies could be used by a dictator to consolodate their power rather than challenging it as he claims。Finally he advocates for censorship to "support morality by preventing opinions from being corrupted"， so he is against both free speech and assembly。 。。。more

Paras Vishnoi ，

It does define the relation between the state and an individual beautifully。 It's definitely something new to look at in this new era where most of the boundaries and responsibilities are blurred but it gets too theoretical and non-applicable after a while。I will call it a pure text book representation rather a practical one。 It does define the relation between the state and an individual beautifully。 It's definitely something new to look at in this new era where most of the boundaries and responsibilities are blurred but it gets too theoretical and non-applicable after a while。I will call it a pure text book representation rather a practical one。 。。。more

delfi ，

3。5 stars

Bane Cronotse ，

18。 Yüzyıl Fransız münevveri Rousseau zamanına göre çok önemli tespitlere ulaşmış， onun bazı tespitleri bugün bile geçerli。 18。 yy。 Fransası gibi bir ülkede böyle tespitler yapıp reçeteler sunan insanlar olduğu için o ülke böyle büyük bir devrime şahit oldu， bunu anladım。 Nedir o tespitler？ Özetle; İnsanlar birbirlerine zarar verme içgüdülerine karşın bir arada yaşayarak elde ettikleri kazanımların farkında olarak toplumları ve devletleri oluşturmuşlardır。 Ancak bu şekilde oluşturulan doğal huku 18。 Yüzyıl Fransız münevveri Rousseau zamanına göre çok önemli tespitlere ulaşmış， onun bazı tespitleri bugün bile geçerli。 18。 yy。 Fransası gibi bir ülkede böyle tespitler yapıp reçeteler sunan insanlar olduğu için o ülke böyle büyük bir devrime şahit oldu， bunu anladım。 Nedir o tespitler？ Özetle; İnsanlar birbirlerine zarar verme içgüdülerine karşın bir arada yaşayarak elde ettikleri kazanımların farkında olarak toplumları ve devletleri oluşturmuşlardır。 Ancak bu şekilde oluşturulan doğal hukuk sistemin sürdürülebilirliği açısından yeterli değildir ve dolayısıyla yönetenler ve yönetilenler arasında bir toplum sözleşmesine ihtiyaç vardır。 Diyor abimiz， ve detaylarına değiniyor。 "Sparta ve Roma yok olduktan sonra， hangi devlet sonsuzcasına sürüp gitmeyi umabilir？ Sürekli bir yönetim biçimi kurmak istiyorsaki onu sonsuz yapmayı düşünmeyelim。""İnsan her zaman kendi iyiliğini ister ama， bunun ne olduğunu her zaman kestiremez。 halk hiçbir zaman bozulmaz ama， çoğu kez "aldatılabilir。 İşte， ancak o zaman kötülüğe eğilimli olur。""monarşilerde yüksek göreve erişenler， çoğu kez bir takım insan taslakları， düzenbaz， entrikacı， aşağılık kimselerdir。""Haç kartalı kovunca， Romalılara özgü o gözü peklik de yitip gitti。"En çok beğendiğim cümlesi ise sanırım şu oldu:"Halkın kendisi hep iyilik ister， ama kendi başına iyiliğin nerede olduğunu göremez。" 。。。more

Trevor ，

Did I fully understand the contents of the book？ No。 Did it change some of my perspective？ Yes。Although some of the points and examples in this book might be obsolete， I personally feel that the ideas that is being conveyed through this book is quite valuable。 The social contract and general will applies not only to countries， but also to organizations and anything related to human interdependence。 When working as a team， it is important to make sure that everyone's motives align， leading a team Did I fully understand the contents of the book？ No。 Did it change some of my perspective？ Yes。Although some of the points and examples in this book might be obsolete， I personally feel that the ideas that is being conveyed through this book is quite valuable。 The social contract and general will applies not only to countries， but also to organizations and anything related to human interdependence。 When working as a team， it is important to make sure that everyone's motives align， leading a team with an iron fist would be efficient if the organization is huge， but if the size is moderate， it is best to take into account the general will of others。I also appreciate the political insights that this book has to offer。 I often wonder what is the point of an election if the elected party does not represent our interest。 In this book it is explained that although the constitution represents the general will of the people， it is often that members of the parliament or legal authorities that were supposed to act along the will， instead act in their personal interest。 This is indeed a flaw in the system which cannot be prevented as long as the ratio of population to country size is huge as the transmission of the general will cannot be done smoothly and effectively。 The touch on the relationship between religion and political bodies is also an interesting topic。 An intolerant religion contradicts a political body that represents the interest of all its people。Two stars are deducted because of the hard time I had trying to understand the meaning that the author was trying to convey behind his abstruse sentences。 。。。more

