The Second Discourse , like the first, was a response to a question put forth by the academy of Dijon: “What is the origin of inequality among men; and is it authorized by the natural law?” Rousseau’s response to this question, the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality , is significantly different from the First Discourse for several reasons. First, in terms of the academy’s response, the Second Discourse was not nearly as well received. It exceeded the desired length, it was four times the length of the first, and made very bold philosophical claims; unlike the First Discourse , it did not win the prize. However, as Rousseau was now a well-known and respected author, he was able to have it published independently. Secondly, if the First Discourse is indicative of Rousseau as a “counter-Enlightenment” thinker, the Second Discourse , by contrast, can rightly be considered to be representative of Enlightenment thought. This is primarily because Rousseau, like Hobbes, attacks the classical notion of human beings as naturally social. Finally, in terms of its influence, the Second Discours e is now much more widely read, and is more representative of Rousseau’s general philosophical outlook. In the Confessions , Rousseau writes that he himself sees the Second Discourse as far superior to the first.
MetaMetrics develops scientiﬁc measures of academic achievement and complementary technologies that link assessment results with instruction. Our products and services help learners achieve their goals by providing unique insights about their ability level and potential for growth.
Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.
Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.
You are certainly correct about the essentially non-polluted elemental composition of the Earth’s atmospheric nature. The elements oxygen and nitrogen played a large part in the studies of Lavoisier.