[ pdf ] Du contrat social, ou Principes du droit politique Author Jean-Jacques Rousseau – Multi-channel.co


10 thoughts on “Du contrat social, ou Principes du droit politique

  1. says:

    Du contrat social ou Principes du droit politique The Social Contract Principles of Political Rights, Jean Jacques Rousseau The Social Contract, originally published as On the Social Contract or, Principles of Political Rights French Du contrat social ou Principes du droit politique by Jean Jacques Rousseau, is a 1762 book in which Rousseau theorized about the best way to establish a political community in the face of the problems of commercial society, which he had already identified in his Discourse on Inequality 1754 The Social Contract helped inspire political reforms or revolutions in Europe, especially in France The Social Contract argued against the idea that monarchs were divinely empowered to legislate Rousseau asserts that only the people, who are sovereign, have that all powerful right 1974 1348 1345 1329 1347

  2. says:

    The one star rating does not mean I don t recommend reading The Social Contract Everyone should It s that important, that influential and reading this was certainly eye opening One star does not mean this was tedious, dry or difficult In fact this treatise is not long, is easy to understand and can be read in a few hours And Rousseau can certainly turn a phrase Lots and lots that s quotable in this book But I don t simply not like the book which on Goodreads means one star I absolutely despise this book and everything it stands for Leo Strauss called Machiavelli the teacher of evil and goodness knows I have nothing kind to say about Marx But both feel clean and wholesome in comparison to Rousseau Machiavelli at least is open about urging there is no place for morals in politics, but Rousseau is positively Orwellian He begins the first chapter of Social Contract with the stirring worlds Man is born free and everywhere is in chains. But though he speaks of liberty and democracy it s clear that his ideal state as he defines it is totalitarian Those who don t want any part of his state, who won t obey, should be forced to be free Locke argued inalienable rights included life, liberty, and property governments are instituted to secure those rights For Rousseau, life, liberty and property are all things you give wholly to the state retaining no individual rights Rousseau states Whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body the social contract gives the body politic absolute power over all its members when the prince says to him It is expedient for the State that you should die, he ought to die.Even Rousseau thought his ideal system couldn t work in large territories He ideally wanted direct democracy, with all citizens meeting in assembly such as in the ancient city state of Athens, not representative democracy, which he doesn t see as true democracy And the larger the state, the absolute in its powers and autocratic the government should be lest it fall into selfish anarchy Alissa Ardito says in the Introduction to my edition that Politics is also about language, talking, negotiating, arguing and for that Rousseau had no need and little patience The goal in The Social Contract is always about consensus, and in the end one suspects what Rousseau finally wanted was silence You cannot have liberty or democracy while shutting up and shutting down anyone who dissents from the general will And then there s Rousseau s urging of a civil religion, where one literally worships the state What you get then is the obscenity of a state as the Democratic People s Republic of Korea, whose only nod to democracy is in the name, and where its leader takes on a quasi religious status Can I see any good in this treatise I can see the form the United States took in the discussion of a mix between monarchy President , aristocracy Senate, Supreme Court and democracy Congress and checks and balances between them But such features are also discussed in Locke s Second Treatise of Government and in Montesquieu s The Spirit of the Laws, both of which predate The Social Contract In fact, Rousseau s categories of government can even trace its roots to Aristotle So, what good I can see in it is hardly original Well, and The Social Contract did argue for sovereignty being lodged in the people rather than a Divine Right of Kings it s supposed to have inspired the French Revolution, and its cry of liberty, equality, fraternity If so, it s easier to understand why the French Revolution turned into the Reign of Terror I do consider this a must read, and I m glad I read it It s enlightening, like turning over a rock to see all the nasty things that were hiding underneath.

  3. says:

    google translate .

  4. says:

