Based on these comparisons, in relation to the treatise under consideration, we, of course, are not inclined to draw decisive conclusions about the relationship with Humboldt’s anarchism, - to say, by the way, in the subsequent Minister of Public Education. Our goal is to note the convergence between the ideas of political individualism, along with their development and growth, and between the further movement of individualism, when it goes beyond the precursors of a political union, i.e., ceases to be political. More recently, it could have happened when the state began to be recognized not as a goal but as a means, when the individual ceased to be considered only. as a “political animal,” but as an individual, as a self, having its inalienable rights, which were the basis of the rights of a citizen as a political individual. The entire construction of the natural legal doctrine and the rule of law state was rooted in the recognition of the individual, to put it briefly, the right to social formation, i.e. the right to create for oneself one or other forms of society that correspond to such a norm. If so, then it remained to show that a person can even find a real means for his life goal, and the state is sometimes even a harmful means. Or at least
IR YOU
IBR that the state can be fruitfully carried out, in a significant part of its activity, by other forms of correlation of forces, and this is precisely what Humboldt was trying to prove in part. To the extent that his individualism was imbued with optimism towards people, he proved himself to be a political pessimist. A person, as Humboldt says, does not move closer to his goal, becoming a “political animal.” Let him better become closer to nature, constantly moving, infinitely diverse in its living and individual forms, requiring for them not artificial templates, but a variety of positions, nature is fully functional and requires itself to be the guarantee of its development. We will not help this development: “1a1ser Eage, [a1zser razzeg”; We will only remove obstacles from his path. And so, for the development of the human individual, the state itself turned out to be such an obstacle, to a certain extent. W. Humboldt wants to eliminate such obstacles by denying the state a positive role for the well-being of citizens. The state is deprived of its providential mission. We can summarize the theory of W. Humboldt: “With less state, there is more freedom and individuality.”
Religious individualism of the reforms eliminated the providential significance for the individual of the Catholic, theocratic Church. State indignation eliminated the same significance for a person as the state. He took away from the state the aesthetic, cultural power that was great in the idea of the ancient state. He took out of the state the idea of paternal government and for one thing—this must be said here—the idea of the fatherland. He made it into a kind of universal means, like an insurance company for internal and external security. Together with TBM, he strongly suggested the idea of absolute, state guardianship power
Tia
— 394 formation, (1a ogetsg Che sotsuegpetepe) '), since his ultimate ideal was association, where, if possible, everyone would obey only himself and the communal statutes - the result of a voluntary agreement between individuals.
From the state, political individualism. in the name of the diversity of individual life and because it was oppressed in this era by the police-father regime, only a skeleton, a dry, legal scheme was left. Subsequently, thinkers of the state-governmentalist direction made attempts to breathe life into this scheme, instilling in it the principles of legitimism, nationalism, etc. It is not our task to examine these attempts.
This apparently negative work of political individualism and, in its forms of political indipendentism, which we noted in W. Humboldt, had an enormous positive meaning; glimpses of it are also thrown by the author under consideration.
In fact, what did this removal of the state—obstacle—evil mean for the development and understanding of the individual?
In our opinion, it signified, first of all, the return of man to man, taken from the church and the absolute state. This was a neo-humanistic movement towards new forms of cohabitation and cooperation. The starting point of the search was not the church, not the absolute state - the individual’s general guardians and educators - but the individual himself, proclaimed by Kant 2), W. Humboldt, as an end in itself. The defining moment of the personality of the last day was not only the “rasonal human nature” of the age of enlightenment, but a life full of power, the source of an endless variety of individual and petty forms of being, their perfect, original, self-initiated development.