Chapter 68 Chapter 19 Rousseau

Although Jean Jacques Rousseau (Jean Jacques Rousseau, 1712-78) was a philosophe (sage) in the French sense of the eighteenth century, he was not the kind of person who is called a "philosopher" today.He has, however, exercised as powerful an influence on philosophy as on literature, taste, fashion, and politics.Looking at him as a thinker, no matter what we say about his merits and demerits, we must admit that he has a very important position as a social force.This importance derives mainly from his ability to move emotion and move what was then called "sentimentality".He is the father of the Romantic movement, the founder of the school of thought that deduces facts beyond the scope of human beings from human emotions, and the inventor of the political philosophy of pseudo-democracy and dictatorship that is contrary to the traditional monarchy.Since the time of Rousseau, those who considered themselves reformers have always been divided into two factions, those who followed him and those who followed Locke.Sometimes the two factions work together, and many people do not see any incompatibility.But gradually their incompatibility became more and more obvious.At present, Hitler is a result of Rousseau; Roosevelt and Churchill are the results of Locke.

Rousseau's biography himself is described in great detail in his book, but with no die-hard respect for facts.His willingness to present himself as a great criminal was often exaggerated in this respect; but there was also abundant external evidence that he lacked all common morals.The incident did not trouble him, for he thought he had always had a tender heart, but tenderness never prevented him from doing mean things to his best friend.In what follows I shall describe his life only insofar as it is necessary to know in order to understand his thought and influence. Rousseau was born in Geneva and was educated by orthodox Calvinists.His father, because of poverty, was both a watchmaker and a dance teacher; his mother died in infancy, and he was brought up by an aunt.He left school at twelve, apprenticed in various trades, but hated everything he did, and fled Geneva to Savoie at sixteen.Because he had no means of living, he went to a Catholic priest and threatened to convert.The formal conversion took place in a Catholic catechism seminary in Turin and lasted nine days.He presents his motive as purely reward: "I cannot pretend not to know that the sacred act I am about to perform is an act of kleptocracy." But this was written after he became Protestant; Is a faithful and sincere Catholic.

In 1742 he publicly declared that the house he lived in in 1730 had miraculously escaped a fire thanks to the prayers of a bishop. After he had been expelled from the Catholic Institute in Turin with twenty francs in his pocket, he became the manservant of a lady named Madame de Vesili, who died three months later.When she died, it was discovered that Rousseau had kept a stud which had belonged to her, but had actually been stolen by him.He insisted that it was given to him by a maid he liked; others believed him, and the maid was punished.His self-explanation is wonderful: "Never has evil been farther from me than in this cruel hour;

When I accused the poor girl, it was paradoxically true: my love for her was the cause of what I did.She came to my mind, and I blamed the first one that came up. This is a good example of how to replace all ordinary morality with "sentimentality" according to Rousseau's moral view. After this incident he was supported by Madame de Warens, a Protestant convert like himself, a charming lady who received an annuity from the King of Savoy for religious services.For nine or ten years he spent most of his time in her home; even when she became his concubine he called her "maman" (mother).For a while he shared her with her handyman; everyone lived in perfect harmony, and when the handyman died, Rousseau felt sad, but turned to comfort himself: "Forget it, I will get his clothes anyway."

He had spent much of his early life as a vagabond, traveling on foot, making as little a living as he could.During one of these episodes, a fellow wanderer of his had an epileptic seizure in the Rue de Lyons; At the moment of the attack, Rousseau took advantage of the gathering of the crowd and left his friend behind.On another occasion, he acted as secretary to a man who claimed to be the abbot of a Greek Orthodox monastery on his way to the Holy Sepulchre; and on another occasion, posing as a party member of James II, he claimed to be a Scot named Dardin , had an affair with a rich lady.