Ozan ，

3。5 yıldız verilebilseydi bu kitap için çok uygun olurdu。 Fikrî önermesi olan， derdi olan bu tür tarihe mâl olmuş eserleri yorumlarken dönemini asla gözardı etmemek gerekiyor ancak görece tutarsızlık gibi gelen kısımları çok tereddüte düşürdü beni。Toplumun ve yönetimin tarifi yapılırken özellikle "diktatörlük" kavramının bugünkü kavramdan farklı bir yerde konumlanıyor olması， gerektiği yerlerde ihtiyaç duyulduğunun ifade edilmesi ve kölelik vb。 gibi durumların gerçekliğiyle beraber ideal toplumd 3。5 yıldız verilebilseydi bu kitap için çok uygun olurdu。 Fikrî önermesi olan， derdi olan bu tür tarihe mâl olmuş eserleri yorumlarken dönemini asla gözardı etmemek gerekiyor ancak görece tutarsızlık gibi gelen kısımları çok tereddüte düşürdü beni。Toplumun ve yönetimin tarifi yapılırken özellikle "diktatörlük" kavramının bugünkü kavramdan farklı bir yerde konumlanıyor olması， gerektiği yerlerde ihtiyaç duyulduğunun ifade edilmesi ve kölelik vb。 gibi durumların gerçekliğiyle beraber ideal toplumda herkesin görev bilincine sahip olmasıyla seçim sisteminde temsilci olarak seçilen kişilerin varlığının anlamsızlaşması gibi doğrudan demokrasiyi işaret eden tarifler birbirleriyle zıt düşüyor。 Rousseau kitabı kendi deyimiyle 4'e ayırdığı için olabilir， başlangıçta tarif ettiği konular ile son kısımlarına geldiğimizde Roma tarihiyle ilgili verdiği örnekler bağlamdan uzaklaşıyor gibi geldi。 Ez cümle， kendi basit görüşümle， dönemine göre değerlendirmek önemli。 。。。more

Jacob Clelland ，

An important work which contains seeds of thought that inspired， educated， and illuminated the minds of the founders of the United States。 Contains interesting chapters and near the end a few boring ones。 Sounds like Rousseau had a dislike of Christianity as well。 Interesting document of history， but somewhat better formulated， at least in my opinion， by other later works from Thomas Paine and the founding fathers themselves。。。。 as they expounded and improved upon the ideas of those who came bef An important work which contains seeds of thought that inspired， educated， and illuminated the minds of the founders of the United States。 Contains interesting chapters and near the end a few boring ones。 Sounds like Rousseau had a dislike of Christianity as well。 Interesting document of history， but somewhat better formulated， at least in my opinion， by other later works from Thomas Paine and the founding fathers themselves。。。。 as they expounded and improved upon the ideas of those who came before themselves。。。。 like Rousseau。 。。。more

Babak ，

امتياز واقعي 3。5。 اين كتاب در زمان خود بسيار ارزشمند و انقلابي بوده ولي بيشتر مطالب آن در زمان كنوني تكراري و بديهي است و اكنون مباحث بسيار پخته تري در زمينه مورد بحث مطرح شده است 。 موضوع بردگي را خوب بحث كرده بود

Byren Burdess ，

Vaguely interesting。 That's all I've got。 Vaguely interesting。 That's all I've got。 。。。more

