Philosophy & Social Criticism, Volume 48, Issue 9, Page 1302-1328, November 2022. Robinson Crusoe is a mythic character who lives not only in the popular imaginary but through the history of political and social thought. Defoe’s protagonist lives marooned on his island, isolated and apart from society. The narrative is a perfect naturalisation of the ‘bourgeois’ world, dependent on an ontology of the self-sufficient individual. This article analyses this lineage in the social contract theory of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. Later, (...) Hegel used the novel to illustrate his dialectic of mastery/servitude. Challenging the atomism of the state of nature, Hegel’s theory of recognition gives an account of positive freedom, where the individual is formed in and through social interdependence. This sociality is continued by Marx, who satirises Defoe's novel in his value-form critique of political economy. The value-form provides insight into Robinson's island labour and Marx's difference with Locke's labour theory of value. For Marx, the myth of ‘natural man’ hides the domination of capitalist development and Robinson Crusoe reflects the internalisation of the abstract rationality of commodity society. However, Marx's immanent critique of the novel points to a radical idea of social life and freedom. (shrink)

Obwohl Rousseaus Mitleidsbegriff in heutige Verständnis weisen des Mitleids eingegangen ist spielt er in ihren Thematisierungen nur eine eher untergeordnete Rolle. Rousseaus Beitrag zum modernen Begriffsverständnis steht einerseits im Schatten des Einflusses anderer ethischer Gefühlsauffassungen. Andererseits liegen Ursachen für die periphere Stellung des Begriffes darin, dass er in Rousseaus Werk selbst nur an wenigen Stellen erörtert wird. Meine These ist, dass Rousseaus Begriff eine für die Moderne kennzeichnende ambivalente Struktur aufweist, die aus der Dominanz des Selbstbezuges resultiert. Die Rekonstruktion des (...) Begriffes gliedert sich in drei Teile: Zuerst verorte ich seine Position in Rousseaus Werk und fasse seine Bestimmungen zusammen; dann diskutiere ich seine Ambivalenzen auf der Ebene des individuellen Mitleidserlebens; abschließend nehme ich eine Revision und eine Bewertung des Begriffes vor. (shrink)

Jean-Jacques Rousseau remains an important figure in the history of philosophy, both because of his contributions to political philosophy and moral psychology and because of his influence on later thinkers. Rousseau's own view of philosophy and philosophers was firmly negative, seeing philosophers as the post-hoc rationalizers of self-interest, as apologists for various forms of tyranny, and as playing a role in the alienation of the modern individual from humanity's natural impulse to compassion. The concern that dominates Rousseau's work is to (...) find a way of preserving human freedom in a world where human beings are increasingly dependent on one another for the satisfaction of their needs. This concern has two dimensions: material and psychological, of which the latter has greater importance. In the modern world, human beings come to derive their very sense of self from the opinion of others, a fact which Rousseau sees as corrosive of freedom and destructive of individual authenticity. In his mature work, he principally explores two routes to achieving and protecting freedom: the first is a political one aimed at constructing political institutions that allow for the co-existence of free and equal citizens in a community where they themselves are sovereign; the second is a project for child development and education that fosters autonomy and avoids the development of the most destructive forms of self-interest. However, though Rousseau believes the co-existence of human beings in relations of equality and freedom is possible, he is consistently and overwhelmingly pessimistic that humanity will escape from a dystopia of alienation, oppression, and unfreedom. In addition to his contributions to philosophy, Rousseau was active as a composer and a music theorist, as the pioneer of modern.. (shrink)

Basándome en la interpretación de Frederick Neuhouser 2014, examino varios aspectos usualmente no desarrollados en la literatura secundaria sobre una de las herramientas metódicas de la cual se sirve Rousseau en su _Discurso sobre el Origen de la Desigualdad entre los Hombres_ : la así llamada “historia conjetural”. En concreto, examino las respuestas que daría Rousseau a las siguientes tres preguntas: 1) ¿cuáles son los criterios de éxito de tal artefacto metódico? 2) ¿hasta qué punto Rousseau puede estar seguro de (...) la superioridad de su posición frente a teorías alternativas? 3) ¿hasta qué punto es admisible sin objeciones la imagen que Rousseau nos presenta del estado puro de naturaleza? Respecto a la primera pregunta, ofrezco dos criterios cuya inspiración es el falsacionismo de Karl Popper. Respecto a la segunda pregunta, discuto principalmente con la interpretación de Nicholas Dent 2005. Finalmente, en la tercera pregunta considero tanto una objeción kantiana como una objeción hegeliana al _DI_, mostrando al mismo tiempo que estas objeciones no aplican si entendemos con mayor precisión el proyecto del _DI_. (shrink)

This paper demonstrates how ideology plays a major, but previously neglected role in Rousseau's treatment of politics in the Social Contract. Specifically, it shows how a number of key elements in his line of argument come close to ideology criticism as it is conceived in Louis Althusser's theory of ideological state apparatuses. This is the case not just in relation to the distinction between general will and particular will, but also in relation to such concepts as property and social contract. (...) However, the paper also demonstrates how this pre-Marxist understanding of ideology co-exists in the text with a different and more primitive understanding of ideology which is incompatible with Marxism and which points back to Rousseau's previous discourse on the origins of inequality. The paper concludes that while there are definitely elements in Rousseau's text which point toward a future development of the theme of ideology in Marxist theory, the Social Contract on the whole is characterized by heterogeneity on this topic. (shrink)

RESUMO Não há Estado sem os indivíduos. Para Rousseau a construção do Estado requer a participação direta dos cidadãos. A participação ativa dos cidadãos resultará na expressão da vontade geral. É a vontade geral que, via pacto social, dará vida e união ao Estado. O Estado é um projeto de corpo político. A participação ativa dos cidadãos com vistas a impedir a corrupção e a dissolução da sociedade remete à concepção da soberania popular. Nessa modalidade de soberania, os cidadãos seriam (...) capazes de construir e manter os fundamentos da sociedade civil. Rousseau, como um contratualista, pensa a sua época e as soluções políticas para os problemas reais de seu tempo. Portanto, é desse cenário entre a teoria e a prática que Rousseau partirá para configurar a distinção e a relação desse importante tripé: soberano, Legislador e príncipe. ABSTRACT There is no State without subjects. For Rousseau, statebuilding requires the direct participation of citizens. The active participation of citizens will result in the expression of the general will. It is the general will that via social pact, will give life and unity to the state. The state is a political body design. The active participation of citizens in order to prevent corruption and dissolution of the society refers to the conception of popular sovereignty. In this mode of sovereignty, citizens would be able to build and maintain the foundations of civil society. Rousseau, as a contractualist, thinks his time and political solutions for the real issues of his time. So it is this scenario between theory and practice, which Rousseau will start to set up the distinction and the relationship of this important tripod: Sovereign, Legislator and Prince. (shrink)