Vérité et duplicité dans l'Åuvre de Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Were it necessary to choose two words that could capture the philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, these two words would have to be truth and nature for, in his works, this philosopher does more than assert that he, and he alone, possesses truth in its entirety. He equally maintains that his sole desire lies in sharing this truth with human kind, that we might rediscover our true nature, one that we have long ago forgotten. In fact, these very words adorn his tomb in the Pantheon where he was finally brought to rest: "Ici repose l'homme de la nature et de la verite." However, upon closer examination of two of his major works, Emile or on Education and The Social Contract, both published in 1762, a surprising contradiction is brought to light. In these treatises, he makes the child and the people believe that they are free when he is merely using rhetoric to manipulate them. For example, in Emile he gives the following advice to tutors: "Take the opposite course with your pupil; let him always think he is master while you are really master. There is no subjection so complete as that which preserves the forms of freedom; it is thus that the will itself is taken captive." While in The Social Contract he recommends using divine intervention to assure that the people "obey freely, and bear with docility the yoke of public happiness." Is Rousseau simply a gifted sophist who, by hiding the rhetoric he uses, can present himself as a man of truth in order to better form the child and the people to do his bidding? Or, is there a justification for his duplicity? Could it be possible that in some instances duplicity must be used if truth is ever to be attained by all human beings? By examining the rhetoric Rousseau uses in Emile and The Social Contract, this thesis attempts to shed some light on this somewhat troubling contradiction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".