Siddiq Khan ，

The opening sections are dynamite， and one sees immediately why it had such an electrifying effect in the run up to the French Revolution -- in fact it is surprising the book was not suppressed when it first came out。 The vast majority， however， reads more like jurisprudence rather than political philosophy proper， and it is difficult for me to pay attention to the details of law and statecraft， hardly any of which seem to have even a remote connection with everyday reality here and now， without The opening sections are dynamite， and one sees immediately why it had such an electrifying effect in the run up to the French Revolution -- in fact it is surprising the book was not suppressed when it first came out。 The vast majority， however， reads more like jurisprudence rather than political philosophy proper， and it is difficult for me to pay attention to the details of law and statecraft， hardly any of which seem to have even a remote connection with everyday reality here and now， without overwhelming feelings of boredom and frustration。 。。。more

Drake McCrary ，

A dry and somewhat confusing book。 Some of Rousseau points were spot on and some were proved incorrect only a couple decades after this was published。 There is also contradictory themes which run through the book。 Rousseau argues repeatedly that the social contract requires the individual submitting to the collective will but then goes on to argue for self-interest。Overall I think it is worth the read especially the section on democracy but needs to be taken with grain of salt and put in the con A dry and somewhat confusing book。 Some of Rousseau points were spot on and some were proved incorrect only a couple decades after this was published。 There is also contradictory themes which run through the book。 Rousseau argues repeatedly that the social contract requires the individual submitting to the collective will but then goes on to argue for self-interest。Overall I think it is worth the read especially the section on democracy but needs to be taken with grain of salt and put in the context of its time。 。。。more

