[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]
bases given with me consequences for the individual and his rights.
puts forward a proposition based on the same premise
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]
and SOpinoz, nothing prevented us from creating a different transition design from 5aeiz pabig
AND WITH OTHERS
We cannot say that these other writers would be any less successful in explaining reality than the famous political, self-destructive logic of Thomas Hobbes.
Spinoza, as we noted, with full confidence
— 281 natural rights: the natural properties of the human being exist and remain there, which cannot be eradicated by any form of political cohabitation. Thus, connecting and justifying political cohabitation by the nature of its constituent units, Spinoza did not allow the idea that this political cohabitation could completely eradicate the natural properties of the human personality. And this is exactly what Hobbes would have been obliged to admit, remaining completely consistent. But as far as we know, in their works “Pe @ue” and “Hematap” they never go into consideration of the issue of betrayal of the indigenous people. property of human nature from the moment people are doomed to sacrifice to Lenaean. Only in this case would it be possible to guarantee creating peace is the ultimate goal of Hobbes's system. But, fortunately, human nature has properties that always include the possibility of a critical attitude towards the authoritative normo-nomonio of the era. This is the key to moving forward for individuals and society. And the individual will always demand from the state the recognition of legal conditions corresponding to the functions of these natural properties.
Spinoza, standing on the basis of the same natural law doctrine, made a brilliant attempt to substantiate the need for the state to recognize such conditions. This is conditional on recognizing the individual's rights to freedom of expression and freedom of thought.
We see that Gobbey subordinates the church to the state, although he does not try to prove, as Protestants and Reformers argue, that the state is a divine institution - a thought, as we know, that was the opponent in the bl. Augustine%. The English thinker partly, like his Dutch brother in particular, has a religious indifferentism in the field of political philosophy. which is still destined play a role in the future political understanding of humanity').
In contrast to Hobbes, since the theological-political treatise of Spinoza, the germ of the idea of separating the church from the state has been emerging. The same idea was noted by us when examining Christian doctrine. But there, the basis of the idea of separating the realms of Caesar and God was the awareness of the existence of a special religious normative understanding, which for the first time obliged the individual, not only in parallel with the political normative understanding, but even, if it were required, and contrary to the latter. There we imfli dBlo with a positive, relimous vfrovash, clothed in a concrete form. And in relation to precisely this defined form, the sphere of real state power was dissociated, which until then knew no real rival to its dominion over the individual. And this was already a significant step in the prospects of development in an individualistic direction. It marked the division of power over the individual.
Reliable power can seize a person’s personality, deprive it of independence, turn it into a fanatical orum of heteronomous people, even more powerfully than political power, which is always subject to criticism, and, consequently, to opposition. Roman Catholicism fully realized such power over the human personality.
Opo Che Xiu showed that the idea of razflesh authorities cannot save these same authorities from a brutal struggle. And precisely because it was distributed over the individual, and not in the individual himself. And in order for the separation of elements, religious and political, which have been in organic connection for so long, to occur in the individual himself, it is necessary
1) In this regard, see Guyot’s final book, PteNeo1on ae Gauesht, of which we are preparing a translation.