So, with complete respect for a person, without hesitation you subordinate yourself to his leadership in the belief that this leadership will fully serve, first of all, the interests of your “I”. In addition to Rousseau, the general will of the people extends further: according to his theory, with the same love, citizens hand over their individual “I” to society, and not in part, but in whole and not for one moment, but for the rest of their lives.
A: SVT
iki 2. aa yy AI Toad Gy vegle zyobizhatk: vlalelan: Zv
The author is convinced that society, forcing the individual to obey its laws, even to the point of recognizing the dogmas of religion, in the end, not only does not contradict the true direction of its individual freedom, but creates the most favorable conditions for its implementation. And what is most important of all is that these conditions will be fully consistent with the true personal will of each citizen, as a component of the total sum of volts. i.e. general will.
There are moments in the life of a people, as well as in the life of an individual, when one believes in what corresponds to their passionate desires. The subject of such a discussion became a small treatise of Rousseau—an extract, as he himself puts it, from a more extensive work *); The foundations of “Soshgae Zoba” lie on thymistic, political ariometics. The general will is obtained from the combined will of all, and those who disagree are considered to have made a mistake. Thus, the ruling people and the ruled people are concepts connected by an equal sign 3).
1) And whoever made a mistake - says Rousseau (G. G. Vv. Sh) - he would not be free.
2) About this in Auegyvzetetv ed. 1798 (Oeshutez sotar!ez 2). Such a treatise is: “Political Institutions,” which is mentioned in the Confession.
The manuscript was later found in the Neuchâtel Library® and published by Sterk-Eisen, Moult and Bougie. In general, it agrees with the provisions of Sopt'ai 5061a].
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]
Ta Ietsb. ta rag M. Rarot—Mtse. r. 1817. b. 112-113. This was, so to speak, Rousseau's political mistake. But in Sopyogav zos1a] he did not pay attention to that. what is there to talk so passionately about in P1zsopg8 zig goth!ote 4e Uupboa] 6 its i.e. about the meaning of social classes, property and government.
In his major work, which we have already mentioned, M. M. Kovalevsyu says: Rousseau cannot at all be considered a supporter of the theory of inalienable rights, which found recognition in the leklarashi of 1789, which was allegedly compiled under his influence, that, in a word, we have in his person not a supporter of the doctrine of state non-interference in other fields, except justice and security, in This convinces us that the Geneva manuscript!) tells us about the forced confession of some kind of civil symbol of faith, in which not only the recognition of a supreme being is elevated to the level of dogma, but also the afterlife, the eternal bliss of the good and the repentance of the evil, and finally, the sanctity of the social contract and laws °).
But what is the secret of Rousseau’s influence on the French revolution, an influence that no one denies?
At the very least, we cannot explain Rousseau’s system otherwise than we did above. If we assume a final harmonious union of wills, as Rousseau did, if we assume that as a result of such a union a general will appear, if this will cannot have any other interest than that which the individual has, then can we talk about the violation of the individual’s personal rights? Who will take them away or violate them, if the law and government are not against the people, nor next to the people, but in the people themselves, flesh from flesh and bone from his bone? The individual defended his
Botsu, when the boss ruled over him. But’ accepting Rousseau’s propositions, the fallacy of which is noted above),
D) Fragments of Multu and Bougie. 2) Or. p16. 426-421. Let us note that political individualism is not the same thing as the teaching about state non-violence. 3) In the words of John Stuart Mill, from which Rousseau’s political mistake is clear. Approx. 3 pp. 350. 23%
ha ttt