Maria Ferreira ，

Filósofos contratualistasThomas Hobbes （1588–1679）John Locke （1632–1704）Jean-Jacques Rousseau （1712–1778）Estes 3 filósofos contratualistas deram origem ao que chamamos hoje de estado democrático， estes homens teorizaram que， para bem da sociedade， os homens têm de “assinar um contrato social” que regule a vida em comunidade， mas há algumas diferenças entre eles:Thomas Hobbes protagonizava ser necessário uma forte concentração de poder do Estado para possibilitar uma convivência tolerável。 Para e Filósofos contratualistasThomas Hobbes （1588–1679）John Locke （1632–1704）Jean-Jacques Rousseau （1712–1778）Estes 3 filósofos contratualistas deram origem ao que chamamos hoje de estado democrático， estes homens teorizaram que， para bem da sociedade， os homens têm de “assinar um contrato social” que regule a vida em comunidade， mas há algumas diferenças entre eles:Thomas Hobbes protagonizava ser necessário uma forte concentração de poder do Estado para possibilitar uma convivência tolerável。 Para este autor o indivíduo， em seu estado natural， possui impulsos de violência e rege-se pela desconfiança， pelo caos e pelo medo。 O homem é o seu próprio lobo， um animal temível， o mais selvagem dos animais， pelo que é necessário um “contrato social” que estabeleça os princípios das relações entre os homens para evitar que se devorem e que todos se reconheçam e aceitem o decretado， e se esforcem por manter uma paz duradoura vinculada por certos princípios emanados pelo estado。 Para Jonh Locke， pai do liberalismo político， a lei natural deve reger todas as pessoas e garantir a posse sobre qualquer propriedade e bem， sem restrições。 Ao garantir a igualdade irrestrita， tal lei gerava conflitos quando vários indivíduos desejavam os mesmos bens。 De forma a resolver o conflito Locke defendia a regulamentação da posse dos bens e dos seus proprietários e o estado obedeceria e faria obedecer a seus súbditos esses princípios。A diferença entre Hobbes e Locke consistia no exercício do poder estatal perante os bens e a propriedade。 Para Hobbes o estado era soberano e todos os homens permaneciam com iguais direitos e deveres perante a lei e todos se subjugavam aos seus normativos。 Para Locke o estado não podia exercer força sobre os indivíduos e estes eram livres de fazerem os contratos que aprouvessem。 Claro que a partir daqui pressuponha diferenças entre os indivíduos em resultado da posição social， riqueza， força e astucia etc。 Rousseu， fervoroso adepto dos ideais iluministas defendia que o ser humano é naturalmente bom。 Segundo ele， o ser humano seria um "bom selvagem"。 Em seu estado natural， os seres humanos viveriam em harmonia entre si e com a natureza， como fazem os outros animais。Entretanto， o surgimento da propriedade privada gerou uma desigualdade entre os indivíduos e， consequentemente， um ambiente de tensão entre os possuidores os não possuidores de terras。Para a resolução desse problema， firma-se o contrato social para que o Estado possa garantir a manutenção do direito à propriedade e a regulação de toda a sociedade。Assim， o Estado surge como uma ferramenta ao serviço dos cidadãos com o objetivo que seja respeitada a vontade geral e coibida a ação por interesses particulares。Da sociedade geral do género humano， Rousseu demonstra as incoerências do ser humano enquanto uno e enquanto coletivo， “o interesse particular não se alia ao bem comum， muito pelo contrário， excluem-se um do outro na ordem natural das coisas， e as leis sociais são um jugo que cada um quer impor aos outros， mas sem que ele próprio se submeta。” “É certo que a expressão género humano não oferece ao espírito senão uma ideia puramente coletiva que não supõe nenhuma união real entre os indivíduos que o constituem。” O género humano é um conceito incorpóreo e abstrato que não diz respeito a nenhum individuo em particular， mas sim ao conjunto de todos os indivíduos。”