☆☆☆☆☆




點擊這裡下載

類似圖書 點擊查看全場最低價

---

編輯推薦

　　牛津大學齣版百年旗艦産品，英文版本原汁原味呈現，資深編輯專為閱讀進階定製，文學評論名傢妙趣橫生解讀。

內容簡介

　　發錶於1762年的《社會契約論》是盧梭重要的政治著作，書中提齣的“主權在民”思想具有劃時代的意義，是現代民主政治的基石。其核心思想“閤法的國傢必須根據普遍意誌來進行管理”代錶瞭人民專製對舊有製度的替代，象徵瞭主權和自由。

作者簡介

　　讓-雅剋·盧梭（1712—1778）法國偉大的啓濛思想傢、哲學傢、教育傢、文學傢，十八世紀法國大革命的思想先驅，啓濛運動卓越的代錶人物之一。主要著作有《論人類不平等的起源和基礎》、《社會契約論》、《懺悔錄》等。《社會契約論》的主權在民思想，是現代民主製度的基石。

精彩書評

　　沒有盧梭，就不會有法國大革命。
　　——拿破侖
　　
　　盧梭是另一個牛頓。牛頓完成瞭外界自然的科學，盧梭完成瞭人的內在宇宙的科學，正如牛頓揭示瞭外在世界秩序和規律一樣，盧梭則發現瞭人的內在本性
　　——康德
　　
　　在《社會契約論》中康德找到瞭自己的道德啓濛，即“自由是人所特有的”這一原則。所有狂飆突進時期的德國天纔人物，從先驅者萊辛和赫爾德開始，直到歌德和席勒……都是盧梭的崇拜者。
　　——羅曼·羅蘭

目錄

Introduction
A Note on the Text and Translation
Select Bibliography
A Chronology of Jean-Jacques Rousseau
POLITICAL ECONOMY
THE SOCIAL CONTRACT
Appendix: The General Society of the Human Race
Explanatory Notes
Index

