牛津英文经典：社会契约论（英文版） [Discourse on Political Economy and the Social Contract] 下载 mobi epub pdf 电子书 2024

☆☆☆☆☆
简体网页||繁体网页

点击这里下载

类似图书 点击查看全场最低价

---

编辑推荐

　　牛津大学出版百年旗舰产品，英文版本原汁原味呈现，资深编辑专为阅读进阶定制，文学评论名家妙趣横生解读。

内容简介

　　发表于1762年的《社会契约论》是卢梭重要的政治著作，书中提出的“主权在民”思想具有划时代的意义，是现代民主政治的基石。其核心思想“合法的国家必须根据普遍意志来进行管理”代表了人民专制对旧有制度的替代，象征了主权和自由。

作者简介

　　让-雅克·卢梭（1712—1778）法国伟大的启蒙思想家、哲学家、教育家、文学家，十八世纪法国大革命的思想先驱，启蒙运动卓越的代表人物之一。主要著作有《论人类不平等的起源和基础》、《社会契约论》、《忏悔录》等。《社会契约论》的主权在民思想，是现代民主制度的基石。

精彩书评

　　没有卢梭，就不会有法国大革命。
　　——拿破仑
　　
　　卢梭是另一个牛顿。牛顿完成了外界自然的科学，卢梭完成了人的内在宇宙的科学，正如牛顿揭示了外在世界秩序和规律一样，卢梭则发现了人的内在本性
　　——康德
　　
　　在《社会契约论》中康德找到了自己的道德启蒙，即“自由是人所特有的”这一原则。所有狂飙突进时期的德国天才人物，从先驱者莱辛和赫尔德开始，直到歌德和席勒……都是卢梭的崇拜者。
　　——罗曼·罗兰

目录

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

精彩书摘

　　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 牛津英文经典：社会契约论（英文版） [Discourse on Political Economy and the Social Contract] 下载 mobi epub pdf txt 电子书 格式

评分☆☆☆☆☆

很厚重的一本书，精彩点评很棒

评分☆☆☆☆☆

挺好的

评分☆☆☆☆☆

商品的包装有待改进，封面有损坏，希望京东能重视。

评分☆☆☆☆☆

书的质量看着很不错

评分☆☆☆☆☆

和变形记的导读是同一人！

评分☆☆☆☆☆

给朋友女儿买的，期待反馈

评分☆☆☆☆☆

卡夫卡的变形记可谓现代文学的经典，以前看过中文译本，现在看看英译本，加强理解

评分☆☆☆☆☆

好，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，

评分☆☆☆☆☆

蛮好的一本书，材质不错，是全英文版本的，目前没有看到有什么拼写错误。感觉还是可以的。

类似图书 点击查看全场最低价