"The Social Contract" first put forward the "idea of natural human rights and sovereignty among the people." It was banned as soon as it came out. Rousseau himself was forced into exile in England. However, the democratic theory advocated by "Social Contract" soon caused shock in the world. It triggered the French Revolution that shocked the world. The source of the French national motto "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" is "The Social Contract". The "Declaration of Human Rights" adopted by the French National Congress in 1789 fully embodies the spirit of the "Social Contract" such as "the purpose of society is to benefit the public" and "the right to rule belongs to the people". "Social Contract Theory" also had an important impact on the United States' "Declaration of Independence." Everyone from Robespierre to Lenin used "Social Contract Theory" to explain their own regimes.
Reader comments
I always feel that this book is not "The Social Contract" but "On the Social Contract"
The discussion on "contract theory" is generally very nutritious, and it is not important that it is mixed with personal thoughts, just as it is difficult for Western philosophy to fully understand and translate the literal meaning of Chinese when translating Confucianism.
It doesn't seem to be the original version, but a reinterpretation of the original version, translating the original profundity into easy-to-understand language. Yes, it's very in-depth.
It should be about social contract theory
A very philosophical book, suitable for in-depth thinking.
This is an interpretation version, not quite the same as the original version. The author's column is a bit misleading, but overall it's pretty good.
Is it better to read paper books? Books need to be read carefully.
It's okay, but the content is not concise enough.
It's good, but I'm stupid and very few people can understand clearly [I'm about to cry][Cry]
I always feel that this book is not "The Social Contract" but "On the Social Contract"
The discussion on "contract theory" is generally very nutritious, and it is not important that it is mixed with personal thoughts, just as it is difficult for Western philosophy to fully understand and translate the literal meaning of Chinese when translating Confucianism.
It doesn't seem to be the original version, but a reinterpretation of the original version, translating the original profundity into easy-to-understand language. Yes, it's very in-depth.
It should be about social contract theory
A very philosophical book, suitable for in-depth thinking.
This is an interpretation version, not quite the same as the original version. The author's column is a bit misleading, but overall it's pretty good.
Is it better to read paper books? Books need to be read carefully.
It's okay, but the content is not concise enough.
It's good, but I'm stupid and very few people can understand clearly [I'm about to cry][Cry]