In 1743, however, he became secretary to the French ambassador in Venice with the help of a distinguished lady, a drunkard named Montaigu, who assigned Rousseau a job but neglected to pay him a salary.Rousseau had done a good job, and the inevitable dispute was not his fault.He went to Paris to seek justice; Everyone admitted that he was right, but for a long time he didn't do anything.Although in the end he received his due wages, the anguish of this delay had something to do with Rousseau's turn to loathe the existing French regime. It was about this time (1745) that he lived with Thérèse le Vasseur, a servant in his hotel in Paris.He lived with her for the rest of his life (not excluding other affairs); he had five children with her, all of whom he sent to the Foundling Hall.No one has always understood what attracted him to approach her.She was ugly and ignorant; she could not read or write (he taught her to write, but not to read); she did not know the names of the twelve months, and could not add up money.Her mother was insatiable; together they used Rousseau and all his friends as a source of income.Rousseau claims (whether it is true or false) that he never had any love for Therese;Presumably what he liked was the sense of superiority: the feeling that he was unquestionably superior financially and intellectually to her, and that she was utterly dependent on him.He was not at ease in the company of great men, and he took pleasure in the poor and the simple; and on this point his democratic sentiments were entirely sincere.Although he never married her, he treated her almost like his son, and all the noble ladies who patronized Rousseau had to put up with her.

His first success in writing came too late in his life.The Dijon Institute is offering a prize for the best work on the question of whether the arts and sciences have blessed humanity.Rousseau took a negative claim and was awarded a prize (1750).He maintains that science, literature, and art are the worst enemies of morality, and, by inducing desires, the source of slavery; for how can chains be attached to a man who is so often naked as the American savage?Predictably, he was for Sparta and against Athens.When he was young, he read Plutarch's "Life of Famous Men" and was greatly influenced; he especially admired the birth of Lycurgus.Rousseau, like the Spartans, regarded victory in war as a measure of value; yet he still praised the "noble savages," although the sophisticated Europeans beat them in battle.In his view, science and virtue are irreconcilable, and the origin of all science is base.Astronomy out of astrological superstition; eloquence out of ambition; geometry out of greed; physics out of idle curiosity; even ethics out of human pride.Education and printing are deplorable; everything that distinguishes the civilized man from the uncivilized savage is a curse.

Now that his thesis won a prize and suddenly became famous, Rousseau lived according to the way of life in the thesis.He took up his life, sold his watch, and said he no longer needed to know the time. The ideas in this first treatise were elaborated in a second treatise, Discourse on the Origin and Foundation of Inequality (1754), which did not receive a prize.He believes that "people are inherently good, and let various systems make people evil"-this is the opposite of the theory of original sin and salvation through the church.Rousseau, like most political theorists of his time, spoke of a state of nature, but with a somewhat hypothetical tone, describing it as "a state of nature which no longer exists, perhaps never existed, and probably never will exist. the present state of affairs, but a correct idea of ​​it is still necessary in order to properly judge the present state." Natural law should be deduced from the state of nature, but as long as we are ignorant of natural persons, it is impossible to determine what was originally prescribed for them, or the most suitable the law of natural persons.All we can know is that the will of those who obey the law of nature must be aware that they are obeying, and the law of nature must proceed directly from the voice of nature.

Rousseau does not object to natural inequalities of age, health, intelligence, etc., but only to inequalities created by privileges sanctioned by traditional convention. The roots of civil society, and therefore of social inequality, are to be found in private property. "The man who was the first to circle a piece of land, to say, 'This is mine,' and to find that people were so foolish as to believe him, was the true founder of civil society." Come metallurgy and farming; the grain is a symbol of our woe.Europe is the most unfortunate continent because it has the most grains and the most iron.To eliminate this scourge, it is only necessary to abandon civilization, because human beings are inherently good, and after eating, savages live in peace with all things in nature, and are friendly to all races (emphasis added by me).

Rousseau sent this paper to Voltaire, who replied (1755): "I have received your new book Against Humanity, thank you. Never before has such ingenuity been employed in a scheme to make us all stupid. Read it, and one wants to walk on all fours. But, as I had lost that habit for more than sixty years, I felt, unfortunately, that it was impossible to get it back. And I could not take up the work of exploring the savages of Canada, because the diseases I suffered made I need a European surgeon; because there is war going on in those lands; and because our example of conduct has made the barbarians as bad as our own."

