{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023562199138586266, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007600709399543958, 'mean_word_length': 5.178403755868545, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Legacy of Rousseau . Edited by Orwin Clifford and Tarcov Nathan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997. 352p. $17.95.

what Ophuls argues is the sole legacy of the Enlightenment. Reform liberals are concerned with positive rather than negative freedom and with the moral capacities of individuals and their development rather than with preferences and desire satisfaction. What is most valuable about Greenstone's dialectic, for our task, is its insistence that the Enlightenment project is concerned with a discourse between alternative paradigms seeking core status. If the Enlightenment is a multiheaded creature with competing principles and assumptions about who people are, how they act collectively, and what the proper role of the state is, then the entire project cannot be condemned for the failures of but one of its lines of argument. Let us suppose that the Enlightenment is not just the evolution of a preference utilitarian market paradigm that originated with Hobbes and evolved through the thought of Locke, Smith, and Madison. In the same way that Greenstone paints a picture of competing paradigms, one essentially Jeffersonian and one beginning with the thought of John Adams, we can argue that another strand of Enlightenment argument begins, for example, with Aquinas and evolves through Rousseau and Kant. This second strand might promote positive freedom and the intrinsic value of humanity and nature over instrumental values and the exploitation of nature. It might focus on essential capacity as the core of practical reason rather than preference and choice. It might be concerned with quality rather than quantity, with organic growth rather than exponential, with ends rather than means, and with politics as a check on avarice rather than a facilitator of desire satisfaction. Perhaps this alternative Enlightenment paradigm, as the core assumptions of a new political and economic order, could reconfigure republican government so that instead of involving itself in the affairs of individuals, it "administers justice among men who conduct their own affairs" (p. 262). From this viewpoint, social evolution would not be different from natural systems evolution. When charting the development of a system from "pioneer" to "climax" conditions, Ophuls argues (pp. 12-5) that each system has within itself the alternative capacities allowing it to mature and change while maintaining its functional validity. Conceivably, within the dialectic that is the Enlightenment, we have alternative assumptions, principles, and priorities that will allow us to move from "pioneer" to "climax" conditions without destroying ourselves in the process. If this is true, then when Ophuls dismisses the entire Enlightenment project because he condemns one of its products, he ignores principles and historical context that are available for adoption as the core of a new paradigm, one which may take us past the pioneer stage and to the next level of sociopolitical evolution. At minimum, to complete his critical thesis, Ophuls needs to present an argument that the alternative lines of discourse within Enlightenment philosophy (recognized, for example, by this writer, Schmidt, and Greenstone) are not really alternatives at all. Yet, if Ophuls had separated his critical argument about the market paradigm from his polemic about the Enlightenment and made the search for constructive alternatives his task, then the book might have been a profoundly more positive and invigorating contribution to the literature. If instead of a requiem Ophuls had written a "Fanfare for 21st Century Politics," then the human energy expended on one's Ophulian depression could have been better used in both acknowledging the failures of the past and planning a new course toward greater success in the future. The Legacy of Rousseau. Edited by Clifford Orwin and Nathan Tarcov. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997. 352p. $17.95.