。。concebamos o género humano como uma pessoa moral que possui um sentimento de existência comum que lhe confere individualidade e o constitui como uno， um móbil universal que faça agir cada parte para um fim geral e relativo ao todo。 Concebamos que este sentimento comum seja o da humanidade e que a lei natural seja o princípio natural de toda a máquina” “observemos de seguida o que resulta da constituição do homem nas suas relações com os seus semelhantes e totalmente contrária ao que havíamos suposto， constataríamos que o progresso da sociedade apagaria o sentimento de humanidade dos corações dos homens， despertando o interesse pessoal “Rousseu prova inteligentemente que o homem no seu estado natural jamais conseguirá assumir um contrato social porque a sua natureza egoísta é contrária ao bem comum。Deste pensamento nasce o pacto fundamental que preconiza que “…em vez de destruir a igualdade natural， o substitui por uma igualdade moral e legitima， o que a natureza tinha colocado com desigualdade física entre os homens que， apesar de poderem ser naturalmente desiguais em força ou em génio， tornam-se todos iguais por convenção e por direito。 Daqui nasce a ideia da soberania e a noção do estado。 O soberano é a pessoa moral que representa o povo， legisla e executa as vontades emanadas dos cidadãos e a eles se deve subjugar。Da vontade do povo resultam "falsas noções do vínculo social"， que têm de ser reguladas。 Neste capítulo o autor diz-nos que “Existe mil maneiras de juntar os homens， não existe senão uma de os unir。 “desta ideia nasce os vínculos sociais primários entre os homens; o conceito de família。Neste conceito， a autoridade parental do homem， como chefe e responsável pela família， tem obrigação de zelar pela continuidade da espécie， fortalecendo os laços filiais de gratidão， saúde e proteção， os filhos terão de obedecer e subjugarem-se à vontade do pai。Como marido， na sua vida conjugal， deve inspecionar a conduta da sua mulher， uma vez que lhe interessa que os filhos que é forçado a reconhecer como seus， não sejam de outros。Do reconhecimento dos vínculos de proximidade familiar entre os homens surgiu a necessidade de refletir e instituir normativos， o pacto social， que regulasse as estruturas societais entre as diversas famílias。 Daqui nasce a questão:“O que pode levar os homens a reunirem-se voluntariamente em sociedade， senão a utilidade comum？"A utilidade comum é então o fundamento da sociedade civil， é a diferença entre os Estados legítimos， dos ajuntamentos forçados que ninguém autoriza。 Daqui surge as noções de:"Estado"， "Soberania" e "Cidadão"。 A partir do capítulo VI são formulados os direitos do soberano e do cidadão， os estabelecimentos das leis， como as instituir ao povo， etc。Para nós cidadãos do seculo XXI tudo isto é perfeitamente compreensível porque já nascemos em democracia， nascemos plenos de direitos e com deveres， que devemos cumprir e fazer cumprir a partir da nossa emancipação。 Mas pensando que este “contrato Social” foi escrito em século XVIII em que os abusos do poder aristocráticos e do clero submetiam milhões de pessoas à escravidão， à dor e à violência é algo que me deixa eternamente grata porque foi a faísca que o povo precisava para se libertar do jugo do opressor。Rousseu não teve uma vida fácil， órfão precocemente， cedo teve de se fazer à vida， valeu-lhe uma grande mulher aristocrata。 O amor ultrapassou obstáculos， abriu e fechou portas， mas Dª Teresa manteve-se fiel ao seu lado até ao último suspiro。 Fugitivo， condenado， fiel aos seus princípios， viu os seus livros serem queimados e a foi proibido de escrever。 Dedicou-se à jardinagem e à arte musical。 Vale a pena ler a sua história de vida。 Um génio， cujos sonhos， fizeram o mundo pular e avançar。 Há homens assim。 。。。more

