What ideas were contained in the teachings of t Hobbes. Philosophical views t
Only in the state is there universal
a scale for measuring virtues and
vices. They can only serve the laws
each state.
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was an English materialist philosopher. Major works: "Leviathan", "About the body", "About a man", "About a citizen". The last three treatises provide an overview of the views of Hobbes - the philosophical, political and social views of the author.
The ontology of T. Hobbes is materialistic and deterministic; he rejected the existence of the "thinking substance" of Descartes. In epistemology, Hobbes is a sensualist, recognizing, however, Cartesian rationalism, without which science is in principle impossible. Continuing the line of F. Bacon, Hobbes shifted the center of interest of philosophical knowledge to social phenomena.
The state is considered by Hobbes from two positions:
1) from the point of view of the biological process; 2) from the point of view of the "social contract". The initial state of human life is "the war of all against all." "Social contract" regarding the state, which is designed to "keep everyone in fear", but at the same time maintain a stable civil state. Hobbes singles out civil and natural law in legislation (he formulated 20 "natural laws").
Hobbes' ethics is based on the recognition of the "natural nature" of man: the desire for self-preservation and the satisfaction of needs. Good and evil are due to a reasonable understanding of them. Moral duty is the awareness of the need to fulfill the "social contract". The interests of the state are declared to be the measure of a person's morality.
John Locke
Human actions are the best
thought translators.
John Locke (1632-1704) was an English materialist philosopher, economist and writer. Main works: "Experience on the human mind", "Two treatises on government", "Letters on tolerance", "Study on natural law", etc.
Locke's ontology is materialism. His epistemology is also materialistic. Cognition is based on sensibility, based on intuition (generalized mental evidence) and thinking, i.e. sensationalism, empiricism and rationalism. He does not accept the Cartesian doctrine of "innate ideas". Locke's doctrine of the soul as a "blank slate" (lat. tabula rasa), on which human experience leaves its "traces" (ideas), is the essence of understanding knowledge.
Locke distinguishes between ideas of primary and secondary qualities that are the result of experience. However, the primary qualities (length, shape, mass, and others) are a reflection of the objective qualities of things, while the secondary ones (color, smell, taste) are determined by the content of the specifics of the sense organs. As we shall see, later on this opposition of primary and secondary qualities will serve as subjective idealism's main argument in its ontology.
In the doctrine of society and the state, Locke proceeds from the "social contract theory" of Hobbes. However, Locke considered the original, "state of nature" to be the "state of equality", where each has no more rights than the other. In addition, he believed that the people, under a social contract, have the right to decide on the ruler if he violates contractual obligations. Locke is the first to justify the separation of the legislative and executive branches of government.
English sensationalism of subjective idealism
As mentioned above, Locke's materialistic sensationalism (especially the doctrine of primary and secondary qualities) served as the source of the revival of the sensationalism of subjective idealism.
George Berkeley
If it is worth existing before,
than to be perceived, we
we will never know what it is.
"Esse est percipi" (to exist means
be perceived).
George Berkeley (1685 - 1753) - English philosopher, subjective idealist, continuer of the sensationalist tradition, was engaged in teaching, being a priest. In the last years of his life (from 1734) Berkeley was a bishop in Ireland. Main works: "Treatise on the principles of human knowledge" (only 16 pages - a program presentation of the essence of philosophical views), "Three conversations between Hylas and Philonus", "Alsifron" (philosophy of ethics and religion).
Based on Lockean sensationalism and his doctrine of "primary and secondary qualities," Berkeley consistently turns sensationalism into absolute subjective idealism, clearing the latter of materialism. Berkeley denies the existence of "primary qualities" (objective), arguing that they are also "secondary" (subjective). All qualities of things depend on the sensory perception of the subject and do not exist without it. The basic Berkeleyan principle of being - "to exist is to be perceived" - should be understood as follows: things have real being only in the mind of the subject. Another fundamental principle of Berkeley: "Things are complexes of sensations."
It is impossible to talk about the objective existence of things (independent of sensations). All our knowledge of things (including knowledge of their existence) is taken from sensations, perceptions. Berkeley is a nominalist. He denies the existence of the general, since it is not perceived by the senses, existing only in thinking.
Berkeley made great efforts to adapt his philosophy to the needs of theology. However, the successors and innovators of the philosophical ideas of Berkeley are quite secular philosophers: D. Hume, I. Kant, E. Mach and others, including modern ones.
Rationalism of modern philosophy
In contrast to English sensationalism, continental philosophy has developed a rationalist methodology of philosophical and scientific knowledge. The ancestor of modern rationalism is Rene Descartes; his followers - Spinoza, Malebranche, Leibniz were both materialists (Spinoza) and idealists (Leibniz).
Rene Descartes
Cogito ergo sum.
(I think, therefore I am)
Rene Descartes (Latinized name Cartesius) (1596 - 1650) - French philosopher, mathematician and naturalist. Most philosophical works are devoted to epistemology and methodology of knowledge: "Rules for guidance, the mind." "Discourse on Method", "Reflection on the First Philosophy", "Principles of Philosophy". Descartes owns many works on mathematics and natural science.
In his methodological predilections, Descartes was a staunch rationalist. The initial principle of philosophical and scientific knowledge is the requirement: "everything must be doubted." Therefore, the beginning of any science should be "primary certainty" - the clarity and distinctness of the original knowledge. Sense perception often deceives. The only thing that will not deceive is clarity, certainty and a clear knowledge of the mind. Such reliability is expressed in the self-evidence of an existential (existential) fact, as Descartes believed: "I think, therefore I exist."
An example of a true conclusion in rational cognition is mathematics, where the proof follows from clear and unequivocally true statements - axioms. Cartesian rationalism does not deny the significance of the sensory element in cognition. The material substance is endowed with the ability to be perceived by the senses. In addition to the material substance, which has the attribute of extension, there is a spiritual substance, the main attribute of which is thinking. This reveals the dualism of Cartesian ontology.
Descartes does not oppose the creationist concept of natural being. God created the world of matter and gave the total amount of motion to it. God no longer intervenes in the affairs of nature. "Concept dual truth" in the philosophy of Descartes is a defense mechanism against the persecution of the church.
Descartes' "theory of innate ideas" is the subject of ongoing controversy. As Descartes believed, the ability to know is determined not by sensibility, but by the presence of reason (the ability to think). According to Leibniz's witty remark on the thesis of sensationalism: "there is nothing in the mind that would not be in the senses," it should be added, "except the mind itself." The content of the ability of cognition - "innate ideas" - exist from birth and are initially absolutely true: the idea of God, spiritual and material substance, the axioms of geometry, etc.
French philosophy 18th century: Enlightenment and materialism
In 1789 a bourgeois revolution took place in France. Its spiritual harbingers were the philosophers of the French Enlightenment and materialism. The Enlightenment of the 18th century in France united in its ranks all the progressive representatives of philosophical thought. The common front of the struggle against scholastic philosophy, religion, religious prejudices and superstitions is becoming philosophical enlightenment, in whose ranks there were remarkable philosophers, writers and socio-political thinkers: Charles Montesquieu, Voltaire, Rousseau, etc.
Charles Louis Montesquieu
Many things control people: climate,
religion, principles of government, examples
past, mores, customs; as a result
all this forms the common spirit of the people.
Charles Louis de Secunda, Baron de La Brede and de Montesquieu (1689 - 1755) - philosopher-educator, politician, sociologist, jurist. Main works: "Persian Letters", "On the Spirit of Laws", "Reflections on the Causes of the Greatness and Fall of the Romans", "Reflections on the World Monarchy".
Main philosophical ideas:
- Montesquieu is a deist. He recognizes the existence of God, but only as an impersonal root cause of the world. In ontology, he leans towards materialism. He considers man to be part of nature. Montesquieu is a sensationalist in the theory of knowledge. Reason only evaluates the results of experience. I saw the significance of the sciences, first of all, in the fight against superstitions;
– Montesquieu is the creator of the theory of geographical determinism. He considered the geographical environment as the main factor in the development of society: climate, soil, flora and fauna, etc. Montesquieu was the first to try to find the natural causes of the functioning and development of society;
- in political science, Montesquieu proceeded from the recognition of the "natural state of society" and the "social contract". Society and the state are the result of the latter;
- out of the three forms of government - republican, monarchical and despotic - Montesquieu chooses the republican as governed by the principle of virtue;
- Montesquieu attached great importance to the democratic separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial.