It is not surprising that Rousseau and Voltaire finally fell out; it is incredible that they did not turn against each other sooner. Now that Rousseau became famous, in 1754 his native city remembered him and invited him there.He agreed, but since only Calvinists could be citizens of Geneva, he converted again and returned to his original faith.He had already developed the habit of calling himself a Puritan and a republican in Geneva, and after converting, he decided to live in Geneva.He dedicated his "On Inequality" to the elders of the city of Geneva, but the elders were not pleased; they did not wish to be seen as merely equal to their fellow citizens.Their opposition was not the only obstacle to living in Geneva; there was another, more serious obstacle, that Voltaire had gone to live in Geneva.Voltaire was a playwright and a theater buff, but due to the Puritans, Geneva banned all plays.While Voltaire was intent on getting the ban lifted, Rousseau joined the Puritan side.The savage never plays; Plato disapproves of the theater; the Catholic Church refuses to marry or bury actors;This opportunity to attack Voltaire could not be missed, and Rousseau played himself the part of the champion of ascetic virtue. This isn't the first public feud between the two big names.The first was the Lisbon earthquake (1755), about which Voltaire wrote a poem expressing doubts about the divine dominion of the world.Rousseau was outraged.He said: "Voltaire, who seemed to have always believed in gods, never believed in anyone but the devil, because his false god was a murderous god who, he said, found all his pleasure in mischief. An honor The absurdity of the argument is especially sickening to a man of all blessings, who, at the pinnacle of his personal happiness, intends to fill his fellow beings with despair at the tragic and dreadful image of a calamity which he himself has not suffered. " As for Rousseau, he saw no reason to make such a fuss about the earthquake.A certain number of people die from time to time, and that's a perfectly good thing.Besides, the people of Lisbon have suffered because they live in high-rise houses; if they had been scattered in the forest, as human beings should, they would have escaped disaster and harm. The theological questions of earthquakes and the morals of the theatre, created a bitter enmity between Voltaire and Rousseau, with all the philosophes taking sides.Voltaire regarded Rousseau as a gossiping madman; Rousseau described Voltaire as "that irreverent trumpeter, that flamboyant genius, that low soul."However, refined sentiments had to be shown, and Rousseau wrote to Voltaire (1760): "In fact, I hate you because you have always been so willing that I hate you; I would like you to be loved and hated as much as someone who deserves to love you more. Of all the emotions my heart overflows with you, there is only the admiration we have to hold for your magnificent genius, and for your work It's my hobby. If you have nothing I can respect about you except your talent, that's not my fault." We now turn to the most productive period of Rousseau's life.His novel "New Heloise" was published in 1760; "Emile" (Emile) and (The Social Contract) were both published in 1762. Émile is a work on education on "natural" principles; the authorities would have considered it harmless had it not contained The Conession of  Faith of Savoyard Vicar The book, but that "confession" puts forward the principles of natural religion as Rousseau understood it, which annoys the orthodox beliefs of both old and new religions.It is even more dangerous because it advocates democracy and denies the divine right of kings.Although these two books greatly boosted his reputation, they brought him a storm of official condemnation.He had to flee France.Geneva has no place for him; Berne refuses to be his refuge.At last King Frederick the Great took pity on him and granted him permission to live in Motiers, near Neuchâtel, which was part of the domain of the "Holy King."There he lived three years; but at the end of this period (1765), the villagers of Motiers, led by a priest, accused him of poisoning, and intended to kill him.He fled to England because Hume had offered to serve him in 1762. In the UK initially all went well.He was so successful in society that George III gave him an annuity.He saw E. Burke almost every day, but their friendship soon cooled to such an extent that Burke said: "He has no principles, except vanity, to control his feelings or guide his reason." Hume was most enduringly loyal to Rousseau, saying that he loved him so much that they could live with each other in friendship and respect for life.But at this point Rousseau naturally suffers from persecutory paranoia, which eventually drives him into insanity, and he suspects Hume of being an agent of a plot to kill him.Sometimes he would wake up to the