Powrót /do/ Rousseau: Czy „porażka” emancypacji i „załamanie Dzieła”? Uwagi krytyczne do książki Pawła Pieniążka pt. „Jednostka, zło, historia w myśli Rousseau”

Abstract

The paper presents polemical remarks on Paweł Pieniążek’s study entitled Jednostka, zło, historia w myśli Rousseau (The Individual, Evil, History in Rousseau’s Thought, Łódź 2022). An attempt is made to discuss with the Author the interpretation of Rousseau’s main works, his most important concepts and theoretical problems. In particular, Social Contract, Emile, Reveries of the Solitary Walker, Julie, or The New Heloise are analyzed, but there also appear key references to the so-called first and second Discourses, Dialogues and Letters to Malesherbes. Where Pieniążek sees only evidence of the “failure” of Rousseau’s emancipatory ideals and signs of the “breakdown” of his work, the author of the polemic tries to defend the “citizen of Geneva”, showing that there are alternative ways of reading Rousseau’s texts, which allow him to be protected from the traditional allegations that he failed completely to reconcile the communal and individualist plan of his thought and remained dramatically torn between the two contradictory and self-excluding ideals: the citizen and the solitary.

The paper presents polemical remarks on Paweł Pieniążek’s study entitled Jednostka, zło, historia w myśli Rousseau (The Individual, Evil, History in Rousseau’s Thought, Łódź 2022). An attempt is made to discuss with the Author the interpretation of Rousseau’s main works, his most important concepts and theoretical problems. In particular, Social Contract, Emile, Reveries of the Solitary Walker, Julie, or The New Heloise are analyzed, but there also appear key references to the so-called first and second Discourses, Dialogues and Letters to Malesherbes. Where Pieniążek sees only evidence of the “failure” of Rousseau’s emancipatory ideals and signs of the “breakdown” of his work, the author of the polemic tries to defend the “citizen of Geneva”, showing that there are alternative ways of reading Rousseau’s texts, which allow him to be protected from the traditional allegations that he failed completely to reconcile the communal and individualist plan of his thought and remained dramatically torn between the two contradictory and self-excluding ideals: the citizen and the solitary.

The paper presents polemical remarks on Paweł Pieniążek’s study entitled Jednostka, zło, historia w myśli Rousseau (The Individual, Evil, History in Rousseau’s Thought, Łódź 2022). An attempt is made to discuss with the Author the interpretation of Rousseau’s main works, his most important concepts and theoretical problems. In particular, Social Contract, Emile, Reveries of the Solitary Walker, Julie, or The New Heloise are analyzed, but there also appear key references to the so-called first and second Discourses, Dialogues and Letters to Malesherbes. Where Pieniążek sees only evidence of the “failure” of Rousseau’s emancipatory ideals and signs of the “breakdown” of his work, the author of the polemic tries to defend the “citizen of Geneva”, showing that there are alternative ways of reading Rousseau’s texts, which allow him to be protected from the traditional allegations that he failed completely to reconcile the communal and individualist plan of his thought and remained dramatically torn between the two contradictory and self-excluding ideals: the citizen and the solitary.

The paper presents polemical remarks on Paweł Pieniążek’s study entitled Jednostka, zło, historia w myśli Rousseau (The Individual, Evil, History in Rousseau’s Thought, Łódź 2022). An attempt is made to discuss with the Author the interpretation of Rousseau’s main works, his most important concepts and theoretical problems. In particular, Social Contract, Emile, Reveries of the Solitary Walker, Julie, or The New Heloise are analyzed, but there also appear key references to the so-called first and second Discourses, Dialogues and Letters to Malesherbes. Where Pieniążek sees only evidence of the “failure” of Rousseau’s emancipatory ideals and signs of the “breakdown” of his work, the author of the polemic tries to defend the “citizen of Geneva”, showing that there are alternative ways of reading Rousseau’s texts, which allow him to be protected from the traditional allegations that he failed completely to reconcile the communal and individualist plan of his thought and remained dramatically torn between the two contradictory and self-excluding ideals: the citizen and the solitary.

Tekst zawiera uwagi polemiczne do książki Pawła Pieniążka pt. Jednostka, zło, historia w myśli Rousseau (Łódź 2022). Podjęta zostaje próba dyskusji z Autorem nad interpretacją głównych dzieł Rousseau, ich najważniejszymi pojęciami i problemami teoretycznymi. Mowa jest zwłaszcza o Umowie społecznej, Emilu, Marzeniach samotnego wędrowca, Nowej Heloizie, lecz pojawiają się też istotne odniesienia do tzw. pierwszej i drugiej Rozprawy, Dialogów i Listów do Malesherbesa. Tam, gdzie Pieniążek widzi tylko dowody „porażki” ideałów emancypacyjnych Rousseau i „klęskę” jego dzieła, tam autor polemiki stara się pokazać, że istnieją alternatywne sposoby czytania tekstów Rousseau, pozwalające ochronić go przed tradycyjnym zarzutem, że nie zdołał on uzgodnić wspólnotowego i indywidualistycznego planu swojej myśli i pozostał rozdarty między dwoma sprzecznymi i wykluczającymi się wzajemnie ideałami: obywatela i samotnika.

The paper presents polemical remarks on Paweł Pieniążek’s study entitled Jednostka, zło, historia w myśli Rousseau (The Individual, Evil, History in Rousseau’s Thought, Łódź 2022). An attempt is made to discuss with the Author the interpretation of Rousseau’s main works, his most important concepts and theoretical problems. In particular, Social Contract, Emile, Reveries of the Solitary Walker, Julie, or The New Heloise are analyzed, but there also appear key references to the so-called first and second Discourses, Dialogues and Letters to Malesherbes. Where Pieniążek sees only evidence of the “failure” of Rousseau’s emancipatory ideals and signs of the “breakdown” of his work, the author of the polemic tries to defend the “citizen of Geneva”, showing that there are alternative ways of reading Rousseau’s texts, which allow him to be protected from the traditional allegations that he failed completely to reconcile the communal and individualist plan of his thought and remained dramatically torn between the two contradictory and self-excluding ideals: the citizen and the solitary.