I may not agree
with your opinion
but I will give my life
for your right to express it.
Francois Marie Arouet (pseudonym - Voltaire) (1694 - 1778) - French philosopher, writer, thinker, whose life and work became the personification of the Enlightenment in Europe. Major works: "Philosophical Letters", "Metaphysical Treatise", "An Essay on the Morals and Spirit of Nations", "Pocket philosophical dictionary". Voltaire wrote dozens of works of philosophical and artistic content.
Main philosophical ideas:
– in ontology, Voltaire is a deist who opposes theology and atheism at the same time. God is presented as an expedient essence of nature. The ideas of ontology are materialistic;
- opposes the dualism of soul and body. The soul is the life of the body;
- Voltaire is a sensualist in epistemology. Criticized the theory of "innate ideas" of Descartes. The source of thinking is experience;
- Voltaire considered the basis of religion to be the delusion of some and the deliberate deception of others. "Religion arose when a swindler and a fool met." However, religion is necessary as the foundation of society's morality;
- "philosophy of history" (the term was introduced by Voltaire himself) - a science that studies the historical process as a result of the rational activity of people (especially enlightened monarchs). The level of enlightenment of peoples and rulers determines the speed and degree of their historical development.
Jean Jacques Rousseau
Man is born free
yet everywhere he is in chains.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712 - 1778) - French philosopher, sociologist, theorist of pedagogy, representative of the democratic direction of the Enlightenment. Major works: "Reasoning about the origin and foundations of inequality among people", "On the social contract", "Emil, or On education", the novel "New Eloise", "Confession", "Walks of a lonely dreamer".
Main philosophical ideas:
- in Rousseau's ontology, a dualist, a deist. In epistemology he was a sensualist, but he recognized the innateness of moral ideas. Rousseau considered cultural and scientific progress to be the cause of the decline in morality;
- "natural state" of people - equality. The property stratification of people (private property) is the first cause of inequality. The second reason for inequality is the formation of the state, which fixed inequality in laws;
- the state is the result of the implementation of the "social contract" between the rich and the poor, and, in theory, should become the guarantor of justice and peace. The third cause (and step) of inequality is the despotism of the monarch;
- nature is a natural mentor and teacher of man, as it was in the "natural state" of man;
- the religion of Christianity is criticized for its connection with the state and its affairs. It is a "civil religion" contrary to human nature. "True natural" religion recognizes God as the source of movement, orderliness and expediency of nature. The immortality of the soul is recognized by Rousseau as an argument against the evil and disorder of the life of modern man.
French materialism of the 18th century was presented in two forms: as a deistic philosophy and later as mechanistic materialism, with a clear atheistic bias. Materialism is represented in the works of D. Diderot, D. Alembert, La Mettrie, Holbach, Helvetius.
Denis Diderot
My reader, reading me, invariably
remember that feelings are
source of all our knowledge,
that nature is not God, man is not a machine,
hypothesis is not fact.
Denis Diderot (1713 - 1784) - French materialist philosopher, inspirer, editor-in-chief and author of many articles in the 35-volume Encyclopedia, educator, militant atheist, art theorist. The main philosophical works: "Study on Dignity and Virtues", "Thoughts of a Philosopher", "Letters on the Blind for the Edification of the Sighted", "Thoughts on the Interpretation of Nature", "Philosophical Principles of Matter and Motion", etc. Many novels of anti-clerical and philosophical and moral character.
In the early works of D. Diderot, he continues the deistic traditions of enlightenment. However, later he takes the position of materialism and atheism. Diderot's works became popular in Russia. In 1773, at the invitation of Catherine II, he visited Russia. His conversations with Catherine II, recorded by Diderot, were translated into Russian in 1902 (abbreviated) and entitled Diderot and Catherine II. Their conversations, printed from Diderot's own notes.
In ontology, Diderot was a consistent materialist. Moving matter is the only substance and the reason for its existence, change and development lies in itself. Motion is an attribute of matter, and there is no need to look for the source of its activity outside of matter itself.
Consciousness and matter, according to Diderot, are in unity: the first is the product of the evolution of the second. All matter has the attributive property of sensation. It is this property to "feel" that is the basis for the emergence of consciousness in the evolutionary process.
In cognition, Diderot, together with Helvetius and Holbach, adhered to sensationalism, asserting experience as the source and criterion of our knowledge. In social philosophy, Diderot spoke as a subjective idealist, believing the consciousness of the legislator or monarch to be the decisive factor in social development. Diderot adhered to the "social contract theory". In politics, he shared the ideas of a constitutional monarchy.
Peru Diderot owns many works on ethical issues, where he opposed aristocratic amoralism, boundless hedonism, offering a utilitarian ethics that meets the interests and needs of the third estate.
Diderot made an attempt to find a natural basis for the unity of ethics and aesthetics. Nature should become a role model for the artist, and, therefore, in art one should create in accordance with the laws of nature. Diderot's enlightening realism was combined with elements of bourgeois moralization.
The most widespread in France on the eve of the Great Revolution of 1789 was mechanistic materialism, a prominent representative of which is La Mettrie.
Julien Offret de La Mettrie
Man is a machine
and throughout the universe exists
only one substance
in different forms.
Julien Offray de La Mettrie (1709 - 1751) - materialist philosopher, scientist and physician. Persecuted for atheistic and materialistic writings. Major works: "Natural History of the Soul", "Man-Machine", "Man-Plant", "Epicurus's System", "The Art of Pleasure and the School of Lust".
Main philosophical ideas:
Matter is an extended, moving, active, sensing substance. The forms of the existence of matter are the inorganic, plant, animal and human world;
– evolutionary processes are natural and necessary for the qualitative formation of the world;
- "Man is such a complex machine that it is impossible to immediately form a clear idea about him and be able to define him." But still it is the result of an evolutionary process and, ultimately, can be explained mechanistically: "man-machine". La Mettrie's faith in science and enlightenment was unshakable. "Everyone who erects altars to superstition in his soul is doomed to adore idols, and not revere virtue."
§ 5. German classical philosophy, materialism
and anti-classical tendencies in European philosophy 19th century
German classical philosophy from I. Kant to G. W. Hegel
German classical philosophy is a kind of German reflection of the period of bourgeois revolutions in Europe, the stage of major social and economic transformations in developed countries and feudal fragmentation, the economic backwardness of Germany in the 18th - first half of the 19th centuries. Half-heartedness, ideological inconsistency, idealism became integral features of German classical philosophy. In it, however, one can find ideas about the need for human activity, the importance of social and economic transformations, and the immutability of reasonable changes in society. These ideas found their expression in the dialectical teaching of Hegel. His dialectics demanded to consider the world (including society) as the result of "reasonable" improvement. This "reasonable" subject is the objective "world mind" that reveals itself in the subjective activity of the ruler.
German classical philosophy is not a single philosophical trend. Kant and Fichte are subjective idealists, Schelling and Hegel are objective. What they had in common was the study of the basis of being, substance or the universal principle. For Kant and Fichte, the consciousness of man acts as such a beginning of being, for Schelling and Hegel it acts as an "objective spirit", for Feuerbach, a left-Hegelian, this beginning is nature - matter. K. Marx and F. Engels inherited from German classical philosophy the depth of the formulation of questions, the breadth of coverage of reality and its revolutionary methodology - dialectics.
The currents of the 19th century opposed to German classical philosophy are associated with the emergence of the positivism of O. Comte, J. Mill, G. Spencer and the irrationalist philosophy of A. Schopenhauer, F. Nietzsche, S. Kierkegaard. Classical philosophy continued in neo-Kantianism and neo-Hegliancy.
Immanuel Kant
And the more I think, the more
more than two things fill the soul
my all new surprise and
growing reverence:
starry sky above me
and the moral law in me.
Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804) - the founder of German classical philosophy, was born, lived all his life and was buried in Konigsberg (now Kaliningrad). Historians of philosophy divide Kant's work into two periods: pre-critical and critical. In the pre-critical period, Kant focused on natural science and cosmological problems. The main works of the pre-critical period: "The General Natural History and Theory of the Sky", "On the Causes of Earthquakes", "The Theory of Winds", "False Sophistication in the Four Figures of the Syllogism", "The Only Possible Basis for Proving the Existence of God", etc. Works of the Critical Period ( after 1770) are distinguished by the depth and fundamental nature of the formulation and solution of philosophical problems: "Critique of Pure Reason", "Critique of Practical Reason", "Criticism of Judgment", etc. In them, Kant made (not without the influence of D. Hume's skepticism) the transition to subjective idealism and agnosticism.