absurdity of such suspicions, embrace Hume, and exclaim, "No, no! Hume is no betrayer!" To this Hume replied (with great embarrassment, of course): "Quoi, moncher Monsieur! (What, my dear sir!)" But at last his delusion prevailed, and he fled.His twilight years were spent in extreme poverty in Paris. When he died, everyone suspected suicide. After the two broke off friendship, Hume said: "He has only felt in his whole life, and in this respect his sensitivity has reached a height that I have never seen before; but this sensitivity has given him, or A sharp feeling of more pain than pleasure. He was like a man who had been stripped not only of his clothes but of his skin, and in that case had been driven out to fight a violent storm. " This is the most benevolent generalization of his character as to how much it corresponds to the truth. There is much in Rousseau's work which, however important in other respects, has nothing to do with the history of philosophical thought.There are but two parts of his thought which I shall dwell upon in a little detail; and those parts are: first, his theology, and second, his political doctrine. In theology he made an innovation that most Protestant theologians now recognize.Before him, every philosopher since Plato, if he believed in a god, presented intellectual arguments in support of his belief.These arguments may seem unconvincing to us, and we may feel that they are not convincing to anyone who is not already convinced that the conclusion is true.But the philosophers who advanced these arguments really believed that they were logically sound, the sort of arguments that should convince anyone of sufficient philosophical quality not to think otherwise.Most of the modern Protestants who urge us to believe in God despise the old "proofs" and base their beliefs on one aspect of human nature—awe or mystery, right and wrong, longing, and so on.This mode of justifying religious belief was pioneered by Rousseau; it is so well known that modern readers, who do not bother to compare Rousseau with (say) Descartes or Leibniz, will probably fail to recognize his originality. . Rousseau wrote to a noblewoman: "Ah, Madame! Sometimes when I am alone in my study, with my hands clasped to my eyes, or in the darkness of night, I think there is no God. But look there: the sun is rising , broke through the mist that covered the earth, revealed the gorgeous and amazing scenery of nature, and this moment also dispelled all doubts from my soul. I found again my faith, my God, and my belief in him. I admire him, I adore him, I bow my head before him." On another occasion he said: "I believe in God as firmly as I believe in any other truth, because it is not my business to believe or not to believe." The personal nature of this form of discussion is its drawback; Not believing something is not a reason for another to believe it. His theistic attitude is quite decisive.Once at a banquet, because Saint Lambert (one of the guests) expressed doubts about the existence of God, he threatened to leave.Rousseau exclaimed angrily: "Moi, Monsieur, jecrois en Dieu! (Am I, sir, I believe in God!)" Robespierre was his true disciple in all things, and in this he followed him. follow suit. "EeDtede l'EtreSupreDme" (Supreme Master's Day) must have won the heartfelt approval of Rousseau back then. In the fourth volume of "Emile", there is an episode "Confessions of Faith of a Savoyard Priest", which is the most clear and formal statement of Rousseau's religious creed.Although this confession professes to be the voice of nature declaring it to a good priest who has been stigmatized for the utterly "natural" error of seducing maidens, the reader is surprised to find that the voice of nature begins to speak with A hodgepodge of arguments from Aristotle, St. Augustine, Descartes, and others.These arguments, it is true, are stripped of rigor and logical form; and this is supposed to give them justification, and to allow the venerable priest to say that he has not the slightest regard for the wisdom of philosophers. . The second half of Confessions of Faith is less reminiscent of its predecessors than the first half.After the pastor was convinced that God exists, he went on to discuss the way of being a human being.He said: "I don't deduce the way of being a man from the principles of superb philosophy, but I find in my heart that the way of being a man is written by 'nature' in indelible words." The view that conscience is an infallible guide to right conduct in all circumstances.He concludes this part of his argument by saying: "Thank Heaven we are thus freed from the whole ghastly apparatus of philosophy; we can be human without learning; In the vast and endless labyrinth of opinions, we obtain a more reliable guide at a lower price." He argued that our natural emotions guide us to serve the common good, while reason