to give them to the problematic world, which has been achieved in the year.
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]
Spinoza gave a negative answer. It is suggested by nature itself: there is no other and cannot be. To answer this question differently is the same as answering. affirmative to the question: can a fish fly?
From Spinoza’s point of view, no political transformation can change the fundamental principle of individualism, which he expressed as follows:
Answering, in relation to the question that interests us, about the idea of the political individual, what a political individual is and how much he can do, Opinoza first of all faced a problem that passionately captured the thinkers of his era; a problem that at that moment required almost immediate resolution; a problem that was prepared by the great struggle between the church and the state; a problem, the practical solution of which, in the era of Grosz, Hobbes and Spinoza, was each time accompanied by the shedding of a stream of blood on the prison, in the inquisitorial dungeons or
1) Ethics.
— 279 a bloodless death at the stake and, finally, a problem that had tragic, vital interest for the Dutch sage himself and which had already received specific resolution from the Levellers and Independents.
We encountered it in the era of reform; we have already mentioned the authors who dealt with it and destroyed it already in the 16th century into the spirit of individualism. But with such a philosophical formulation of it and the collapse of the half-flame of enthusiasm, we meet for the first time in someone who for centuries was considered an atheist, a person who had left his religion and did not join any of the other positive religious dogmas and cults.
Gobbey, in his policy, responded to this problem with the entire middle-flight tradition. He demanded that the relimos stump, like everything else, be under the absolute dominion of Levathan. From now on, the church state must enter into the obedient service of the secular state. Hobbes, a representative of Caesaropapism, i.e., recognizing the authority of state power in all matters: this opinion of Hobbes follows from purely political goals, since his views are intended to anticipate the views of philosophers of the era of enlightenment ').
The subordination of church norms to secular and political ones bound the individual to absolute obedience to a single master. But more important than the normative understanding created by the doctrine of natural law, of which Hobbes was a representative, was, according to the premises of the doctrine, the liberation of the individual from political absolutism. This meaning could not be fully interpreted by the Angui philosopher, because his sympathies rested on political
1) See p. 6. (Ragz-Oe Noshishe). `„Meviz robepyagi 1pu13 Our, ue Eae Shae esho, ze a No. z6ogIz asserbae z116 ree, BeN&10 eb; 51 race asservae pop 916 zpregz Iz. And also see veyu. P. 12: Re heyolope. (Geu1aVat ye 4e shabema, ogsha ee Robezvabe slav es]ezazMsae eb ©1183).
understanding, in our opinion new rights assigned natural rights. But the hour after Spinoza mom of ancient antiquity.
logical and consistent,
INN
take cover, and the most understandable thing about it has changed significantly, compared
(would
‚ Lesha, which the last one reached is rooted in the camp of elements of political individualistic direction forms that are alien to the freedoms of the individual and are recognized for the individual in at least some areas in which he (the individual) would have the right to self-defense. Such significance was revealed in the late 19th century, and much, in this regard, was already Spinoza’s, which we will now lead to the Russian Federation. But speaking of Spinoza, according to... If I compare him with Hobbes, alongside whom he is usually placed, we must especially note Hobbes’s above-mentioned view of the position of the individual in the state. This view, undoubtedly, diverges from the ancient norms of the people.
already by the era of Hobbes and
Hobbes some elements even entered the system of Hobbes himself. Once it was recognized by ourselves natural state, in the quality of the environment, representing the dominance of complete freedom for the individual, for the philosopher of law could not dividend that has undergone nude with absolute etatiz-
Natural state and natural
Individual individual from under the rule of contract, san shonirutyug others
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]
and together y,
pulled out natural states. Hobbes has freedom.
the individual ceases immediately with the onset of the state
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]