The philosophical system of Kant, in principle, consists of three parts in accordance with the three abilities of consciousness: cognitive, volitional, evaluative. Truth, goodness, beauty - these three fundamental categories embody the unity of Kant's philosophical system and correspond to the three above-mentioned works of his. There is a certain correspondence between the philosophical system of Kant and the types of human activity:
1) "criticism of pure reason" (explores cognitive ability) - reason, science, truth;
2) "criticism of practical reason" (explores volitional ability, "ability of desire") - reason, morality, goodness;
3) "criticism of the ability of judgment" (explores evaluative ability, "feeling of pleasure") - the ability of judgment, art, beauty.
The problems of knowledge, morality and art are formulated by Kant in questions: "what can I know?"; "what should I do?"; "What can I hope for?" The answer to the third question suggested Kant's appeal to religion. The answer to this question was truly philosophical: culture is the goal of the development of nature and man; She is his main hope.
In epistemology, Kant set the task of trying on sensationalism and rationalism. Neither experience nor reason can be the source of reliable knowledge. Kant believed that the world of things exists objectively. In this matter he did not disagree with materialism. The world of things (in Kant's terminology - "thing in itself") affects the senses and causes sensations, that which "appear" to us as objects of knowledge ("phenomena"). It is them that we cognize (according to Kant, this is “a thing for us”). The world of objective things, "things in themselves" is unknowable in principle. This assertion by Kant about the fundamental unknowability of "things in themselves" is called agnosticism.
The boundaries of the cognizability of the world are outlined by Kant with the help of a priori (pre-experimental) forms of sensibility (ie space and time, ordering sensory sensations and perceptions) and a priori forms of reason. The latter represent 12 categories, divided into 4 categories: quantity (categories: unity, plurality, wholeness); quality (reality, negation, limitation); relation (substance, causality, relationship); modality (possibility, reality, necessity). A priori forms of reason (Kant distinguishes reason from reason) form empirical (experimental) knowledge on the basis of sensibility. But this knowledge is about "appearances" and not about "things in themselves." The mind, on the other hand, performs a regulatory function between sensibility and reason, acquires the concept of "things in themselves", but does not cognize them.
The ethical teachings of Kant are set forth in the Critique of Practical Reason and a number of other works. At the heart of Kant's ethics is the principle of freedom of moral choice, based on a proper human quality: to act in such a way that the act corresponds to the public interest, even contrary to the inclinations of the individual. The moral law does not "lie" in nature; he is not born of God. It is the result of the interconnection between the mind of the individual and the social nature of the being of the individual himself.
According to Kant, the basis of the moral behavior of a person is the "categorical imperative" (unconditional command) "Act in such a way that the maxim (from Latin - principle, basic rule) of your behavior on the basis of your will can become a general natural law." Another wording clarifies the first: "... act in such a way as to use a person for yourself as well as for another; always as an end and never only as a means." Freedom is a necessary condition for the existence of a moral law. However, the "categorical imperative" itself is an expression of moral necessity.
We know the "golden rule of ethics", formulated by Confucius (551 - 479 BC): "do not cause others what you would not wish yourself", which in gospel commandment It is written like this: "do not do to another what you do not wish for yourself." The meaning of the "categorical imperative" is in the immutability of the formula of the law: "you must, therefore, you can", but it is not true: "you can, then you will do it."
The aesthetic teaching of I. Kant is set forth in the Critique of the Ability of Judgment and a number of other works. The theory of aesthetics is presented as a special rational understanding of the aesthetic attitude to the world. Beauty is understood as "the relation of the existence of an object to my state, since such an object affects it." Aesthetic perception Kant calls "disinterested", independent of utilitarian interests. An aesthetic object is not a real thing, but is a sensory representation, an emotional-sensory model (an aesthetically significant "image" of an object). Today we call it "aesthetic value".
An aesthetic judgment differs from a cognitive one in the evaluative nature of the object presented in it for us. Aesthetics, according to Kant, is associated with the concept of expediency, which is substantively presented as "proportionality, harmony of the object to the cognitive abilities of the subject." Aesthetic knowledge is knowledge not on the basis of concepts, reason, but on the basis of feelings. "The beautiful is that which pleases without any concept at all."
Aesthetic judgment has a general obligation. The statement: "this object is beautiful" - indicates the commonality for all this feeling and evaluation. Here, a deep contradiction is revealed between the general obligatory nature of the aesthetic and the uniqueness of its perception and evaluation by the individual.
Kant's philosophy served as the starting point in the creation of philosophical systems by his followers, the successors of the classical traditions - Fichte, Schelling and Hegel, and later by a whole galaxy of neo-Kantians. The most famous figure in German classical philosophy is Hegel.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
Everything real is rational
everything reasonable is real.
Hegel (1770 - 1831) - German philosopher, objective idealist, creator of the theory of idealistic dialectics, who completed German classical idealism with the creation of a grandiose philosophical system. Main works: "The difference between the philosophical systems of Fichte and Schelling" (1801), "Phenomenology of Spirit" (1807), "Science of Logic", in two volumes (1812 - 1816), "Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences" (1817), "Philosophy of Law" (1821). Lectures, restored according to the notes of the students: "Lectures" on the history of philosophy, on the philosophy of history, on aesthetics and on the philosophy of religion.
The original idea of Hegel's philosophy is based on the principle of "the identity of being and cognition". This identity should be understood as the unity of the concepts of being and the "absolute idea" that has realized itself in human thinking. Therefore, in solving the question of the essence of being, Hegel proceeds from objective idealism, considering the "absolute idea" as the primordial essence of the world, passing the historical path of development to modern thinking.
The history of the development of the "absolute idea" is described in the "Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences", but the origins of this conjecture (hypothesis) are in the "Phenomenology of Spirit". At the basis of being, i.e. real world, lies the "absolute idea" as a spiritual, rational principle. "Absolute idea" is an activity, a vital goal-setting force, an ideal source of movement and development of the world. In the historical process, it goes through three stages:
1) the development of the "absolute idea" in its own bosom, in the "element of pure thinking", the pure nature of the spirit. This movement of the "absolute idea" is considered by logic through the movement and interconnection of the categories of thinking towards the necessary negation. The denial of the "absolute idea" leads it to another form of being - nature;
2) the development of the "absolute idea" in the form of nature, i.e. "Other beings of the absolute idea" Hegel expounds in the second part of the "Encyclopedia ...", called "Philosophy of Nature". The "absolute idea" becomes the essence of nature, the source of its vitality and expedient organization;
3) in the final period, from the moment of the appearance of man and society, the "absolute idea", carrying out development in the history of mankind, returns to itself in historical knowledge. This stage is considered in the "Philosophy of the Spirit", the third part of the "Encyclopedia ...".
In the subject of history, the "absolute idea" seems to return to its own bosom, but here it is still burdened with subjectivity (dependence on human nature). Thus, the "absolute idea" in the process of historical circulation remains identical to those forms (types) of being in which it resides. The identity of thinking and being is not their absolute equality: thinking is substantial, and being is accidental - this is a way of existence of thinking.
The main philosophical method of research is dialectics. It is understood by Hegel as a truly philosophical method of cognition, based on the principles of universal connection and universal development. The unified world of being and thinking is considered by him as a single interconnected and interacting whole and developing in all its parts.
The philosophy of history is presented by Hegel in the "Phenomenology of Spirit", "Encyclopedia ..." and in lectures on the philosophy of history. The history of mankind is the continuation of the history of the "absolute idea", the "world spirit". That is why any turns of history, any changes in society are illuminated by the light of the mind of the "absolute idea". The principle - "everything that is real is reasonable and everything that is reasonable is real" covers all being, and not just society and its history. However, in society, the "reasonableness" of being according to Hegel is most obvious. The history of society is the realization of the goals of the "absolute idea", which are the most complete embodiment of the spirit of freedom and universal human rights in society and the state.
Hegelian philosophy, in terms of systematic coverage of the diversity of philosophical problems, in terms of the depth and content of their solution, is comparable to the work of the outstanding minds of mankind. However, the difficulties of mastering Hegel's philosophical texts often scare the reader away. In Hegel's philosophy, indeed, one can find a lot of the mystical, arising from his idealistic postulates, but incomparably more amazing finds of thought, valuable even for the modern reader.