David ，

While it is certainly worth reading， I don't think its an exaggeration to say that this is a system more rigid and more authoritarian than Hobbes。 Thank God Rousseau didn't catch on to the implications of the difference between practical power and formal power from Machiavelli， because then we'd really be rather screwed。 While it is certainly worth reading， I don't think its an exaggeration to say that this is a system more rigid and more authoritarian than Hobbes。 Thank God Rousseau didn't catch on to the implications of the difference between practical power and formal power from Machiavelli， because then we'd really be rather screwed。 。。。more

Kiara ，

Rousseau， ponte de acuerdo con tus ideas y después las escribes plox， grax uwu

Nur Mehmet ，

كتاب صعب الفهم لا اعلم هل المشكلة بالترجمة ام بالكاتب

sophie ，

THE SOCIAL CONTRACTAfter an arduous 3 months I have finished this book。The only part I enjoyed （？） reading was that last chapter on religion （wowie I actually understood how he was arguing for his point！ Its almost like when you make your opinions explicit and clear it is easier for the reader to tell lmao） If you call understanding a section enjoying it then I enjoyed a lot more。 But there were a lot of sections with specific weird terms and histories of countries that made me want to cry。 Alth THE SOCIAL CONTRACTAfter an arduous 3 months I have finished this book。The only part I enjoyed （？） reading was that last chapter on religion （wowie I actually understood how he was arguing for his point！ Its almost like when you make your opinions explicit and clear it is easier for the reader to tell lmao） If you call understanding a section enjoying it then I enjoyed a lot more。 But there were a lot of sections with specific weird terms and histories of countries that made me want to cry。 Although it was interesting to read about some of them （Rome oo） but also。。。bruh。 。。。more

