The outline of the natural legal doctrine was remonstrated by Hugo Grosh, who, due to his philosophical erudition, was more capable of perceiving and crystallizing the idea of a natural personality among other sectarians, which was under religious lice.
To do this it was necessary to use the result.
tami ancient Hellenic-Roman philosopher who prepared the idea of a person living according to nature. But in this idea, two opposing views collided, stemming from Stoic and Epicurean philosophies.
Both of these views, despite their opposition, were included in the doctrine of natural law.
Otoicism argued that the norms of human behavior are given by nature itself. In other words, it was recognized that the individual is completely dependent on the fatal norms imposed on him from the outside.
But the Sophists and Epicureans already held a different view. Law was viewed by them as the result of free
— 246 human creativity, and was not identified with the laws of nature. A legal personality is formed through a person’s subordination to norms, which are otherwise determined by an agreement with other people. These norms, the Epicureans said, are useful and therefore necessary. There is an obvious contradiction between the two views. Law is the result of the free agreement of people. Law is the result of the necessary laws of nature or, more precisely, one of the types of these laws. If there is a free agreement, then the understanding of necessity is, as it were, eliminated. If necessity is asserted, then what sense can there be in freedom of agreement? it was, is and will be, regardless of human will. It seemed that the idea of natural law ($11 pafigae) and the idea of free legal determination were mutually destroying each other.
And it is surprising that the philosophy of law and state of modern times, which absorbed ancient ideas in the Renaissance, used Stoic constructs for its constructs; and Epicurean views, and connected them in a new and comprehensive doctrine of natural law.
Supporting points for a rapprochement between the two views can be found already in the teachings of Epicurus on the just and beneficial.
‚nom. The criterion of benefit, according to Epicurus, is to serve the nature of man.
century. If what is fair is the result of an agreement on what is useful (o5iBoohou oo sovreroutos), that is, if what is fair is what is useful to all or most people, then it is also the result of human nature. Otherwise, is it possible to find the basis for the agreement and sanction the norms arising from the agreement? An agreement or contract is essentially nothing more than a natural conclusion to which people come to realize what is fair.
With this illumination of the doctrines of Epicurus, what is meant is no longer the idea of nature in general (Macrocosm), which
1) We also find the basis for such awareness in Rousseau G.G. sno. UT (Sopga Zoslaje).
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]
o CR EINNE y ava base their normative understanding on the Stoics, but on the idea of human nature (Microcosm).
Rimesh lawyers, who were under the strong influence of Stoic teaching, understood the nature of man, the nature of things and human relationships under the concept of nature in the philosophical and legal sense. Consequently, they have already made an attempt to more accurately define the concept of nature, decomposing it, through analysis, into its constituent elements, and expressing these concepts the following in specific legal terms.
The philosophy of law of modern times focuses exclusive attention on the properties of human nature.
And then, first of all, on the laws of coexistence of people among themselves; Moreover, she sets out to explain the laws precisely from these human properties.
This formulation of the question and its resolution are contained in the doctrines of natural law, the father of which is considered to be Hugo Grosch.
Excellently familiar with ancient, medieval literature, as well as with the teachings of sectarians, one of whom he himself was, Groshy, for his philosophical right, also widely took advantage of the basic tenets of the rational philosophy of the 17th century.
The rational basis of individualism in Grotius’s teaching on natural law.
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]
pe vemi ditches a EV E x
The rational basis of individualism in Grosch's teaching on natural rights.