Materialism in the postclassical philosophy of Germany. L. Feuerbach
and Marxist philosophy
In the spiritual atmosphere of Germany in the 1930s and 1940s, the dominance of Hegelian philosophy was indisputable. Hegelianism, however, was not unified. There were at least two directions in which the development of Hegelian philosophy went: this is old Hegelianism - the right conservative wing of the Hegel school and left-wing Hegelianism - a radical direction, representatives of which were L. Feuerbach, K. Marx and F. Engels. With the disintegration of the Hegelian school of philosophy, the latter managed to overcome its idealism. The break occurred through the establishment of philosophical materialism.
Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach
What a person thinks about God is
a person's awareness of himself.
Ludwig Feuerbach (1804 - 1872) - German materialist philosopher, atheist, expert, follower and critic of Hegel's philosophy. He defended his dissertation on the philosophy of Hegel, taught a course in the history of philosophy and logic at the University of Erlangen. Two years later, he was suspended from teaching for an anonymously published essay: "Thoughts on Death and Immortality."
In 1836, Feuerbach settled in the countryside and lived there without a break for 25 years. After the bankruptcy of the factory owned by his wife, Feuerbach moved to Rechenberg, where he spent his last years in dire need. In 1870 he joined the Social Democratic Party. At the funeral ceremony (1872), a member of the Reichstag laid a laurel wreath on behalf of the Social Democratic Party of Germany and the International Association of Workers and, addressing the thousands of those gathered, said: “It was you workers who challenged each other for the honor of carrying your advanced fighter and comrade to the grave through suffering. And you will forever keep in your memory the name of Ludwig Feuerbach and pass it on to your children and grandchildren ... "The main advantage of Feuerbach's philosophy, which won him the gratitude and love of his contemporaries and descendants, was unchanging humanism.
The main philosophical works of L. Feuerbach: "On the Criticism of Hegel's Philosophy" (1839), "The Essence of Christianity" (1841), "Preliminary Theses for the Reform of Philosophy" (1842), "Basic Provisions of the Philosophy of the Future" (1843).
In the national history of philosophy, L. Feuerbach is mainly represented from the words of the classics of Marxist philosophy. And although their characterization of Feuerbach's philosophy basically corresponds to the truth, nevertheless, one-sidedness and a somewhat patronizing tone of interpretation of his ideas are revealed in it. Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" and Engels' "Ludwig Feuerbach..." cannot be an absolute criterion for evaluating a thinker's philosophy. They contain only part of the truth, but not the whole truth.
For example, the belief that Feuerbach rejected Hegelian philosophy (including his dialectical method) instead of "critically overcoming it" is far from the truth. Criticism of Hegelian idealism and many aspects of his philosophical system is the core motive of all the philosophical writings of the mature Feuerbach. Materialism is not only affirmed, but also follows from Feuerbach's critical understanding of the philosophy of Hegel and his followers. Not in vain for Feuerbach and his acquaintance with Hegel's dialectic. One need only look at his essay The Essence of Christianity to be convinced that Feuerbach successfully uses Hegelian dialectical principles and laws in the analysis of the history and theory of religion. Feuerbach does not accept only the idealism and the prevailing speculation of Hegel's philosophical system.
Feuerbach's philosophy is called "anthropological materialism". And this is no coincidence. The latter is seriously different from the materialism of modern times, in the center of which is the doctrine of matter. Feuerbach's materialism is the doctrine of the material unity of man and nature as the basis of consciousness. Anthropological materialism is directed against the Hegelian idea of the essence of man and its reduction to the self-consciousness of the "absolute idea".
The unity of the biological nature of the human race becomes for Feuerbach the basis of an abstract idea of the single essence of the human spirit. Human biology determines his feelings and thoughts. So religion is the natural generic essence of man: it arises together with man and will always exist. The only question is which religion corresponds to the spirit of man.
The classics of Marxism were very critical of this idea of Feuerbach, pointing out that the essence of man is in fact "the totality of all social relations." In this criticism, it is undoubtedly true that social relations themselves and the spiritual unity of people cannot be directly deduced, as is done by Feuerbach, from the natural being of people. But it is wrong to reduce the generic essence of a person exclusively to "the totality of social relations", excluding any role of biological organization in the formation of these relations and, accordingly, consciousness.
From Feuerbach's critical attitude to official religion and from his idea of the essence of man's religiosity as a generic property of consciousness follows ethical concept"religion of love". The latter is allegedly embedded in the human mind as a generic product of human nature and alienated by the official religion in favor of God. The essence of a person lies in his consciousness, which includes the mind, will and "heart". Man exists for knowledge, satisfaction of desire and love. It is the essence of man that constitutes the basis and subject of religion. The essence of man is alienated from his nature and placed in God. The essential attributes of man become attributes of God.
The true creator of God is man, and not vice versa. The "religion of love", as a natural expression of the generic essence of man, should become the basis of the moral relations of people. "Man is by nature good" - such is Feuerbach's conclusion, depriving morality and morality of its history (as if they are unchanged at all times and among all peoples). The "religion of love" (instead of the official religion) is Feuerbach's utopian ethical concept, devoid of real social ground. However, it was very attractive humanism, democracy and atheistic orientation.
In a letter to Feuerbach, the "early" Marx (1844) praises his philosophy for the democratic and labor movement. "In these writings you ... gave socialism a philosophical basis..." This corresponded to the enormous popularity of Feuerbach in the revolutionary circles of the then German society. Feuerbach's philosophy became, if not the philosophical source of Marxist philosophy, then undoubtedly served as an impetus for its formation and development.
Karl Marx
Philosophers only in different ways
explained the world, but the point is
is to change it.
Karl Marx (1818, Trier, Germany - 1883, London, England) - the founder of the humanistic ideological current - scientific communism, the philosophy of dialectical materialism and political economy. The holistic revolutionary ideological doctrine, which had been established in the working-class movement for many years, began to be called Marxism. Marxism substantiates the natural social necessity for the emergence of a just society - communism - with the formation of which the truly true history of mankind begins.
Marxism has not become and is not now the single and only theoretical source of socialist and communist ideas and mass popular movements, but is undoubtedly the most influential.
K. Marx was born in the family of a lawyer. He graduated from the Trier Gymnasium, studied at the Faculty of Law of the University of Bonn, then Berlin, where he studied philosophy and history, defended his doctoral dissertation "The difference between the natural philosophy of Democritus and the natural philosophy of Epicurus." In 1842 - 1843. collaborated, and then edited the "Rhine newspaper". In the 1940s, successful cooperation between Marx and Engels began. They joined the "Union of Communists" and wrote for him the "Manifesto of the Communist Party" (1848). In 1849, K. Marx, expelled from Germany for revolutionary activities, finally settled in London. Until his death, Marx was invariably in the midst of revolutionary events shaking the Old and New Worlds, and showed great interest in Russia. Next to Marx was always his wife Jenny Marks, who became a faithful companion in life, the best assistant in writings, a comrade-in-arms and the first female communist.
The main philosophical, political, economic and socio-political works of K. Marx: "On the Criticism of the Hegelian Philosophy of Law" (1844), "Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts" (1844); works written jointly with F. Engels: "The Holy Family" (1845), "German Ideology" (1845 - 1846) and "Manifesto of the Communist Party"; The Poverty of Philosophy (1847), The Class Struggle in France (1850), The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonoparte (1852), The Critique of Political Economy (1859), The Civil War in France (1871), Criticism Gothic Program" (1875), "Capital" (the first volume was published in 1867, the second and third were published by F. Engels in 1885 and 1894, respectively, the fourth was published by K. Kautsky at the beginning of the 20th century).
The evolution of the philosophy of K. Marx is inseparable from the development of his revolutionary theory. Therefore, Marx paid the main attention to philosophical methodology (materialistic dialectics), and not to philosophical problems proper. This work was undertaken by F. Engels, who fully shared with Marx his philosophical and humanistic ideas and convictions.
Friedrich Engels
Events in our time follow
one after the other with astonishing speed,
and that for which before the nation was required
for a century now
easily done in a few years.
