In this case, not only are they not seized, but their rights to participate in councils are strenuously proven. With such an undermining of the absolute universal authority and a schism in the foundations of the church itself, it was not difficult for the state of modern times to win over the church for power over the individual. And Protestantism relies on the state, because it provides support against the absolutism of the Roman curi. On the other hand, in the confines of state absolutism, a liberation tendency is developing. Opa is expressed in the Middle-European teaching about the race and the rights of resisting tyrants, to whom, in their iflakhts, the perkov treated quite favorably. This tendency finds the strongest support and is expressed in the individualistic view of humanism. Only a new look at the source of human knowledge, developed by the methodological philosophy of the 17th century, the teachings of the Tirapomahi and religiously political sectarians, allows us to turn to new, after statism and theocratism, attempts at political construction, which, in this and the future, directly or indirectly, are adjacent to the doctrines of natural law, transmitted by this era through reviving the ideas of ancient antiquity (the revival of the sciences), - mainly, the ideas of the Aristotelian practical philosopher: the Stoic ideas, the “taz pabigaya” and the Epicurean ideas; The integrity of the individual is based on an appeal to nature, which is still understood schematically and rationalistically. The methodological tradition of Descartes, while taking precedence over the traditions of Bacon and providing a formal basis for the deglarization of the rights of man and citizen, in essence, the rationalistic doctrine of inalienable individual rights rests on the idea of nature.
In this one. an idea that has not yet been scientifically deciphered, due to the lack of awareness of the importance, in dBlB from experience and historical observation, although references to the nature of man, however, predominate - (especially in Russian orthohe's going to the ZONE" ABOUT RECHAI CH AE IIA SUCHA ER CHKUKEA yy
Ve V
ditch of the French national collection and pamelettes, contemporary and preceding the American War of Independence), we find references to nature, in a sense reminiscent of ancient practical philosophy (that is, not only the nature of man, but the nature of things and human relationships).
The doctrine of individual rights of the 18th century conveys the 19th century problem of political individualism, variously resolved both in essence and methodologically. Among philosophers of this school, individual rights were assumed to originate coming from the state, for it arose more than the state itself seemed to be a necessary natural way out, receiving its rash explanation only in the study of the completion. In other words, it was viewed not as saiza at all, but as saza geshoya of the individual. However, there was also a completely opposite explanation, coming from Hobbes. (Although his theory, yielding to the spirit of the times, still has an individualistic character). It asserted: from the moment of the formation of a state, conceived theoretically or historically, as a fact, the individual and his rights are completely dependent on the political apparatus. It is the state that grants rights to the individual. These are the two decisions with which, on this issue, the philosophical and legal baggage of the 18th century was presented before the 19th.
19 ‘Stoltsh, in the prevailing doctrine, the formulation of the question remains the same. And there are two decisions, with some unimportant modifiers, to divide the states of the widows of this time into two different camps. Moreover, in this table, another methodological complication is noticed among the adherents of the Iolithic themselves. individualism. T of
1) With a few exceptions, lawyers are approaching a sociological decision on the issue of individual rights. For example: Dyugi (Oistsy) Gea 1e @gof o'desyR her 101 roiiatse, 1901 M. M. Kovalevek. Study on personal rights 2nd ed. 1907
The figs that are either Bolfe or Menfe are adjacent to the doctrine of alienable rights of the 18th century, in turn, can be divided into two groups. The first of these is to assimilate only the very idea of the priority of individual rights over the state form, but joins the elaborate and metaphysical methodology of the 18th century.