Eman ，

" يولد الإنسان حراً لكنه في كل مكان يجر سلاسل الاستعباد " 📚_ هكذا يستهل روسو كتابه "العقد الاجتماعي" الذي كان له تأثير واضح في التمهيد للثورة الفرنسية بعد صدوره بعدة عقود（ صدر سنة 1762） ؛ لخطورة الجهر بالفكر الحر في ذلك الوقت حيث انتقد روسو الحياة الاجتماعية وعارض فجور وتفاهة النظام الباريسي وانتقد كذلك كلا من أفكار الفلاسفة الإلحادية _على حد وصفه_والتعاليم الدينية التي وصفها بالسطحية وأنها تمنع وتقيد العقل من التفكير 。📚الملخص : _يرى روسو أن الإنسان بطبيعته صالح فأفسده النظام والعادات وجعله بائس " يولد الإنسان حراً لكنه في كل مكان يجر سلاسل الاستعباد " 📚_ هكذا يستهل روسو كتابه "العقد الاجتماعي" الذي كان له تأثير واضح في التمهيد للثورة الفرنسية بعد صدوره بعدة عقود（ صدر سنة 1762） ؛ لخطورة الجهر بالفكر الحر في ذلك الوقت حيث انتقد روسو الحياة الاجتماعية وعارض فجور وتفاهة النظام الباريسي وانتقد كذلك كلا من أفكار الفلاسفة الإلحادية _على حد وصفه_والتعاليم الدينية التي وصفها بالسطحية وأنها تمنع وتقيد العقل من التفكير 。📚الملخص : _يرى روسو أن الإنسان بطبيعته صالح فأفسده النظام والعادات وجعله بائساً :المجتمع سيئ لا يساوي بين الناس والمنافع كما أن التملك _الذي كان منتشراً حينها_ هو شيء ظالم ؛لأنه مقتطع من المُلك العام والذي يخص الإنسانية وحدها فقط لذا يقول روسو أنه يجب ان يقضى على المجتمع ونتحدث عن الطبيعة حيث يتفق الأشخاص بعقد اجتماعي على إقامة مجتمع جديد يرضى به الجميع ، ويتفقون على حكومة تمنح الناس نفس الحقوق وبذلك تقوم سيادة الشعب مقام سيادة الحاكم 。 " المجتمع للشعب والشعب للمجتمع " _ممهداً بذلك ظهور الاشتراكية _ _ويشير إلى التقسيم غير العادل الثروات （ الفصل السادس تقريبا ） : "لا يجوز أن يكون أي مواطن ثري بما فيه الكفاية لشراء مَواطِن أخرى ولا فقيراً بالقدر الذي يجعله يبيع نفسه " 📚مناقشة الأفكار الرئيسية : _يبدأ روسو بوصف المجتمعات الأولى وتماسكها واصفاً قدرتها على توفير الحماية والأمن _ ذاكراً بأن أول مجتمع شهدته البشرية هو الأسرة _ وأكد على أن ظهور الدولة يعد بمثابة طفرة في التاريخ الإنساني 。 [ أسرة ⬅ عشيرة ⬅ مجتمعات قبلية ⬅ مجتمعات كبيرة ⬅ الدول ] 。 _ كيف بدأت المجتمعات ؟ 🖇بدأت منذ واجه البشر عوائق ضارة لم يستطع البشر مقاومتها ومواجهتها على انفراد وبالتالي ان لم يوحدوا قواهم بشكل متوافق لكان الهلاك حتمياً 。 _ ما تأثير العقد الاجتماعي على حريات الإنسان ؟ 🖇 سلبيات : خسارة الشخص لحكمه المطلق لكل ما يحاول ويريد الحصول عليه 。 🖇إيجابيات : ظهور الحرية المدنية مقيدة بالإرادة العامة （ بمعنى انتقال الشخص من عبادة الشهوة إلى طاعة القانون الذي شارك هو بنفسه في وضعه ） 。 _ هل يمكن أن تضل الإرادة العامة ؟ 🖇يقول روسو : " الشعب لا يُرشَى ولكنه يُخدَع غالباً وهنا تظهر الإرادة العامة على أنها سيئة " كما تكمن المشكلة عندما تتكون الأحزاب إذ تتحول الإرادة العامة إلى إرادة فئة صغيرة من الشعب _ رؤساء الأحزاب_ والمطالب توضع لخدمة هذه الفئة فقط 。 _ القوانين : 🖇_ تعين جميع الحقوق بالقانون _ من الشعب للشعب _ 。 🖇_ لا ثم لا للامتيازات الخاصة （ الامتيازات التي توضع لأشخاص بعينهم _ لأسماء محددة من الناس _ ） 。 🖇_ يمكن وضع امتيازات ذات شروط عامة ومن يحققها ينل الامتيازات 。_ النظام التشريعي : 🖇 _يعين شخص من الشعب ك مشترع للقوانين ، مشترع للقوانين فقط لا علاقة له بالقضاء ولا السيادة ؛ لضمان ان القوانين التي توضع ستكون في مصلحة الشعب أولا ولا تنحاز لأي سُلطة 。 🖇_ يجب أن يراعي المشترع ثلاث نقاط في وضعة للقوانين : （ 1_ مدي جودة القانون ، 2_مدى مقدرة الشعب على تنفيذ القانون ، 3_الوقت المناسب للقانون ） _ما هي الحكومة ؟ 🖇_هيئة متوسطة بين الرعايا والحاكم موكل إليها تنفيذ القوانين وصيانة وحماية الحرية المدنية 。 يقول روسو أنه توجد علاقة عكسية بين عدد الحكام وقوة الدولة أو الحكومة أي أنه كلما زاد عدد الإداريين الحكوميين كلما ضعفت الحكومة 。 "الحاكم مؤتمن وليس مالكاً " 🖇_ يرى كذلك أنه كلما زاد عدد الشعب يجب تقليل عدد الحكام : 1 -الدول الصغيرة يناسبها الديموقراطية :↩بمعنى توحيد السلطة الاشتراعية والتنفيذية ، فيقول روسو " لو وُجِدَ شعب من الآلهة لكانت حكومة ديموقراطية " أي أنه لم توجد ديموقراطية حقيقية قط ، فليس الشعب كله يملك نفس الوعي وكلما زاد عدد الأفراد زاد التفاوت في الوعي وبذلك تزداد صعوبة تحقيق الديموقراطية 。 2 -الدول المتوسطة يناسبها الأرستقراطية :↩بمعنى أن يحكم أرشد الناس في الجمهور عندما نطمئن بأن حكمهم هو نفع للشعب وليس لأنفسهم 。 3 -الدول الكبيرة يناسبها النظام المَلَكِي 。 📚 رأيي الشخصي وتقييمي للكتاب:_كتاب مهم وجميل وإن كان ب تغلب عليه المثالية أحياناً ولكن الأكيد انه يستاهل تديله من وقتك 。_تقييمي الشخصي （ 4/5） 。 ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 。。。more