Friedrich Engels (1820, Barmen, now Wuppertal, Germany - 1895, London, England) - one of the founders of Marxism, friend and colleague of Karl Marx. It is impossible to understand Marxism and its philosophy without referring to the writings of Engels. His merit is great in the development of a philosophical substantiation of the political economy and socio-political ideas of Marxism. The main works of F. Engels: Letters from Wuppertal (1839), Schelling and Revelation, Sketches for a Critique of Political Economy (1844), The Condition of the Working Class in England (1845), Dialectics of Nature (1873 - 1883, work in progress), "Anti-Dühring" (1876 - 1878), "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" (1884), "Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of the classical German philosophy"(1886) and a number of other works that clarify and comment on the ideological heritage of Marx. After the death of Marx, F. Engels devoted himself entirely to editing and publishing his works, without stopping the practical leadership of the labor movement.
With the growth of the labor movement and the emergence of socialist workers' parties in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in Western European countries and Russia, Marxism and its philosophy became very widespread. Let us name only a few well-known names in the history of philosophy: in Germany - Franz Mehring (1846 - 1919), Joseph Dietzgen (1828-1888); in France - Paul Lafargue (1842 - 1911); in Italy - Antonio Labriola (1843 - 1904); in Russia - G.V. Plekhanov and V.I. Lenin (Ulyanov).
Philosophy of Marxism - Dialectical Materialism
The founders of Marxism attached to philosophy an extremely large and, in this connection, praxeological meaning. In the Theses on Feuerbach, Marx directly writes: "Philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways, but the point is to change it." The logic of constructing Marxism as a theory aimed at practice is extremely simple. Philosophy, considering the world as a process, should indicate the most general trends (principles and laws) of its functioning and development. These general principles and laws can be extended to the analysis of social reality and reveal the direction of the social process, its historical content, sources, driving forces, indicate the immediate and long-term prospects for social development. Philosophy must give a general scheme of the historical process of an abstract society (on the basis of an analysis of concrete regularities), while political economy and scientific communism must indicate the concrete working laws that fill this scheme with life.
The difficulty was to find these general tendencies in countries whose social organization differed significantly from each other or clearly stood at different rungs of the historical ladder. That is why the prognosis of Marx and Engels is so uncertain regarding the time of the socialist revolution, the number and names of the countries that will be involved in it. Materialistic dialectics and analysis of the socio-political situation in the second half of the 19th century led to the conclusion that revolutionary changes were immutable in most European countries. The purpose of these revolutions is the liberation of man from the oppression of natural and social forces, the emancipation of the social creativity of the masses.
The philosophy of Marxism is dialectical materialism. It includes the philosophical doctrine of the fundamental laws and principles of being and cognition, as well as social philosophy, which studies the most general laws of society and its history. In teaching practice, very often the first component of philosophy is called "dialectical materialism", and the second - "historical materialism". The materialism of Marx and Engels differs from the previous one, including Feuerbachian, in that it extends the principle of materialism beyond the limits of natural being - to social being. The materialistic understanding of society and its history "grounded" the social problems of philosophy and made them fundamentally accessible for theoretical understanding and practical use in the revolutionary struggle.
Another important feature of Marxist philosophy is dialectics as a general method of cognition and transformation of the world. But dialectics is, first of all, a section of philosophy itself, which studies the principles and laws of universal connection, change and development. The principles and laws of dialectics then appear in the philosophy of Marxism as methodological imperatives of philosophical and scientific knowledge, and in revolutionary theory as a method for the revolutionary transformation of society. The use of the dialectical method in philosophical knowledge gives the latter flexibility, mobility, comprehensiveness and depth.
Framework study guide do not allow for a more thorough analysis of the fundamental principles and laws of the ontology and epistemology of Marxist philosophy. Let us give only a brief overview of historical materialism, which is the most original and original part of Marxist philosophy.
A. Society as a system
In historical materialism, society appears to us, on the one hand, as a complex, stable, integral system of organizational structures, social institutions, social ties and relations, and on the other, as changing, passing from one state to another. To designate these aspects of society, historical materialism introduces the concept of "socio-economic formation" (SEF), denoting a stable, historically transient type of society that functions according to its own (formational) laws. There are five types of formations that successively change in the historical process of any society: primitive communal, slave-owning, feudal, bourgeois and communist (projected) formation.
Due to special historical conditions, a change in formations can disrupt the sequence and bypass some of them. The law is only the progressive direction of the change of the OEF. The types of OEF are conditioned by the corresponding types of the mode of production (SP), which are historical steps in the organization of material production and objective production relations. The change of joint venture and, consequently, the stages of the formational development of society have their own logic.
b. The logic of world history
Historical materialism claims that the only subject of history is people (not an individual, not social groups, but the masses as such). However, history is made in such a way that the consciousness and will of an individual is ultimately subordinate to objective social relations (social laws). The desire and will of an individual person are realized only when they correspond to the logic of the historical process. "Great historical figure"is a modest result of the great coincidence of the logic of the conscious behavior of the individual with the logic of history. The historical movement and development of society from one (lower) OEF to another (higher) is a natural historical process, independent of the consciousness and will of people (although it is obvious that all human activity is mediated their consciousness and will). This proposition confirms the fact that people never get the organization of society, to the creation of which their thoughts are directed. What, then, prompts people, of necessity, to change the type of OEF from time to time? Obviously, there is an internal source that revolutionizes the historical process in society.
V. Source of development and change of the OEF
In historical materialism, the source of development and change of the BEF is the internal dynamics of the mode of production (SP), caused by the interaction of the so-called productive forces (PS) and production relations (RP). PS is the determining factor of material production, which includes the manufacturer, the means of production and the economic and organizational structure of production. PO - objective economic and economic-organizational relations of people in production: relations over ownership of the means of production, exchange, distribution, social assessment of the goods produced and over the organization and management of production. This interaction is expressed in the law of conformity of software to the nature and level of development of the PS.
The degree of conformity of software (remaining more or less stable within the framework of this SP) reflects the intensity of development of the PS. The developed PSs come into conflict with obsolete software, and then the time comes for a social revolution that replaces this PS and, along with it, the obsolete OEF. The subjects of this historical process of changing the OEF are classes.
d. Theory of classes and class struggle
The history of all societies is the history of the struggle of classes - such is the conclusion of historical materialism about the main driving forces of all societies of the previous period. Marx argued, quite rightly, that the "class struggle" and the classes themselves had been discovered long before him. Only the following ideas belong to Marxism:
Classes didn't always exist. They are the result of the development of social production in the primitive communal period;
- the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat;
– the very dictatorship of the proletariat is only a transition to a society without classes.
As you can see, the class struggle is driving force only antagonistic formations. The change of types of formations is carried out in the form of social revolutions.
e. The doctrine of social revolution
The result of the class struggle within the framework of antagonistic formations, according to Marx's theory, is a social revolution that makes fundamental qualitative changes in all spheres of society, but, above all, in the basis of society - software. The social revolution thus solves the problem of replacing the obsolete joint venture, hence the OEF. Marx and Engels paid special attention to the philosophical analysis of the socialist type of social revolution. It ends with the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, a class that does not aim to perpetuate its domination and is objectively called upon by history itself to express the interests of the whole society.
The historical mission of the proletariat is to build a socially homogeneous society of the communist formation. The social revolution, therefore, first of all, decides the question of political power and the state structure of society.
e. The Doctrine of the State
In the doctrine of the state, historical materialism proceeds from the premise that the state did not always exist, but arose as an institution for the implementation of class domination along with the emergence of classes. Consequently, the state necessarily shares the fate of classes. With the disappearance of classes, the need for a state will disappear. Marx and Engels argue that the last form of statehood will be the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat, interested in the gradual withering away of state functions.
The dialectics of the development of the state is such that it arises as a natural necessity to keep the warring classes in check, exercising the class domination of one of them, and will disappear with the appearance of social homogeneity of society.
and. On the role of the masses in history
The revolution is made by the classes, but history is made by the masses. There is no logical contradiction in this thesis of Marxism. The activity of the masses is common, generic for the individual, social group, class. It also determines the nature of class relations in antagonistic formations. The activity of the masses leads to mass-like phenomena (production, exchange, distribution, consumption, class struggle, social revolution, and much more) and, thus, to the emergence of general trends that express the objective (statistical) laws of society.
The people in historical materialism acts simultaneously as the creator of history and its material. In substantiating "the law of the growing role of the popular masses in history," Marx and Engels were convinced of the progressiveness and humanity of this historical trend. It is communism that is the society in which the maximum increased social significance of everyone and everyone gives rise to the freedom of the individual, coinciding with social and historical necessity.
The rejection (for ideological reasons) by some modern philosophers of the dialectics of freedom and necessity, necessity and conscious activity of people is the reason for the fierce criticism of the social philosophy of Marx and Engels. Let us point out only one of them, K. Popper. In his propaganda bestseller "Open Society and Its Enemies" (M.: Feniks, 1992, in 2 volumes), historical fatalism is attributed to K. Marx and F. Engels on the grounds that they recognize the existence of social and historical laws. By the way, Popper also denies the existence of evolutionary laws in biology on the basis of their historicity.
The philosophy of Marxism is far from perfect, just like all other philosophical systems that claim to be universal and complete. True, these last qualities of Marxist philosophy were attributed later than recognized by its founders. Nevertheless, it should be recognized that German classical philosophy found worthy successors and followers in the person of K. Marx and F. Engels.
Anticlassical philosophy of the 19th century
In the 20-50s of the 19th century, a philosophical opposition to German classical idealism was formed in the person of A. Schopenhauer, F. Nietzsche, S. Kierkegaard - representatives of irrational idealism and anti-scientism. Another branch of the critics of the German classics is represented by positivism, the scientistic direction of subjective idealism, represented by O. Comte, G. Spencer and J. Mill.
A. Irrationalism of nineteenth-century philosophy
Arthur Schopenhauer
You must understand nature from yourself,
not yourself from nature.
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860) - German idealist philosopher of an irrationalist orientation. Major works: The World as Will and Representation (1819), On the Basis of Morals (1841), Two Basic Problems of Ethics (1841), On Religion (1851), Parerga und Paralipomena (1851) , where the widely known "Aphorisms of Worldly Wisdom" are printed. A. Schopenhauer, Hegel's rival in philosophy, sharply opposed Hegel's rationalism, panlogism, dialectics and historicism in ontology and epistemology. Sharing the Kantian doctrine of the "thing in itself", Schopenhauer, however, recognized the possibility of knowing it from the subject.
A. Schopenhauer believes that the world "in itself" is an expression of "will" as an unconsciously acting "world force". Will is an unconscious activity, the source of all movement and change. It manifests itself in man, in animals, in plants and in the inorganic world. Schopenhauer's ontology is literally anti-Hegelian. With Hegel, "everything that is real is reasonable and everything that is reasonable is real" expresses the substantiality of reason, while with Schopenhauer, paraphrasing Hegel, "everything that is real is unreasonable and everything that is unreasonable is real" definitely indicates the substantiality of the unreasonable will.
In questions of knowledge of the world, Schopenhauer is an opponent not only of Hegel, but also of Kant. Arguing that true knowledge can only be intuitive contemplation, Schopenhauer ignores the cognitive significance of science. Not science and reason, but artistic creativity, based on intuition, leads us to the true knowledge of the world.
The will, as a "thing in itself", the basis and goal of knowledge, is free, but, as a "phenomenon", it is subject to necessity. In "representation" will appears as a unity of subject and object. "The subject is the pillar of the world, the universal condition implied by any phenomenon, any object: in fact, everything exists only in the function of the subject." The subject of "representation" is that which cognizes, remaining unknowable. Subject and object are inseparable. No subject, no object.
The ethics of A. Schopenhauer is extremely pessimistic and nihilistic. The main motives of moral behavior are "suffering" and "boredom". Suffering determines the desire of the soul for liberation from them, and the will to live gives rise to new suffering and new worries to eliminate them. Asceticism and death are the final result of the struggle with suffering.
The philosophy of A. Schopenhauer is the theoretical source of the philosophy of life (F. Nietzsche, Dilthey, Simmel), existentialism (S. Kierkegaard).
Another overthrower of Hegelian rationalism, the creator of a non-classical type of philosophizing, the founder of the main ideas of the "philosophy of life", is the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900). Nietzsche's philosophical work can be epigraphed by his words: "I know my lot. Someday my name will be associated with the memory of something monstrous - a crisis that has never happened on earth, About the deepest conflict of conscience ... I am not a man, I am dynamite."
Major works: "On the birth of tragedy from the spirit of music" (1872), "Human, too human: a book for free minds" (1876 - 1878), "Thus Spoke Zarathustra: a book for everyone and for everyone" (1881 - 1885), "Merry Science" (1882), "Evil Wisdom: Aphorisms and Sayings" (1882 - 1885), "Beyond Good and Evil", "Genealogy of Morals" (1887), "Twilight of Idols" (1888), "The Will to power" (published after Nietzsche's death in 1906).
The main philosophical ideas of F. Nietzsche:
– Nietzsche acts as an irreconcilable and merciless critic and subverter of traditional beliefs and values: religion, philosophy, morality, the state, the essence of modern man;
- realizing and feeling the tragedy of the era, perceiving "life" as the cruel necessity of the "will to power", Nietzsche "creates" a "superman" with a penetrating mind and an iron will. Nietzsche's Zarathustra is the great destroyer of the modern world of values and the builder of the new (he has nothing in common with the famous Iranian theologian of the 7th-6th centuries BC);
– an uncompromising war against religion is complemented by a struggle against modern morality. Nietzsche considers modern morality as a mechanism of domination over his own kind. There are two morals: master and slave. For moral virtue, the lord who most of all neglects the norms of morality fights;
The skepticism and nihilism of Nietzsche's philosophy are especially vividly represented in solving the problems of religion, morality and the knowledge of truth. Nietzsche fights against the illusions of the modern world in all spheres of human existence. "All the gods are dead; let us glorify the superman." It is in the latter that the substantial principle of being - "the will to power" is clearly manifested.
The forerunner of 20th century existentialism is the Danish thinker, religious philosopher and writer Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855). Major works: "Either-or" (1843), "Fear and Trembling" (1843), "Philosophical crumbs" (1844), "Diary" (1833 - 1855). Kierkegaard is one of the critics of German classical philosophy, especially Hegelian rationalism. He considered the true philosophy to be exclusively individualistic, existential, studying the sensory-emotional basis of the personality. The philosophy of S. Kierkegaard is irrationalism, skepticism with nominalist tendencies and existentialism in its origins.
b. Origins of the philosophy of positivism
Auguste Comte
"I think I have discovered a great fundamental law... The law is that each of our basic concepts goes through, as necessary, three theoretically distinct stages: the theological or fictitious stage; the metaphysical or abstract stage; the scientific or positive stage."
These words belong to the French philosopher - the founder of positivism, the methodologist of scientific knowledge, the sociologist Auguste Comte (1798 - 1857). Main works: "Course of Positive Philosophy" (in 6 volumes, 1830 - 1842), "The System of Positive Politics, or a Treatise on Sociology, Establishing the Religion of Humanity" (1851 - 1854).
The positive stage of development of the spirit is as follows: 1) the stage of true knowledge as opposed to false and abstract. Comte considers it senseless to look for the first or final causes of being; 2) the stage of reliable knowledge based on experience and experiment; 3) the stage of useful knowledge used in the activities of people, and not out of "idle curiosity"; 4) the stage of positive cognition is called upon to seek proper scientific, absolutely true knowledge.
O. Comte classified scientific knowledge according to how they flow from one another and develop historically: mathematics, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, sociology. Sociology stands last in the historical series as "social physics". Comte also owns the term "sociology". This evolutionary doctrine of social being, including statics and dynamics, was based on the following principles: 1) the principle of the conditions of existence (the requirement to take into account all factors of the existence of society); 2) the principle of the uniformity of human nature (the requirement to take into account the unity of biological nature, the uniformity of interests and requests of people); 3) the principle of consensus (the requirement to take into account the relationship and interdependence of the part and the whole); 4) the principle of evolution (the requirement to consider society as necessarily progressive).
At the end of his life, Comte became convinced of the futility of the efforts of the scientific enlightenment of society. In "The System of Positive Politics..." he already refers to the religious theme, where humanity has acquired the features of God.
John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) - English philosopher, logician, economist - is the successor of Comte's philosophy of positivism. Mill's philosophy is a typical subjective idealism, recognizing the interdependent existence of matter and individual consciousness. Only "appearances" are known, "things in themselves" are unknowable. Mill - in
The name of Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) occupies a very honorable place not only among the great philosophical names of his era - the era of Bacon, Descartes, Gassendi, Pascal, Spinoza, Locke, Leibniz, but also in the world historical and philosophical process.
Thomas Hobbes is an English philosopher. He was educated at Oxford, where he studied classical languages; translated Thucydides into English and Homer into Latin. He was the secretary of F. Bacon and at one time the teacher of the future King Charles II. He was often persecuted for his writings and, depending on political circumstances, lived either in England or on the mainland.
During the years of the restoration of Charles II, Hobbes experienced very difficult times. The royalist and especially the clerical reaction subjected the philosopher to harassment, accusing him of atheism - a very common and dangerous accusation in those days ("On a Citizen" and "Leviathan" were included by the papal curia in the "List of banned books"). Rejecting these (and other) accusations, Hobbes was forced to defend himself in small ad hoc writings.
An important role in the system of philosophical views of Hobbes is played by the problem of man not as a physical, but as a rational being. As such, he is the subject of morality and at the same time politics. If physics studies natural bodies, then moral or civil philosophy, using the deductive-synthetic method, interprets artificial bodies created by man, the most important of which is the state. The starting point here is human nature.
Hobbes with great force emphasized the egoistic nature of man, determined both by his desire for self-preservation, and even more so by the most diverse interests that deepen and become more complex in the conditions of civilization. The multifarious play of interests, says Hobbes in Leviathan (chapter 11), leads to the contestation of seemingly the most unshakable geometric truths.
The naturalistic concept of man was put by Hobbes and the basis of his concept of the origin and essence of the state, the most important of the "artificial bodies". Human society goes through two stages. The first one is the natural state. Here people live, obeying mainly their sensual inclinations and guided by natural law. In principle, it gives every person the right to whatever he wants, but the interests and right of one run into a similar right of another. Here people live according to the rule “man is a wolf to man”, and in society there is a “war of all against all”, threatening people with general extermination.
The possibility of getting out of this state lies in the rationality of a person, natural laws, simple rules of moral prudence. They all come down to the ancient "golden rule" (fixed in the Gospels): do not treat others the way you would not like to be treated yourself. This rule of self-restraint of selfishness necessarily pushes people to the path of concluding a social contract, as a result of which the state arises. The essence of the contract is that its participants, possessing the great gift of verbal communication, enter into a civil state thanks to it, renounce a significant part of their natural rights, alienating them in favor of the supreme head of state and servants subordinate to him. Natural laws, which in the state of nature appear only as tendencies continually interrupted by sensual passions, in the civil state receive the greatest opportunities for their manifestation. Statehood becomes, therefore, the main morally educating factor of civilization. Law and morality converge, the difference between them is preserved in the fact that civil laws are written, and natural laws are unwritten. The supreme state power is absolute, its bearer (not necessarily the king) does not share it with anyone. His actions, however, are not arbitrariness, because “the sovereign is subject to the action of laws in the same way as the last of his subjects” (Leviathan. - Works, vol. 2, ch. 30). Citizens retain many of their natural rights (guarantee of life, economic and family relationships, upbringing, etc.) and to the extent of this are free.
Hobbes believed that the very life of a person, his well-being, strength, the rationality of the political life of society, the common good of people, their consent, which constitutes the condition and "health of the state" depend on the activities of the state; its absence leads to the "disease of the state", civil wars or even the death of the state. Hence Hobbes concludes that all people are interested in a perfect state. According to Hobbes, the state arose as a result of a social contract, an agreement, but, having arisen, it separated from society and obeys the collective opinion and will of people, having an absolute character. The concepts of good and evil are distinguished only by the state, while a person must obey the will of the state and recognize as bad what the state recognizes as bad. At the same time, the state should take care of the interests and happiness of the people. The state is called upon to protect citizens from external enemies and maintain internal order; it should give citizens the opportunity to increase their wealth, but within safe limits for the state.
Philosophy, according to Hobbes, "is innate in every person, for everyone, to a certain extent, talks about some things." But only a few dare to turn to a new philosophy that has left behind the old prejudices. It was these people that Hobbes wanted to come to the rescue of. Philosophy, according to Hobbes, is knowledge achieved through correct reasoning (recta ratiocinatio) and explaining actions, or phenomena from causes known to us, or producing reasons, and vice versa, possible producing reasons from known actions. "So, philosophy is interpreted by Hobbes quite broadly, even broadly: as a causal explanation.To further understand what philosophy is, according to Hobbes, it is necessary to delve into his interpretation of "correct reasoning". "By reasoning, I mean calculus. To calculate means to find the sum of things added or to determine the remainder when something is subtracted from another. Therefore, reasoning means the same thing as adding or subtracting. "This is how Hobbes deciphers his understanding of reasoning, which at first glance is not quite ordinary, but nevertheless common in his century and not at all alien to our century, as a "calculus" of thoughts, concepts ( addition and subtraction). Suppose we see some object from afar, but we see it unclearly. But in our "silently flowing thinking" we relate it to bodies ("add" with bodies). Coming closer, we see that this being is animated and, having heard his voice, etc., we are convinced that we are dealing with a rational being. "When we finally see the whole object exactly and in all details and recognize it, our idea of it turns out to be composed of previous ideas combined in that the same sequence in which the language puts into the name a rational animate body, or Man, separate names - a body, animate, rational. "If we add, say, representations: a quadrilateral, equilateral, rectangular, then we get the concept of a square. This means that the point is only to learn separately each of the representations, concepts, and then learn how to add and subtract them. The operation of calculus is in no way reduced to operations with numbers. "No, you can add or subtract and sizes, bodies, movements, times, qualities, deeds, concepts, sentences and words (which may contain any kind of philosophy)." By adding or subtracting concepts, we think.
Philosophy, interpreted in this way, is not reduced to purely mental actions far from reality - addition, subtraction, i.e. reasoning or thinking. This activity of ours makes it possible to understand the actual properties by which some bodies differ from other bodies. And thanks to this knowledge, thanks to the theorems of mathematics or the knowledge of physics, a person is able to achieve practical success. "Knowledge is only the path to power." Thomas Hobbes places the concept of the body at the center of philosophy. "Body", according to Hobbes, can also be called a large set of things and phenomena - for example, we can talk about the "state body". "Body" is that which has properties, which is subject to creation or destruction. Based on such an understanding, Hobbes first of all expels from philosophy entire sections that were previously included in it: philosophy excludes theology, the doctrine of angels, any knowledge "having as its source divine suggestion or revelation." Philosophy Hobbes divides into two main parts - the philosophy of nature (it "covers objects and phenomena that are called natural, because they are objects of nature") and the philosophy of the state, which in turn is divided into ethics (which "interprets the inclinations and customs of people" ) and politics. The philosophy of the state covers "objects and phenomena that have arisen due to the human will, by virtue of the contract and agreement of people."
In reality, however, it turns out that Hobbes begins his philosophical research and exposition by no means with physics or geometry. And he begins philosophy with chapters and sections, which, according to tradition, were considered only minor parts, even applied topics of philosophy. This is the doctrine of "names" (about "marks", "signs of things") and the concept of the method. Thus, the problems of words, speech, symbolic means, "exchange" of thoughts turned out to be truly fundamental for Hobbesian philosophy.
Together with Descartes and Spinoza, Hobbes recognizes that the human individual cognitive experience, placed before an unfathomable multitude of things and phenomena, must be based on some "auxiliaries". Hobbes also considers subjective, "finite", individual knowledge to be internally weak, vague, chaotic. "Each of his own and, moreover, the most reliable experience knows how vague and fleeting the thoughts of people are and how accidental their repetition is." But the idea, common for that time, of the limitedness, finiteness of individual experience in itself does not at all force Hobbes to resort, as Descartes does, to the intervention of the "infinite" divine mind. A person himself develops special aids that largely overcome the finiteness, locality, individuality of his personal cognitive experience - this is a very important idea of Hobbes. What are these means? In order to avoid the need to repeat each time cognitive experiences concerning the same object or a number of similar objects, a person makes a peculiar use of sensory images and the observed sensory things themselves. These latter become, according to Hobbes, "marks", thanks to which we, in appropriate cases, reproduce in our memory the previously accumulated knowledge concerning a given object. This is how the accumulation of knowledge is carried out: in each given cognitive act we “revive”, we use our own past experience in an abbreviated, instantaneous activity. Cognition of the individual becomes a single, interconnected process. Already this deepest idea, which permeates the studies of Hobbes, makes his philosophy a forerunner and immediate predecessor of the efforts of Locke and Hume, Leibniz and Kant.
