4

Mill refers to Rousseau's upsetting the consensus of the Enlightenment that the modern spirit of commerce makes people more "civilized" with his theory of "natural goodness" of men. A good review of recent scholarship on Rousseau is Gentle Savages and Fierce Citizens against Civilization by Mendham, who describes the consensus as follows:...


3

Just to supplement Mauro's answer, which brings out perfectly the central conceptual point about war, there's an associated point that relates to why wars occur between states when the roots of war are not authentic to human nature. Only because of the degraded condition to which 'civilization' has reduced us, so Roussseau thinks, are states predisposed to ...


3

It is an apology for the single-author history compared to history written by many specialists. It means that the specialist of Rousseau may not be versed in the history of Ancient Greece, as well as the historian of Ancient Greece may not know about Hobbes and Lenin. one of the purposes of [Russell's book] is to bring out such relations.


3

Did J.J. Rousseau really say slavery was a necessary condition to reach equality of conditions? I do not think so; see A Discourse on Political Economy (Discours sur l'économie politique, 1755) : About slavery I have nothing to say, because it is contrary to nature and no right can authorize it. And see The Social Contract (Du contrat social ou ...


2

State is the institution. Chapter VI : The social pact Right away, in place of the particular individuality of each contracting party, this act of association produces a moral and collective body, composed of as many members as the assembly has voices, and which receives from this same act its unity, its common self (moi), its life, and its ...


2

War is not a relation between individuals, but between States. See The Social Contract, Book I: Chapter IV : Private combats, duels, and encounters are acts that do not constitute a state of war; [...] War, then, is not a relation between man and man, but a relation between State and State, in which individuals are enemies only by accident, not as ...


2

Rousseau does not hold, presuppose or imply that 'individuals are in a constant state of war' in SC I.4 or elsewhere. In I.4 section 9 he goes out of his way to deny that war can take place between individuals: 'War is then not a relationship between one man and another, but a relationship between one State and another' (Rousseau, The Social Contract, tr. V. ...


1

Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote in the 18th century — he died shortly before the French Revolution — and so his 'men of letters' would have referred to French aristocrats and haute bourgeois: successful businessman, craftsman, and commoner-intellectuals who might be present at royal court. Such people, if not always formally educated, had the leisure time and ...


1

Cole was sympathetic towards Rousseaus political ideas which makes for a good translation This suggests then that this is a good translation as Cole has all the virtues of a good translator, a good and fluent command of both languages and an appreciation of the ideas and language at stake. What else does one require? but not a very objective analysis ...


1

One issue that commonly occurs with translations of works in philosophy is that there are often "old translations" -- which you'll readily find in print because they are outside of copyright. In general, these translations lack awareness of which terms are philosophically important. Moreover, they are often hard to follow and sometimes skip over major ...


1

Rousseau and the state of nature The Discourse on the Origins of Inequality (1775) depicts the individual in the state of nature, which Rousseau believed once existed before systematic social organisation emerged and his account of which he regards as part-historical and part-conjectural (Franklin Philip: 53). The individual is presented as: ... ...


1

Note: This answer is quite similar to Mauro's, but adds some explanation of the specific details of the quote. The context is Russell's apology for knowing less about the specifics of any one philosopher or philosophical era than a specialist, and therefore treating each philosopher with less depth and focus than the specialist would prefer. The ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible