El contrato social

Por Jean Jacques Rousseau

Este ebook presenta "El contrato social" con un sumario dinámico y detallado. El contrato social: o los principios del derecho político, más conocido como El contrato social, es un libro escrito por Jean-Jacques Rousseau y publicado en 1762. Es una obra sobre filosofía política y trata principalmente sobre la libertad e igualdad de los hombres bajo un Estado instituido por medio de un contrato social. Se dice que este libro fue uno de los muchos incitadores de la Revolución francesa por sus ideas políticas. Bajo la teoría del contrato social se fundamenta buena parte de la filosofía liberal, en especial el liberalismo clásico por su visión filosófica del individuo como fundamental, que luego decide vivir en sociedad por lo que necesita del Estado de Derecho que asegure las libertades para poder convivir. Así también se dice que en este libro se exponen lo que en el futuro serían los principios de la filosofía política socialista, en parte por el concepto de la voluntad general. Jean-Jacques Rousseau ( 1712 - 1778) Jean-Jacques Rousseau fue escritor, filósofo, músico, botánico y naturalista franco-helvético. Definido como un ilustrado; a pesar de las profundas contradicciones que lo separaron de los principales representantes de la Ilustración. Fue uno de los autores de la Enciclopedia cuyas ideas políticas de influyeron en gran medida en la Revolución francesa, el desarrollo de las teorías republicanas, la conformación de la idea de soberanía y el crecimiento del nacionalismo.

• Idioma: Español
• Editorial: e-artnow
• Fecha de lanzamiento: 24 mar 2014
• ISBN: 4064066498122

Jean Jacques Rousseau

Jean Jacques Rousseau was a writer, composer, and philosopher that is widely recognized for his contributions to political philosophy. His most known writings are Discourse on Inequality and The Social Contract.

Vista previa del libro

�~ncbook_preview_excerpt.html�ZM��Fr�+�{/�qd�$��V�%�!����b�& �������6t�E�?��^V
�g�O���
P��/_fֳ�~�,Ocϟ������66�=� �<��>����?�?�6���c��g_���X������i�����<��go|�ȓ��{��^o��{�L!?��<��P�ţG�<��Ͽ��4�S������/�=�����أG�|L+?A-�/g?N��}������������!�9?� ��R���I�>�>&�gq���;��ux">�:��G?��by7O���o%�{;CG��W���?�p��!M8�J��K�����{�?����8�
+p[|�z��|��)=A�r=���5��i��n�o|�n��G||.Q�1w�M�����ZIP�;��Fi �K��&��Iw8 ���L��i�'l�F>��RYLF8������Q��,��FJ4w�W�!s�0�@�x$�+>����A0��:��h�G��JF7��z~���y���rO����=���08} ����&�u7��r�t�t'/�n CPDЃ�p@����Ӿ� ~���>�[U��"�� iN j7���X�/� 9���_�K�}����{D�)4���&e�KD�/AC�j �wH��!��o�9�����w�T��6����?����kO'��)_��$��w���6�xҘ��̈;xE7lc�/���q"�0,�S e�Na�u"6�v� �������s�#ÞE:�<�vn��6b��N�3z�Q����s� K��5�6�;���� ;�R����qm��.�fn�|�v>$}���g����/���ȗC |��3M����3#\@;E�:��o��O�������|d�u��n��\E��]Ox�ƣ��(���o��P7��=���ɒ�q�yX��0R�2�'- ��kғ���Hu����N ��#U�N:O��~B�^�%���C������R��-�^م���\r}�22| �� >����;�*��oR����̄��?�: �_1���`� ��?’��U?0�Y�2#��
�|�w-:p�x��w�#;���O�dU�64�C�s��zFƋ�F�ee1�����_;%�NL1d(���'};j۴Ɉ Wdc�|T���6�:�'cWOܫ��p�^�.���3o���g��NL��j9ݣ�y�'��"�Π5�b<�5 "A)6������/�@<��ܻ��}�����֎�z%|�3�e�H��UĂ�8�O����7fVO�� ���)udK�Y�Mp��q���g-�U�ߢ�k*sA��l�� 2JS���@��ԅs�tW2#_}�w�;��Gigi��a�֊@Y�%|�8 uda�q� q1Gg�s: ��o�pWMH2�� V
����p��̊�ˉ���l�ѧ��j�
O�3��4�gI�i~u��=���k%R�F��9��Z2�����ۍߛR �0L������ o�o�]b��K� ��_�"���(U�l[��a0���)�ȶ��'_:҄��,�Q­0���\Wb�ϖ��a.��� �]Xv5�cZj��M�y1�_Fr`�L���b!G�r7s�-�n��AӾ�-��Zx؁<|�w�:�bs��F���in
Y�bT�5�q4F�`B;�;1e�̹�E�U�0n�za7��������E1���?�!���#I@=q�U��eD�P}��S��(���U��f(B��pa~=yL� ��)�+Z�ެN� !J4x)���d9��J���u����WV�S ��cɜ����Lp�M���|�(��[��7i�'1y*��"b
���l�)�Łn�$��~�_��I!�wW�*�x�c!Y���E�_�DW�|Q™k��Β"�s��1&r!#�q{���M��G6:A(����%l���u�w�mbQҗ@P�\L%���_c'�'������@��L�+s�Qs�`7�+J�k�K��T�H�٥�a�0��t�(1-�@�����m��ӎ���$b�M���4�­���8p��OPLj@?�:�6P�"�n.4v-㪬5kEm�EM�b�/fJ�D M��(&��`|�Tv��`J�2,�Rχk�F��Z��)��Z!���jr+�NB~A�+<�j Đw��yO�%��RJଈ�AU��e�����r5�@`YJ&dWK�Jr���Z'�A��"�?���P������U9��H-�p��Q��ͫ�����'�� �rI������@k=�Έ8*���TV���a�P�I�՛P���(q_���,,��5�K����K&��ּ�=`t�W�'�c�I����`3Hz�����?Rlpya��׌��� RJ�W��:��ʮ�5���dH���o�|U�Ɍph̓P��a������ao%���l��xG74=�^Uw���(�v��oxE�XT��Ý,%��㰝j��C+#�8�k�\ɸ������.��p?_�V:Fؕ�nmk���
p�+�u���O�dljc1�i���,urg�)�wUv&���WD~i ��){M�Gĥ^)��[ [q��u�k/۱���AY��%ņO"k�Ne���p���Ϥ7�8��?������}%Zҍx�L���M���� �B�%SYV�.S����Q%��ڏ��W��Q�wꋖ:��w32�5[>��E�W����.�X�J������@��jc</�_T���g�E��o ��˱�\K-�C�f�B1��߱������K{p W�>�p@����AM��@+�,(�Z'(5w�����'�[��ƣu�|c�}�M�N��r����+=��W�q�m�Ͽ��i�N*�Z�a�1QU��b�K�t9��� ���C��t��`��%r,�0�� �s��MDzKG�z�¡8�. 9~AG�&��˾�դj�lAn��:�n����j*� xJ�uJ�˚U�M��D�1�����՗5��5��S@�<��i}y��f�Ь�>��6�4��|e6QX�e��*�2�I覑�j�T�D.�F����i"v�.���Ҽ��n�p-��G_}k�;�e/�d�t�}�����0�cu��/��ø);X B�C��{>^4�k�Ao��O�;&�����Y��={����W��y�m�Ɲ����,U�w�-�n���/"��o��w�i��k/�Q�'CeT��` �ΪD���AS�]Gџ2f���)&�[o ��F���~�Աxl�t-���PÑC@�{�]�SD���Nxj���U7Q����/Og��דsq-���|�dC�V�BVA8���hq)�4%������̻���^��95�a�#�'u��1���Y]�|���N��\�
�)T��.���m������o��~��/B�8�6$�V^w��p�،rT8�����w����͛G���q6�_����� C8���F!M�oy��ˠ�B�e����e�%��H �� E���@6�8�ܔ�ۉ�Z%��~�Yt�U�CbM��Izk(��2W��f��ba�`c�D �E ��l̷~�n>�kn��p���e\S�Sh� ��~J�wJ�⪣+BKJ�%��g]t~ޭ�N�bt��wV��,��?��p�����LP!f)�K�Rz�(�̈́Z��XvW��泃A?�i(܆���WNd�?5�mH*��u�{s^ᕦ5Um�֑v/D<�L-��u����g�����v�wk��r���0�cjR-xl�E���O(}�����_�s�58oK���.Y�����P���WE��i&o��"vY�UfC6�X���bN��W���cb���<�W �
���X��LU�"ũX�B��{���pz'-�Z�q�������]M�z(�!gN؀nu���e����my�K�f�k��"�k4E":���P��Ab�͈�@�j0y&�dST�糶�=BQ����B�e W l�֋�"?���pm"�I��E������0�����X��HK�Z�7�|1�-r�C��bri%�2�#S4��c+4*�� ��F���('2�,��z
�jy�$�p�q̟�(+ouue�_���\u$ �6v���X/@��F��!��賽՝?��8��L�n���V�T�^�s~�Gm�ʌnqu���Q����^�>ho�a�;�}_����+wc���C��=r����<��yz���/D��ᘍ�.�)}���e�ܫċw�P�� Y�N��.5���̡vE׋�L�j��F����� ^2���F?Ļr�c��r ՠ��Pn:1�W�/�2��S��4

¿Disfrutas la vista previa?

Suscríbete para seguir leyendo

Comentarios para El contrato social

[chaosmogony · Calificación: 4 de 5 estrellas]

Rousseau is the man.

[kace_12 · Calificación: 2 de 5 estrellas]

I read this in high school for my philosophical debate class/competions. This is really going to show my geek slip, but I enjoyed all 3 social contract theories. This one probably the least, he was a little radical by my way of thinking. Maybe too much wacky tobacky, or whatever was dipped into waaaaaay back when.

[bookomaniac-1 · Calificación: 3 de 5 estrellas]

Zeer fragmentaire beschouwingen; de bekende theorie van het maatschappelijk verdrag komt er maar zeer kort in aan bod. Soms zeer theoretisch; enkele interessante beschouwingen

[p_s_patrick · Calificación: 4 de 5 estrellas]

Here Rousseau introduces the idea of the "Social Contract" as being the establishing force behind structured civil society, governments, and states. The social contract is a mutually beneficial agreement between the members of the society, and is crucial to the existence of any society. What is agreed upon between the members of the society (either subjects or citizens), is that they will forgoe their rights to carry out certain behaviours on the understanding that others will not produce these behaviours either, which leads to the formation of laws based on the general moral will of human nature. For example, it is beneficial for a given member of society to assent to a minor relinquishment of liberty (agreeing that they won't steal/ murder/ carry out other crimes), in order for them to maintain the greater part of their liberty by not having their own posessions stolen, or themselves murdered. In living in such state, one implicitly agrees that if this contract is broken, then the individual must be punished. This deterrent preserves the general liberty of the people, and is the reason that we have laws. On the political spectrum, Rousseau tends towards the Conservative.Rousseau also discusses various other matters relating to forms of government, democracy, Roman law, religion, and matters of state in general, though these are of much less important than the earlier chapters pertaining to the central thesis of the Social Contract.The ideas presented here are largely relevant to modern politics, and as this is a short and easily read book, I would recommend it to those interested in law, politics, history, or sociology. It is much more accessible than some other political philosophies, such as Aristotle's Politics, though not as comprehensive as either this or Plato's Republic on many matters. However, it is a good volume to read as an introduction to politics, and to the idea of the social contract which is integral to the liberty of civilised society everywhere.

[jpsnow · Calificación: 5 de 5 estrellas]

Very concise and captivating. It is remarkable how much of it still pertains and even seems to have been predicted. One can easily see how the framers of the US Constitution relied on this work. "Since no man has a natural authority over his fellow, and force creates no right, we much conclude that conventions form the basis of all legitimate authority among men.""I shall end this chapter and this book by remarking on a fact on which the whole social system should rest: i.e., that, instead of destroying natural inequality, the fundamental compact substitutes, for such physical inequality as nature may have set up between men, an equality that is moral and legitimate, and that men, why may be unequal in strength or intelligence, become every one equal by convention and legal right."

[kade_11 · Calificación: 5 de 5 estrellas]

The predecessor to Karl Marx and Kapital. To understand Marxism, Rosseau and his ideas are practically a prerequisite, his concepts of collectivism, and distrust of representative democracy, and his declaration that "Man is free, yet everywhere he is in chains". For hardcore political scientists: read this to understand the ideological underpinnings of the architects of the French Revolution, the Jacobins, then read Edmund Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France" to see a critique of Rosseauean ideology and what it did to France.

[lisamaria_c · Calificación: 1 de 5 estrellas]

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 more absolute in its powers and more 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.

[alexgalindo_1 · Calificación: 4 de 5 estrellas]

The Social Contract is Jean-Jacques Rousseau's seminal work. He takes on the question of the state, government, and man's desire to be free under these conditions. Although Rousseau speaks quite too favorably of Rome and Sparta when justifying his main points, he nevertheless provides a provocative case for the use of the State, it's laws, and it's authority. However his flaws lie in his assurance of top-down government, and lack of faith in true democracy. He accuses direct democracy as incredibly paralyzing, and inefficient, which is true when applied in the context of mercantile, pre-modern conditions. “You forget that the fruits belong to all and that the land belongs to no one.”

[madepercy-1 · Calificación: 3 de 5 estrellas]

It should come as no surprise that reading piecemeal translations of classic works is no substitute for reading the work cover to cover. I was surprised to find that the words used to justify the American and French Revolutions were much like Adam Smith's "invisible hand" - a small part of an otherwise far-ranging discussion. Rousseau's discussion of religion, the state and marriage holds some key lessons for statecraft in the present, but I daresay the focus on the "social contract" (which should more correctly be referred to as the "social pact" in the Rousseauian sense of the term) has overshadowed any other use of the ideas from this classic work. Yet another reason to read the classics for oneself rather than rely on second-hand reports. Reading The Social Contract has highlighted some major gaps in my knowledge, particularly about ancient Rome but also Hobbes. No doubt I will need to revisit Locke, too. Nevertheless, this short book, along with The Prince, Utopia, and The Communist Manifesto, represents an important part of the modern nation-state and is certainly worth more than a skim-read.

[meh_ssdd · Calificación: 3 de 5 estrellas]

Important enlightenment literature, but you can see all the places that are proto-communist. I can't really agree with his support of an "Enlightened Minority" required to direct societal affairs. Read Locke instead ;D

[heidip_38 · Calificación: 3 de 5 estrellas]

The Social Contract was another surprising book. Rousseau advocates a society based on the "General Will" of the people. The "general will" is actually the sovereign in a society--not a king. Each person has a social pact with others in their society. The pact is to submit to the "general will." The general will should always reign supreme--for the good of the people--and is indestructible. So, individualism is definitely out. The people do not have a social contract with their government, only with one another. The government just expresses the general will of the people. He doesn't like representative governments. So how do you find out the general will? You meet in assemblies. Christianity is against his social pact because Christians would love God more than their society. He thought there should be more public service and less private (personal) business. It was interesting to read this in view of the French Revolution, and possibly the influence this had on future revolutions. Population should be spread equally, there should not be any really wealthy or really poor people....luxury is out as it is not compatible with the general will. You need to control equality with legislation. Monarchy was blasted in this book.

[bookworm12_1 · Calificación: 4 de 5 estrellas]

This fascinating commentary on the way society works is packed full of wisdom. Rousseau explores the unspoken agreement each individual makes with the society in which they operate. He contends that many of our basic rights are not rights at all, but silent commitments everyone within our society makes to each other. The whole book is a wonderful resource and in lieu of a review I’ll leave you with some of my favorite lines.“Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave than they.” “The greatest kings whose praises history tells were not brought up to reign: reigning is a science we are never so far from possessing as when we have learnt too much of it, and one we acquire better by obeying than by commanding.”“No one has a right to demand that another shall do what he does not do himself.”“I prefer liberty with danger to peace with slaves.”“Men always love what is good or what they find good; it is in judging what is god that they go wrong.” 

[greeniezona · Calificación: 4 de 5 estrellas]

I continue to love the Penguin Great Ideas series. Though the simple inclusion of a date of original publication would be very nice.

Anyway, the book is a discussion of governments. Ideal governments vs. real governments, the best government for a given state, the nature of governance and governors. The historical and mythical examples were interesting, but in many places the extent to which various theoretical constructs were being compared got a bit tiring. Despite all that, there were more than enough points to ponder to make the book worth the reading.