3) The idea of the integrity of the political individual was so ingrained in Rousseau’s mind that he even called Christian religion anti-socialist (we have already pointed out the significance of Christian doctrine in this regard in the 1st part); Rousseau’s attitude towards the Christian religion was also influenced by the fact that he saw in it a political institution - a general view of the philosophy of enlightenment, which forced him to be hostile to Catholicism in particular.
halls - ao o: > AB ter rsobymaty- ySAb 35
to be an inseparable part of the whole: “after all (remembering kindness and sincerity - we will say) it is his private interest not to tell him anything else, just like the general interest” °).
But if an individual still fears that he might end up in a Spartan-Geneva monastery, Rousseau gives a final and powerful argument: “take a closer look and you will see that the social contract is nothing more than “4i/it hat yuttschiate” 2). An individualist like Nietzsche, Rousseau, of course, cannot be killed. And Nietzsche, having invited him to the All-Russian Federation and persuaded him to drink a cup of such a social contract, would have responded with his characteristic harshness: “and this is the lie that creeps out of his mouth: I am the state, I am the people.” There is nothing higher than me on earth.” “I am the pointing finger of Bolius - this is how the monster howls. And not only those with long ears and short-sighted eyes fall on the cap.” Of course, it is not Rousseau’s fault that this was precisely the fate of the fighters of 1793. Meanwhile, according to Rousseau, subordination to the general wolf and formal renunciation of one’s (natural) rights is the only way out.
“If certain rights are left to private individuals, then each, while remaining in some sense his own judge, will claim the same role in relation to the whole world, and the political association must become tyrannical or disintegrate” 3).
The specter of despotism, which he talks about in detail in the chapter (on slavery), leads him to these thoughts of a misanthropic nature, which stand in opposition to the author’s ontimism, which forms the basis of his reasoning.
5) It is curious that the modern anarchist doctrine, which represents the modern opposite not only of Rousseau's concept, but also of its centralist spirit, agrees with Rousseau in this optimism.
On the one hand, he trusts the individual and his freedoms, and on the other, he is afraid to leave him any of this freedom, fearing to give the opportunity to a usurper of power to appear.
An individual cannot give himself to another individual, as Grosch, Hobbe, Pufendorf thought, not to a multitude of other individuals, but to the whole, that is, to the common people, the mediator between the individual and the state" (poer 1en tpifae e sottezropepse) ®). Then (—here is the same optimism) “Ge zopuegat, n’ ap Yugte ‘asche 4e ragysiNegz di? 1e soshrozesh, ‘p’a p! retz auog Chiibger soshtashe ai eg; rag sopzbatsesh 1a ritzzapse zopuegashe n'a psh Ъеш@е сагапф епуерз [е5 5и]е{5, ragse aa' e5f pprozzez de 1e sogrz uesheshe write & 565 sheshgez 3) We believe that this is a node vefkh contradictory of such solving the problems of political individualism. set by him. The thinking of the Russian Federation will be drawn into a typothesis about the supposed harmonious agreement of individual interests and wills. It is enough to ascertain such harmony in one’s consciousness in order to propose a solution according to the type given by Rousseau, who has limitless sufficiency in the general will to such an extent that he solemnly hands over the ai sogrz rode un propuoi” asos zig $015 1ez chez *).