精彩書摘

　　BOOK I
　　I INTEND to examine whether, in the ordering of society, there can be any reliable and legitimate rule of administration, taking men as they are, and laws as they can be. I shall try, throughout my enquiry, to combine what is allowed by right* with what is prescribed by self-interest, in order that justice and utility should not be separated.
　　I begin my discussion without proving the importance of my subject. People will ask me whether I write on politics because I am a ruler or legislator. I answer that I am not; and that is the reason why I write on politics. If I were a ruler or a legislator, I should not waste my time saying what ought to be done; I should do it, or hold my peace.
　　I was born a citizen of a free state and a member of its sovereign body,* and however weak may be the influence of my voice in public affairs, my right to vote on them suffices to impose on me the duty of studying them. How happy I am, each time that I reflect on governments, always to find new reasons, in my researches, to cherish the government of my country!
　　Chapter i
　　The Subject of the First Book
　　Man was born free,* and everywhere he is in chains. There are some who may believe themselves masters of others, and are no less enslaved than they. How has this change come about? I do not know. How can it be made legitimate That is a question which I believe I can resolve.
　　If I were to consider force alone, and the effects that it produces, I should say: for so long as a nation is constrained to obey, and does so, it does well; as soon as it is able to throw off its servitude, and does so, it does better; for since it regains freedom by the same right that was exercised when its freedom was seized, either the nation was justified in taking freedom back, or else those who took it away were unjustified in doing so. Whereas the social order is sacred right, and provides a foundation for all other rights. Yet it is a right that does not come from nature; therefore it is based on agreed conventions. Our business is to find out what those conventions are. Before we come to that, I must make good the assertion that I have just put forward.
　　Chapter ii
　　The First Societies
　　THE most ancient of all societies, and the only one that is natural, is the family. Even in this case, the bond between children and father persists only so long as they have need of him for their conservation. As soon as this need ceases, the natural bond is dissolved. The children are released from the obedience they owe to their father, the father is released from the duty of care to the children, and all become equally independent. If they continue to remain living together, it is not by nature but voluntarily, and the family itself is maintained only through convention. *
　　Tis shared freedom is result of man’s nature. His first law is his won conservation, his first cares are owed to himself; as soon as he reaches the age of reason, he alone is the judge of how best to look after himself, and thus he becomes his own master.
　　If we wish, then, the family may be regarded as the first model of political society: the leader corresponds to the father, the people to the children, and all being born free and equal, none alienates his freedom except for reasons of utility. The sole difference is that, in the family, the father is paid for the care he takes of his children by the love he bears them, while in the state this love is replaced by the pleasure of being in command, the chief having no love for his people.
　　Grotius denies that all human power is instituted for the benefit of the governed. * He cites slavery as an example; his commonest mode of reasoning is to base a right on a fact. A more logical method could be employed, but not one that is more favourable to tyrants.
　　It is therefore doubtful, following Grotius, whether the human race belongs to a hundred or so men, or whether these hundred men belong to the human race, and he seems inclined, throughout his book, towards the former opinion. This is Hobbes’s view also.* Behold then the human race divided into herds of cattle, each with its chief, who preserves it in order to devour it.
　　‘As a shepherd is of a nature superior to that of his flock, so too the shepherds of men, their chiefs, are of a nature superior to their peoples’—this argument, according to Philo, was used by the Emperor Caligula;* who would conclude (correctly enough, given his analogy) either that kings were gods or that the people were animals.
　　The reasoning employed by this Caligula amounts to the same as that of Hobbes and Grotius. Aristotle* too had said, earlier than any of them, that men are not naturally equal, but that some are born for slavery and some for mastery.
　　Aristotle was right, but he took the effect for the cause. Any man who is born in slavery is born for slavery; there is nothing surer. Slaves in their chains lose everything, even the desire to be rid of them; they love their servitude, like the companions of Odysseus, who loved their brutishness. If there are slaves by nature, it is because slaves have been made against nature. The first slaves were made by force, and they remained so through cowardice.
　　I have said nothing of King Adam or of the Emperor Noah, the father of three great monarches who shared the universe among themselves, like the children of Saturn, with whom they have been identified.* I hope that my restraint in this respect will be appreciated; for being descended directly from one or other of these princes, and maybe from the senior branch of the family, who knows but that, if my entitlement were verified, I might not find that I am the legitimate king of the human race? However that may be, it cannot be denied that Adam was sovereign over the world, like Crusoe on his iland, for so long as he was the sole inhabitant; and the advantage of this form of rule was that the monarch, firm on his throne, had neither rebellions, nor wars, nor conspirators to fear.
　　Chapter iii
　　The Right of the Strongest
　　THE stronger party is never strong enough to remain the master for ever, unless he transforms his strength into right, and obedience into duty. This is the source of the ‘right of the strongest’, a right which people treat with apparent irony * and which in reality is an established principle. But can anyone ever explain the phrase? Force is a physical power; I do not see how any morality can be based on its effects. To yield to force is an act of necessity, not of consent; at best it is an act of prudence. In what sense can it be a duty?
　　Let us suppose for a moment that this alleged right is valid. I say that the result would be completely senseless. For as soon as right is founded on force, the effect will alter with its cause; any force that is stronger than the first must have right on its side in its turn. As soon as anyone is able to disobey with impunity he may do so legitimately, and since the strongest is always right the only question is how to ensure that one is the strongest. But what kind of a right is it that is extinguished when that strength is lost? If we must obey because of force we have no need to obey out of duty, and if we are no longer forced to obey we no longer have any obligation to do so. It can be seen therefore that the word ‘right’ adds nothing to force; it has no meaning at all here.
　　‘Obey the powers that be’.* If this means: ‘Yield to force’, it is a sound precept, but superfluous; I can guarantee that it will never be violated. All power is from God, I admit; but all dicease is from God also.
　　……

前言/序言

　　In 1755, the publication of Rousseau’s Discourse on Inequality brought him considerable success, but also created obligations. The Discourse, in tracing the moral decay of man in society, drew a large-scale contrast between the state of nature, in which man had at least the pote 牛津英文經典：社會契約論（英文版） [Discourse on Political Economy and the Social Contract] 下載 mobi epub pdf txt 電子書

評分☆☆☆☆☆

看看英文原版，學學英語。

評分☆☆☆☆☆

很重要的著作，買來原版學習一下

評分☆☆☆☆☆

給朋友女兒買的，期待反饋

評分☆☆☆☆☆

用來提高英文水平的，希望能達到預期的效果

評分☆☆☆☆☆

好，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，

評分☆☆☆☆☆

一直不參加活動，要買還是買瞭吧。影印版，總比買原版便宜

評分☆☆☆☆☆

這款物品總體上來說還不錯。

評分☆☆☆☆☆

亞當斯密的《國富論》，很有名的一本書，這次買英文版，也是希望可以鍛煉自己的英語能力。

評分☆☆☆☆☆

書很厚，而且纔發現裏麵全是英文，不過很喜歡

類似圖書 點擊查看全場最低價

查看全網最低價