Manuel Branco ，

Essencial para quem queira entrar na literatura política。 Prefiro Locke ;）

Holden M。 Rasmussen ，

Rousseau would probably be just an odd paleoconservative or libertarian writing simplistic screeds on 4chan if he were alive today。。。A respectability-Republican or a mispgynistic， incel-esque libertarian。 As far as political and ethical theory goes， it was okay for my first-year students to read so as to articulate the basic problems and questions of the topic to them， but this does not stand up to scrutiny。

Andreas L Massey ，

This book actually took some time to finish。 I enjoyed the first parts， but the rest was a drag。 The problem is that he oversimplifies and uses really old examples （Rome， the Greeks， and so on）。 I don’t recommend this。 Read something more modern on the topic， or just skip it。 It’s fine。

Jenny ，

It's hard to review this book because I started it so long ago and lost momentum， but I can say that I thoroughly enjoyed it， and that Rousseau's ideas have not lost their power or their relevance。 Okay， the last few chapters about Rome felt outdated， but for the most part， his concepts are very much applicable today， and in fact， I can see that our founding fathers were definitely influenced by Rousseau's utopic ideas。 Why do I call them utopic？ He's writing about a perfect society， and that do It's hard to review this book because I started it so long ago and lost momentum， but I can say that I thoroughly enjoyed it， and that Rousseau's ideas have not lost their power or their relevance。 Okay， the last few chapters about Rome felt outdated， but for the most part， his concepts are very much applicable today， and in fact， I can see that our founding fathers were definitely influenced by Rousseau's utopic ideas。 Why do I call them utopic？ He's writing about a perfect society， and that doesn't exist。 Rousseau really acknowledges this， but he offers his ideas anyway。At the core， Rousseau's essay argues that， in order to be free people in society， we have to willingly be part of that society。 The social contract， then， is everyone （everyone） in a society agreeing to be part of that society。 Now， if we all agree， we're going to willingly make concessions as needed; therefore， any seeming lack of freedom isn't a loss of freedom because we're choosing to give it up for the greater good。 So， once we all agree to be part of the same society， we agree as a group to make laws。 The people must agree on the laws made; otherwise， the laws are made based on individual opinions and desires， which isn't societal but is back to wildness， and it's not a true society。 In the natural world， making decisions based off individual want and desire is perfectly acceptable。 In a society， this is the opposite of what we should do。 Once the laws are agreed upon and solidified， we need someone to enforce the laws。 Rousseau talks a lot about the legislative and the executive balance （sound familiar？） because the people should make the laws， but the sovereign （as he calls the group of people who come together to form a society and the laws that govern it） can't enforce the laws also。 We need someone else to do that， someone part of but separate from the group。 Now， when this person takes over to enforce， they're only enforcing what everyone has agreed to， so the true power is still with the people。 But the executive branch， so to speak， can be a monarch， it can be a democracy， and it can be an aristocracy。 What matters is that the people agree。 Rousseau speaks about the various types of rule， classifying them broadly into these three categories while stating that there are varieties and nuances。 For example， the United States is actually an aristocracy （he doesn't say this--I am） because the people don't enforce the rules， and we actually don't even make them。 So， we have a select group of people （senators， representatives， etc。） acting in legislative and executive capacities on our behalf。 That's a form of aristocracy though there are elements of democracy involved。 Rousseau says there can be a mix of these forms of government--there's barely any government that's explicitly one form or another。 What Rousseau really writes about is how to create the most effective government， so people can actually be free and not just in name。 Freedom， again， isn't being able to do whatever you want。 That's wildness， and if you want that， go back to nature， and you can have it。 But if you choose to live among other people in a society， you will have to sacrifice personal desires for the majority。 But again， if you're doing that， you're doing it willingly， so you're still free （he does say that if anyone is forced to be in a society against their will， that whole society is not under the social contract; it has to be 100%， or the contract is null and void）。 He does say this type of freedom isn't the same as complete freedom， but he says it's better because being in society gives us morals， guidelines for behavior， etc。 I enjoyed this book because it made me think。 I took a lot of notes， and I liked seeing modern applications of Rousseau's ideas。 Obviously， this being centuries old， much has developed since， and Rousseau predicted some things that actually happened after his time。 I'm curious， though， because he says that no society can last forever as it is， that is has to change and develop with its people， or it's doomed。 The United States hasn't changed it's style of governance at all though it has changed some laws and updated the Constitution to some degree。 Still， our system is pretty much the same as it has been since 1776， so I wonder if Rousseau will be right yet again， or if the U。S。 will prove him wrong。。。 Probably my favorite section and one I wish Roussie had developed further was the section on religion。 It was such a lively passage， and he made excellent points about the separation of church and state and freedom of religion （he didn't use those terms， I am， but what he describes is essentially what the founding fathers of the U。S。 employed when they wrote our Constitution and the Bill of Rights）。 I got a little annoyed with him when he said that an army of Christians would be ineffective and explained why， but a lot of his points are correct， and anyway， he says that there should be no state religion and that people should believe in something， so they fight for something and do their duties with a motive， but there should be no religious state as such because of the conflicts it arouses on the grand scale and an individual basis。 One thing I thought was particularly interesting was how he discussed the way a people could be taught to believe in something， manipulated into seeing a religion where it doesn't exist， and encouraged to fight for dogma that's not actually religion。 All in all， a great section。 I wish he did more with it。I really enjoyed reading this book。 I like thinking about different topics in new ways， and I'm not much for politics， but I do love philosophy。 I've read a few utopian books， most notably Thomas More's Utopia and H。G。 Wells' A Modern Utopia， and it's always interesting to me how people can have their own ideas about a perfect society， but the very fact that it's their own idea means it's not perfect。 And that's why we call these "no places。" Strongly recommend this book， especially if you want to see how your own country fits into someone's idea of how to get it right and what it means to human freedom to get it wrong。 。。。more

Ermina ，

Dugo sam se družila sa ovom knjigom， možda i suviše dugo da priznam da sam uživala。Jeste štivo opšteg znanja， ali je isto tako dosadno štivo。Ko ne mora， nek ne čita。

Janet Mayfire ，

A wise man once told me that he disagreed with a lot of what Rousseau said - but that he also made him think。 As far as I'm concerned， this is a good enough reason to read this book！ And yes - I reacted the same way。 A wise man once told me that he disagreed with a lot of what Rousseau said - but that he also made him think。 As far as I'm concerned， this is a good enough reason to read this book！ And yes - I reacted the same way。 。。。more

Wafa Foufa ，

ألوم الترجمة على تقييمي لهذا الكتاب （لم أجد اسم المترجم）。 أظن أنني لو قرأته بالفرنسية لفهمته أحسن。

Reference

google book https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=The Social Contract

hathitrust digital library https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?q1=The Social Contract&field1=ocr&a=srchls&ft=ft&lmt=ft

The British Library https://bll01.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?query=any,contains,The Social Contract&tab=LibraryCatalog&search_scope=Not_BL_Suppress&vid=44BL_INST:BLL01&lang=en&offset=0