motivates selfishness.Therefore, if we want to be moral, we only need to follow our emotions instead of reason. The preacher called his teachings Natural Religion, which needs no revelation; if all had listened to what God said to their hearts, there would have been only one religion in the world.Even if God gave inspiration to certain people, that can only be known by his human proof, and human proof may be wrong.Natural religion has the advantage of direct revelation to individuals. There is a strange passage about hell.The pastor did not know whether the wicked were to suffer eternal torment, and he said somewhat proudly that the fate of the wicked did not concern him very much; exhausted.In any case, he was convinced that salvation was not limited to members of any one church. It was probably negative revelation and hell that shocked the French government and the Geneva city council so deeply. To reject reason in favor of emotion is not, in my opinion, progress.In fact, no one thought of this trick as long as reason seemed to be on the side of religious belief.In Rousseau's environment at that time, the kind of reason advocated by Voltaire was opposed to religion, so reason must be blasted away!Besides, reason is an arcane thing; the savage cannot understand ontological proofs even after eating, and yet the savage is the storehouse of all necessary wisdom.Rousseau's savage—that is not a savage as anthropologists know it—was a good husband and father; he was free from greed, and had a religion of natural benevolence.The savage is a handy fellow, but if he can understand the good priest's reasons for believing in the gods, he will know more philosophy than we expect from a simple and innocent man like him. Apart from the fictional nature of Rousseau's "natural person", the method of basing beliefs about objective facts on inner emotions has two flaws.One point is that there is no reason to suppose that such a belief would be true; the other point is that the resulting belief will be a private belief because the mind says different things to different people.There are some savages whose "natural light" believes that it is their duty to eat men, and even Voltaire's savages, although the voice of reason makes them think that only Jesuits should be eaten, are not quite comfortable.For Buddhists, the light of nature does not reveal the existence of God, but it does declare that it is wrong to eat animal flesh.But even if the heart were to say the same thing to all, that would not be sufficient evidence of anything other than our own emotions.However passionately I, or all mankind, desire a thing, however necessary it may be to man's happiness, that is no reason for affirming its existence.There is no natural law that guarantees the happiness of human beings.Everyone can understand that this statement is true of our present life, but by a wonderful strain, it is precisely our suffering in this life that is said to be a reason for a better life in the next life.We must not apply this principle to other aspects.If you bought ten dozen eggs from a person, and the first dozen were all rotten, you would not infer that the remaining nine must be very good; The kind of reasoning that comforts and encourages. As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather have ontological proofs, cosmological proofs, and the rest of the cliché than the emotional illogicality that originated with Rousseau.The old-fashioned argument is at least sound, and if it is true, it proves its point; if it is false, it allows any critic to prove it false.But the inner theology of the new school is excused; it is irrefutable, because it does not claim to prove its thesis.In fact, the only reason that can be offered for admitting this theology is that it allows us to indulge in pleasant dreams.This is a poor reason, and if I had to choose between Thomas Aquinas and Rousseau, I would choose that saint without hesitation. Rousseau's political theory was published in 1762 in his book.This book is very different in character from most of his works; there is not much emotional promiscuity in it, but a great deal of thoughtful intellectual argument.The doctrines in it, while paying homage to democracies, tended to justify totalitarian states.But Geneva and antiquity combined to make him prefer city-states to great empires like France and England.In the letter he called himself a "citizen of Geneva," and he said in his introduction: "I was born a citizen of the Free State, a member of the Dominion, so I feel that, regardless of the influence of my opinions on public affairs, How weak, since I have a vote in public affairs, it is my duty to study them." The book repeatedly refers to Plutarch's "Lycurgus" in praise. sparta.He said that democracy is ideal in small countries, aristocracy is ideal in half-sized countries, and monarchy is ideal in large