The last paragraph of the prelude to the Second Discourse is a passionate appeal whose scope transcends the boundaries of time and space, inviting readers to pay attention to the history of man and society that Rousseau is about to present. Starting from this authorial intrusion – a form of literary apostrophe – the essay adopts historical writing as its main narrative mode. This method is in direct contrast to the approach taken by Thomas Hobbes in his Leviathan, in which English sets out to prove propositions as one might do geometrically, presupposing valid arguments and valid premises. Rousseau's rejection of philosophy, at least as he understands it in the Second Discourse, embodies the emphasis on nature and emotion that he advocates, and as such, his work aims not only to answer the question posed by the Academy of Dijon but also to criticize his predecessors' attempts to systematize the social contract through reason. The modalities of the writings have several characteristics – including their objects and methods as well as other underlying philosophical premises – that are integral to their successful implementation in a given context. The Second Discourse uses story to both convey and give meaning to its criticisms of social contract theory, and its success stems from the story's suitability for such an attack due to its characteristics. All historical writing is done with the goal of understanding the past more carefully. The first form of understanding in this context concerns exclusively the relationships between past events. Closely linked to this notion is also the belief that past events, over time, have contributed to present events. These two alternative tenses of a...... middle of paper ...... are shaky at best, Rousseau has decided to leave intact the natural ambiguity that comes from language. When the more persuasive among us try to convince others of our points, we provide examples rather than laws, real-world images rather than abstract concepts, intuition rather than reason. This is not to say that they have no place in such topics; on the contrary, they must: Rousseau himself tacitly recognized this when he wrote the Social Contract. However, for the intent and purpose of his original argument – ​​that social contract theorists were flawed and that man must relearn to value feelings over reason – the structure of his Second Discourse is brilliant – a reminder that only by understanding the past can we come to understand the present.Works CitedRousseau, Jean-Jacques, and Donald A. Cress. Basic political writings. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub., 1987. Print.