P. In the main premise, Hugo Grosh is similar to Lekart. How, on the basis of the construction of a new normative understanding,
Nya, Hugo Grosch also pointed out the rational: nature of the human personality (paeiga gabopa|$ "), also isolated it from the rest of the 'animal' nature"). He used the Stoic term No. 3 and narrowed it down, applying the “understanding” of natural law it denotes only to human nature 3). Thus, the studied law of social human existence was “allocated” by him to a special area and 115 publication, in the meaning given by Grosh, was in no way “identified with the world significance of the Stoic concept “1esez” paeagae”. Synthetic approach 1113 pabagaNz to the rational and sociable nature of the human personality. marks a turning point in the history of the development of political individualism. In the rational 'human nature' Groshy found the 'quality' of sociability and gave it the epithet zoslaz "), and not the Aristotelian epithet: "Poliibu". Groshy, as it were, separated this concept of the 'human personality' from the one associated with it - the dominant ancient norm - the concept of statehood. In my father, the philosophy of law of modern times we find completely different posing the ‘question. By belonging to’ the state, Aristotle distinguished man from all other animals. Stagirite did not assume the possibility of the existence of man within the state.
1) Oe shge Be] as ramz G. G. S. 1.51.
2). See also Pro]ez. HT. 1. After his childhood, Rousseau should follow Descartes and Grosch; in his Emil (1. G) creation of a panegyric to reason, he even refuses to compare himself with animals.
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]
“sniffles in pabogai, Voshalai: 51 1seb, ezze peset.” 4) Re 10ge Be! ac equals 1.. T.S. [3 1.
Hugo Grosch marked human nature with the predicate of rationality, that is, a property borrowed not from the category of other things, but from the essence of man himself. And in man himself he found the quality of sociability. This gave political individualism a strong point—a link to all future political structures, the direction we are considering,
Hugo Grosch himself outlined his system very clearly; More deeply, more accurately and more realistically than his predecessors, he indicated only the prerequisites for political individualism, without being particularly inclined towards it. He used them in his design, but in some places the steel with them was even in sharply contradictory. Sh.
Like Descartes later, - (which we have already seen) - Grosh extremely cleverly avoided the pitfall of orthodox scholasticism, once and for all separating the legal norm from the religious one. With this he completed the work of ethical thinkers who dissolved the connection between the ethical individual and the religious.
Such a separation was a logical result of Groshchev’s rational premises. The nature of man with the properties given in it was separated from the will of the Creator °). If law refers to the properties of human nature as properties of causes, then the creator of the cause is not free in those properties,
D) Ez6 ashesh 113 pabaga]e adeo 1tiitsa Pe, 0 $ pe a Peo ash! Yes shibat Chtseach. 1. G. s. G. $ 10.5 Grotz, like middle-aged theologians, called God the source of natural law. But, by the way, including here his explanation in (G.G.S.Sh. $ 14), once the established right is subordinated in its further execution to the law of necessity.
2) Groshchev’s conclusion to the definition of the concept of natural law: “Oeo {Mesh asbish ai6 fuck!” apb rgaesr". (O. nie Be] as rae G.T.s. $HI) is either a concession to the spirit of the time, introduced by Grosch in his definition, but in any case having indirect knowledge or a concession to religious feeling stu. This is clear from Groshch’s subsequent discussions. 17%
Via you me V re.
—= 256 which are necessary, and, logically, not. follow when, for example, they necessarily follow from the properties of a given geometric figure. delicious desserts. In other words, reasonable assumptions must be made. recognized as true, if it is logically impossible to imagine, for them it is denied significant instances. |
Orthodoxy had to come to terms with. obviousness: gross evidence or deny it, which would be. not completely ').