Rousseau’s Second Discourse

The second discourse The last paragraph of the preface is a passionate appeal that requires the reader to pay attention to the people and society's history that Rousseau is about to present beyond the boundaries of time and space. Beginning with this writer's invasion - a form of literary nickname - this article uses historical sentences as its main story model. This approach is in sharp contrast to the approach Thomas Hobbes has adopted in his Leviathan. There, the UK passes geometry before valid debate and correct assumptions. The way of learning prove that proposition.

Rousseau wrote the second paper in response to the essay contest organized by Dijon University. (Rousseau won the same essay contest in a previous post, often referred to as the first essay). . According to Rousseau, the state of nature is a peaceful and unrealistic era. People are lonely and simple living. Some of their needs are inherently easily met. Due to the richness of nature, poor population, and lack of competition, people rarely even see each other, not to mention reasons of conflict and fear. In addition, these simple and morally pure people are blessed with the ability to sympathize naturally, so they will not hurt each other.

The first person who criticized Rousseau was his philosopher, especially Voltaire. According to Jacques Barzun, Voltaire got angry with the first discourse and was angry with the second discourse. The interpretation of Voltaire's second discourse is that Rousseau wants readers to "fit on the ground with limbs" for barbarians. Jean-Baptiste Blanchard is his main Catholic. Blanchard was opposed to Rousseau's negative education. Children will learn more from the early days of their studies. He also insisted that women are addicted, and opposed his view on women's education. Therefore, it is unnatural to remove them from the mother's way, as it will cause misfortune to both men and women.

The second discourse, like the first discourse, is an answer to the question posed by Dijon University: "What is the root cause of male inequality and is it approved by natural law? Discussion on the origin of inequality is quite different from the first discourse for several reasons. Firstly, the second discourse is not that popular in terms of college reaction. It exceeded the requested length, which was four times the length of the first one and made a very bold philosophical claim; unlike First Discourse, it did not win a prize. But since Rousseau is now a famous and respected writer, he can publish it on its own. Secondly, if the first discourse shows that Rousseau is an "anti-enlightenment" thinker, contrary, the second discourse can be considered as a representative of enlightenment.