    Remember when Freedom was a glorious ideal a fresh, untrammelled new territory to explore at will Of course all of our early days were filled with its fresh air And so were the early days of the Enlightenment, that powerhouse of political ideology that conceived the Golden Image of TRUE democracy What happened to us all to spoil all that Well, the world grew up and so did we Jean Jacques Rousseau, though, all appearances to the contrary, was at heart a Golden Ager Whatever we may think, his philosophy was not Utopian Rousseau wanted to return to the Age of Innocence, just like Auden though perhaps a little bit na vely and to universal brotherhood.Yes, he was every bit as na ve as I was in my early years. and probably a lot of you, too Still, he never stopped hoping, in spite of all the bullies and naysayers But like Jean Jacques, I know my teenaged springtime was anything but sound The serpent had long since reached the centre of the apple Rousseau like me attempted extensive damage control, and the galloping extr mes of his writing belie that constantly thwarted rationalization He was perhaps successful, at least outwardly, though inwardly most of his life was lived on tenterhooks.But now, I like so many fellow Boomers remain a partial stranger in this brave new world we see around us.And we can never go back to the Golden Age.Why Because we all have seen the enemy and he is us Because he was ALWAYS there with us, even in disguise in those faraway times.You know, we moderns grew up faster because we were in sync with Accelerated Modern Time, and because the serpent is in plain view these days Caught in that music, all neglectMonuments of undying intellect.So, to so many of us, Jean Jacques fades back into the chipped and forgotten statuary of the Enlightenment.EXCEPT MAYBE HIS Hope is still a valid GROWNUP option For Rousseau,What he was, he was.What he is fated to becomeDepends on us.Don t you see Just because we ve been hurt and have fallen from grace is no excuse for this modern cynicism.And as Auden s poetic words can also apply to the way we see this tarnished 18th century idol, perhaps Rousseau s historical fate, along with DEMOCRACY s and the WORLD s, also depends on US.And if we re as idealistic as he was, these things will depend on having a grown up sense of HOPE It s time we revisited that Golden Ideal There IS still room for goodness, decency and hope in this fallen world And The Social Contract has those virtues in Spades.

  5. says:


  6. says:

    Great Philosophies Philosophy implies thinking and thus, indicates a certain type of thought That is exactly what this book has accomplished combined three books that summarized a brief view of numerous philosophers ways of perceiving the world Aside from all that, Social Contract theory was the heart and soul of this phenomenal manuscript Should it be followed, its practices would eliminate quite a few of the useless egoism and its selfish consequential behaviors If you d like a moment of constructive peaceful meditation into a realm of philosophical speculations, this book would definitely suffice the purpose Highly recommended

  7. says:

    real thing , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , modus operandi.

  8. says:

    Stylistically painful enough to read but undeniably indispensable to anyone seeking to understand the philosophical foundations of the republic, as it is thought in France.Liberty, Equality, Fraternity There is much talk in the first two terms of this The Social Contract Everything is almost the separation of powers, the importance of the legislative power, the secularism rather punchy Rousseau anticipates even very current evils such as populism asserting that the people are always right BUT they may be led to vote bad laws if they are misinformed or the possible negative influence of the lobbies.The basis of Rousseau s reflection is man in the state of nature, which should not be considered in historical terms, nor in the myth of the good savage It is above all a theoretical model Is the man as he would be if he were not a social being A being not yet distorted by society but also whose potential is not developed.Rousseau thus states his question To find a form of association by which each one unites to all obey only to himself and remains as free as before He responds to this by the social contract which, in order to function, presupposes the alienation of the individual from the natural rights the right to support oneself by his own means in exchange for civil rights guaranteed by laws that promulgate the individual as a citizen Thus, if man loses his natural freedom there, he gains social freedom and equality since equality in law must make it possible to erase innate differences.A truly coherent text, always modern except for a few passages such as the correlation between the type of territory and the type of government Nevertheless, a text that evokes a model implicitly based on the active participation of the citizens not yet citizens, must not mess to the vote and the quality of political debates ie political staff.Would Mr Rousseau have left notes somewhere approaching what must be done when one has less and less one and the other, or will it be necessary to resolve to rely on our imagination

  9. says:


  10. says:

    An update to the previousRousseau probably has the most recognized opening line in political theory philosophy Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains The idea of the social contract is to move man from the state of nature with unlimited freedom and limited security to a society The society is a compromise where a man gives up his unlimited freedom and receives security in exchange Giving up freedom never sounds like a good idea, but Rousseau makes his point In the state of nature, a man devotes much of his time protecting his stuff If someone takes you stuff you are free to punish the offender if you are capable In society, you lose the right to punish offenders and forfeit that right to a legal system There are rules that are enforced by law so one does not need to spend all his time guarding his stuff There is an exchange of freedom a loss counteracted with a gain i.e freedom to do something other than guarding your stuff Rosseau promotes the idea of a general will Society, all its members, provide a voice for direction It is all the voices that determine the general will Although not always practical many societies result to representative legislatures, Although this limits the individual voices, it can work unless 1 Factions are formed political partiesespecially when there are only two 2 Members of the legislature coming under the influence of interests rich, corporations, musket lobby Rousseau writes much in the way of a democratic society always doing the right thing by following the general will the majority view, which should be very large since every voice is heard as an individual You are not limited only two opinions or parties Society should move along very well and move along in the utmost of fairness and justice Rousseau is often cited as the father of modern democracy Rousseau is also credited as the Father of modern totalitarianism The general will idea plays well into the hands of tyrants Look how many dictators get elected and reelected with 97% of the vote General will all the way Perhaps a bit chilling is Rousseau comments on what happens if you disagree with the general will Rousseau states rather simply that, everyone makes mistakes It s OK It happens Society will simply force you to be free I totally made up the musket lobby but I imagine the reader gets the jest of it