countries.But it must be known that according to his opinion, small countries are particularly desirable, partly because small countries are more feasible for democratic politics.By democracy he meant, as the Greeks meant, the direct participation of every citizen in government; he called representative government "electoral aristocracy." The praise of the city always implies the praise of the city-state.This fondness for the city-state is, in my opinion, underemphasized in most introductions to Rousseau's political philosophy. Although the book as a whole is far less pompous and pompous than most of Rousseau's works, the first chapter begins with a powerful rhetoric: "Man is born free, but everywhere is in chains. A man who thinks he is Master of others, but still more slave than others." Liberty was the nominal goal of Rousseau's thought, but in fact what he valued, and what he even sacrificed freedom to strive for, was equality. His conception of the social contract seemed at first to be similar to Locke's, but soon appeared to be closer to Hobbesian.In the course of progress from the state of nature, the time comes when the individual can no longer maintain his primitive independence by himself; then it becomes necessary for self-preservation to unite and form a society.But how can I guarantee my freedom without hurting my interests? "The problem is to find an association which will use all the force of the group to defend and protect the person and property of each member, and in which each, though united with all, is still subject to himself alone, as before. freedom. This is the fundamental problem whose solution is the social contract." The contract is "the complete surrender of each member of the association to the whole of society with all his rights; for, first of all, by virtue of the absolute giving of himself by each, all are in the same position; One's own condition burdens others." This alienation should be unreserved: "If individuals retain certain rights, since there is no common superior to arbitrate between the individual and the public, each since at a certain point being its own judge, would require this on all points; the state of nature would thus continue, and the association would necessarily become ineffectual or tyrannical." These words imply the complete abolition of freedom and the complete denial of human rights.Indeed, in a later chapter the theory is somewhat tempered.It says that although the social contract gives the state absolute power over all its members, yet man still has his natural right to be a man. "The sovereign cannot impose on the citizens any constraints that are not beneficial to the society, and it cannot even think of doing so." But the sovereign is the only judge of what is beneficial or not beneficial to the society. It can be seen that this gives collective tyranny Only a very weak oppositional barrier is added. It must be noted that in Rousseau, the "sovereign" does not refer to the monarch or the government, but society as a collective and legislator. The social contract can be stated in the following words: "We each place together our person and all our forces under the supreme direction of the general will, and we understand each member as an inseparable part of the whole as a legal person. "This act of association produces a moral, collective body which is called the "Nation" in the passive case, the "Sovereign" in the active case, and the "One of the Great Powers" in relation to other similar groups. ". The concept of "general will" that appears in the above expression of the social contract occupies a very important position in Rousseau's system.About this concept, I will have something to say next. It is held that the Sovereign need not make any guarantees to the nation, since it, being constituted by the individuals who organize it, cannot have an interest contrary to theirs. "The Sovereign must be what it is only what it is." This argument is misleading for readers who do not pay attention to Rousseau's special usage of terms.The Sovereign is not the government, which he admits may be despotism; The Sovereign is a somewhat metaphysical entity not adequately embodied by any physical organ of the state.So even acknowledging that it's perfect has no practical consequences that would have been imagined. This eternally correct will of the sovereign is the "general will".Every citizen as a citizen shares in the general will, but as an individual he can also have individual wills that run counter to the general will.The social contract is self-evident that whoever refuses to obey the general will must be forced to obey. "That's precisely what he's going to be forced to do free." This concept of "being forced to be free" is very mysterious.The general will of Galileo's time was undoubtedly anti-Copernican; when the Inquisition forced Galileo to give up his views, was he "forced to be free"?Could it be that even criminals are "forced to be free" when they are put in prison?Consider Byron's pirates: On the joyful waves of the deep blue sea, Our thoughts are boundless, our hearts Also as free as the sea. Would the man be more "free" in a dungeon?The odd thing is that Byron's noble pirates are the direct result of Rousseau, yet in the passage above Rousseau forgets his romanticism and speaks like a high-sounding policeman.Hegel, deeply influenced by Rousseau, adopted his misuse of the word "liberty," defining liberty as the right to obey the police, or something not very different from that. Rousseau did not have the deep respect for private property that characterized Locke and his disciples. "The State is, in relation to its members, master of all their property." Nor did he believe in the separation of powers preached by Locke and Montesquieu. On this point, however, as on several others, his subsequent detailed discussions do not always agree with the preceding general principles.In the first chapter of the third volume, he said that the responsibility of the sovereign is limited to making laws, and the executive branch, that is, the government, is an intermediate group established between the citizens and the sovereign to ensure that the two respond to each other.He went on to say: "If the Sovereign desires to govern, or the Chief Executive desires to make laws, or if the people refuse to obey, chaos will replace order, and then... the state falls into despotism or anarchy." In a sentence, he seems to agree with Montesquieu. I will now talk about the theory of the general will, which is very important and at the same time ambiguous. The general will is not equal to the will of the majority, or even the will of all citizens.It seems to understand it as belonging to the will of the state itself.If we take the Hobbesian view of civil society as a person, we must assume that it is endowed with the attributes of a person, including will.But then we are confronted with the difficulty of determining what the tangible manifestations of this will are, about which Rousseau does not explain.According to him, the general will is always right, and always helpful to the public good; but it does not necessarily follow that the opinions of the people are equally right, because the will of all men often differs greatly from the general will.How, then, can we know what the general will is?In the same chapter, there is a passage that seems to answer: "When the people are given proper information for their deliberations, if the citizens do not speak to each other, the sum of the parts will always produce the general will, and the decisions will always be good." The thought in Rousseau's mind seemed to be this: Every man's political opinions are governed by egoism, but egoism consists of two parts, one part peculiar to the individual, the other common to all members of society .If citizens do not have the opportunity to help each other, their individual interests will be canceled out because of each other, and there will be a result that represents their common interests; this result is the general will.Rousseau's concept may be illustrated by the gravitational force of the earth.地球的每一个质点朝自己吸引宇宙中每一个其它质点；在我们上面的空其吸引我们向上，而在我们下面的大地吸引我们向下。然而所有这些“自私的”引力只要相异就彼此抵消了，剩下的是一个朝向地心的合引力。在幻想上不妨把这理解为当作一个社会看待的地球的作用，理解为地球的总意志的表现。 说总意志永远正当，无非是说因为它代表各色公民的自私自利心当中共通的东西，它必定代表该社会所能做到的对自私自利心的最大集体满足。这样解释卢梭的意思，比我向来能想出的其它任何解释似乎都更符合他的原话。 依照卢梭的看法，实际上对总意志的表现有碍的是国家内部存在着下级社团。这些社团要各有自己的总意志，和整体社会的总意志可能抵触。“那样就可以说，不再是有多少人投多少张其，而是有多少社团便只投多少其。”由此得出一个重要结论：“所以，若要总意志得以表现，必要的是在国家内部不可有部分性社会，而且每个公民应只想自己的思想：这真是伟大的莱库格斯所确立的崇高无伦的制度。”在一个脚注中卢梭引了马基雅弗利的话来支持自己的意见。 我们看这样的制度实际上会必然造成什么情况。国家要禁止教会（国家教会除外）、政党、工会以及有相同经济利害的人们所组成的其它一切组织。结果显然就是个体公民毫无权力的一体国家即极权国家。卢梭似乎领会到禁止一切社团也许难办，所以又添上一句补充的话：假如下级社团·非·有·不·可，那么愈多愈好，以便彼此中和。 他在书的后一部分中讨论到政府时，认识到行政部门必然是一个有自己的利益和总意志的社团，这利益和总意志多半会和社会的利益和总意志矛盾。他说，大国的政府虽然需要比小国的政府强有力，但是也更需要通过主权者约制政府。 政府的一个成员具有三种意志：他的个人意志、政府的意志及总意志。这三者应当合成crescendo（渐强音），但事实上通常合成diminuendo（渐弱音）。并且，“事事都协同从获有支配他人之权的人身上夺走正义感和理性。” 因而，尽管“永远坚定、不变和纯洁的”总意志无过无误，所有那些如何躲避暴政的老问题依然存在。关于这类问题卢梭要讲的话，不是偷偷重复孟德斯鸠的说法就是坚持立法部门至上；立法部门若是民主的立法部门，就等于他所说的主权者。他最初所提的、他说得俨然解决了种种政治问题的那些一般大原则，等他一俯就细节问题时便无影无踪，原来那些原则对解决细节问题是毫无贡献的。 由于此书受了当时反动派的谴责，结果现代的读者本指望书中会见到比它实际含有的学说远为彻底的革命学说。可以拿关于民主政治的言论来说明这一点。我们已经讲过，卢梭使用民主政治一词时他所指的意思是古代城邦的直接民主制。他指出，这种民主制决不能完全实现，因为国民无法总是聚集起来，总是忙于公务。“假使真有由众神而成的国民，他们的政府就会是民主的。这样完美的政府不是人类分内的东西。” 我们所说的民主政治，他称作“选举制贵族政治”；他说，这是一切政体之中最好的，但不是适于一切国家。其候必须既不很热也不很冷；物产不可超出必要量过多，因为若超出过多，奢华恶习势在难免，这种恶习限于君主和他的宫廷比弥漫在全民中要好。由于有这些限制，给专制政体便留下广大的存在范围。然而，他提倡民主政治，尽管有种种限制，当然是让法国政府对此书恨入骨髓的一个原因；另一个原因大概是否定王权神授说，因为把社会契约当作政治起源的学说暗含着否定王权神授的意思。 成了法国大革命中大多数领袖的圣经，但是当然也和《圣经》的命运一样，它的许多信徒并不仔细读它，更谈不上理解它。这本书在民主政治理论家中间重新造成讲形而上的抽象概念的习其，而且通过总意志说，使领袖和他的民众能够有一种神秘的等同，这是用不着靠投其箱那样世俗的其具去证实的。它的哲学有许多东西是黑格尔为普鲁士独裁制度辩护时尽可以利用的。它在实际上的最初收获是罗伯斯庇尔的执政；俄国和德国（尤其后者）的独裁统治一部分也是卢梭学说的结果。至于未来还要把什么进一步的胜利献给他的在天之灵，我就不敢预言了。