But Hobbes goes further. If only one person existed on earth, then marks would be enough for his knowledge. But since this person lives in a society of his own kind, his own thought from the very beginning is oriented towards another person, other individuals: noticing correctness, regularity, repetition in things, we necessarily inform other people about this. And then things and sensual images no longer become marks, but signs. "The difference between marks and signs is that the former have meaning for ourselves, the latter for others." We see that Thomas Hobbes, without any mysticism, links together individual and social cognitive experience.
Just as the "reality" of the sign is for Hobbes the name, the word, this unit of language, so the "reality" of cognition is speech. The latter constitutes, according to Hobbes, the specific "peculiarity of man." The agreement of people regarding signs and words is the only ordering, organizing principle that limits the arbitrariness of speech activity. Having mastered speech, this specifically human form of socially conditioned knowledge and cognition, a person acquires, according to Hobbes, some important advantages. First of all, Hobbes, in accordance with the aspirations of contemporary science, mentions the benefits of numerals, those names that help a person to count, measure, calculate. “Hence for the human race arise great conveniences that other living beings are deprived of. For everyone knows what great help these abilities give people in measuring bodies, calculating time, calculating the movement of stars, describing the earth, in navigation, building buildings, creating machines and in other cases. All this is based on the ability to count, the ability to count is based on speech. Secondly, continues Hobbes, speech "enables one person to teach another, that is, to tell him what he knows, and also to exhort another or consult with him." “The third and greatest benefit to which we owe speech is that we can give orders and receive orders, for without this ability no social organization among people would be inconceivable, there would be no peace and, therefore, no discipline, and only savagery would reign."
"Truth," says Hobbes, "is not a property of things ... it is inherent only in language." If thinking is reduced to an arbitrary designation of things and a combination of names in assumptions, then truth inevitably turns into a special property of statements, sentences, into a property of language. And since true thinking is realized in a linguistic form, Hobbes is right to the extent that the thinking of an individual person undoubtedly depends on such an important and universal phenomenon of social reality as language. In the course of Hobbesian analysis, in fact, another question is pushed aside, over which Descartes and Spinoza struggle: how, thanks to what, truth is obtained and acquires internal certainty? This is not about "principles", "truths" common sense, but about the foundations of contemporary science. The question, therefore, is different from that of Hobbes: what are the properties of truth (and true knowledge) that are only discovered, and not formed in the process of communication, i.e., in the process of "exchange" of knowledge and knowledge.
But Hobbes, in his work “On the Body”, finally leaves aside the sign-communicative concept and, as it were, moves on to the physical body itself - to such problems as the property of the body (accident), its size and place, the movement of bodies, space and time, etc. Let's not forget that the consideration of all these problems is part of Hobbes' philosophy of nature.
Hobbes is often called a materialist, especially in physics - in the understanding of a physical thing. In the book "On the body" he - clearly in opposition to Descartes - gives the following definition: "the body is everything that does not depend on our thinking and coincides with some part of space or has an equal extent with it." This definition of the body brings Hobbes closer to materialism. However, when "unraveling" such complex problems as, say, extension or matter, Hobbes has to deviate from straightforwardly materialistic positions. Thus, Hobbes distinguishes magnitude as a real extension, and place as an imaginary extension. On the extent, space, matter in general, he speaks in the spirit of the previously analyzed and characteristic way of thinking for him, which can be called "communicative-sign nominalism". "With the exception of the name, there is nothing general and universal, and consequently, this space in general is only the ghost of some body of a certain size and shape that is in our minds."
The first part of the philosophy of nature in Hobbes is reduced to a discussion about motion, where the philosophy really dominates, then mechanistic physics and geometry. This first part also boils down to the application of such categories as cause and effect, possibility, and actuality. For Hobbes, this is more of a "materialistic" than actually physical part of the philosophy of nature. But now Hobbes moves on to the fourth section of the book "On the body" - "Physics, or on the phenomena of nature." And it begins again not with the bodies of physics, but with the section "On Sensation and Animal Motion." The task of research here is defined as follows: "based on the phenomena or actions of nature, cognizable by our senses, to investigate how they, if not, then at least could be produced." "A phenomenon, or a phenomenon, is that which is visible, or that which nature presents to us."
Hobbes was one of the first in modern philosophy to draw the line which then led to Kant's doctrine of phenomena. The logic of Hobbesian philosophizing here is "physical", "natural", even naturalistic, but hardly simply materialistic: he believes that one must first consider sense cognition, or sensation, - i.e. you have to start with a phenomenon, a phenomenon. Without this, it is impossible to proceed to the actual study of the bodies of the Universe, i.e. to such really physical subjects as the Universe, stars, light, heat, heaviness, etc. The argument in favor of the indicated order of consideration by Hobbes is as follows: "If we cognize the principles of cognition of things only thanks to phenomena, then in the end the basis of the cognition of these principles is sensory perception."
So, the philosophy of Hobbes (which also applies to a number of his other contemporaries) was supposed to start from the philosophy of nature. And she paid no small tribute to the problems, methods of physics and geometry. However, with a more careful approach, it turns out that the philosophy of man and human knowledge, the doctrine of the method in Hobbes, as in many philosophical concepts of the 17th century, logically and theoretically came to the fore. Inside the philosophy of man, thinkers of the 17th century.
also encountered similar contradictions, which were least of all the result of inept, inaccurate reasoning. For these were contradictions inherent in human life and human essence.
Hobbes' doctrine was duly appreciated both by his contemporaries and later followers and admirers of the political thinker's talent. The influence of his ideas extended to such philosophers of the past as J. Locke, I. Bentham, J. St. Mill, B. Spinoza, D. Diderot, J.J. Rousseau, G.W.F. Hegel and many others. In Russia, A. Herzen and N. Chernyshevsky spoke of him with admiration. The figure of the thinker is not ignored by modern domestic and foreign historians - researchers of his rich creative heritage - which, undoubtedly, testifies to the enduring value of the postulates put forward by him.
The sociological doctrine of Thomas Hobbes from the first moment of its appearance was met with great attention by wide circles of the public, both in England and throughout Europe, and became the subject of the most lively controversy. thinkers, politicians, religious figures corresponded with the philosopher, wrote treatises, where they expressed their opinion on his works. In this regard, we note that the views of the thinker's contemporaries, who criticized him on the basis of their own vision of the phenomena of life, various situations where, obviously, a concrete historical view of things, events and facts dominated, seem to be the most interesting and valuable for us.
It is quite natural that the attitude to the doctrine on the part of representatives of various circles of the public was ambiguous, and a number of thinkers, already in the framework of correspondence with Hobbes, entered into a discussion with him and fiercely criticized certain provisions of his theory. His understanding of the life of people in the "state of nature", the nature of man, the way the state was formed and the forms of its government, the relationship between law, freedom and law, the rights and obligations of subjects and the powers of the sovereign - all this complex of basic postulates of his political system provoked another aggravation of social antagonisms. Hobbes T. Selected Works. In 2 vols. M.: Thought, 1964-1965; Hobbes T. Selected Works. In 2 vols. Vol. 2. Moscow: Thought, 1989-1991.
It should be noted that in determining the directions in the historiography of the period of the English Revolution regarding the work of Hobbes, we encountered some difficulties, which may be caused by the fact that some researchers of his works repeatedly changed their position or disputed only a number of provisions of his theory. It is also impossible to unambiguously say to which tradition Hobbes himself should be attributed. For example, even the Soviet researcher B. Minlos pointed out that it is difficult to unconditionally attribute Hobbes to any party. See: Minlos B. Hobbes and the English Revolution // Soviet Law. Issue 4. M., 1930. S.18.. However, in the historiography of the period of the English Revolution in the middle of the XVII century. Traditionally, there are conservative and liberal directions.
Adherents of the old traditions (a conservative trend in historiography), and indeed many clerical-minded ideologists of the early bourgeoisie, met Hobbes's teaching with hostility and did not particularly limit themselves in expressions. Thus, Bishop Visay in 1677 declared that Hobbes "was the source of all shamelessness", Judge Strimens in 1678 assessed his philosophy as "the embodiment of the devil's intrigues." These assessments do not diverge from the later statements of representatives of the conservative direction. J. Catlin wrote in 1922 that "Hobbes is a morally defective person", and from the point of view of Roman Catholic, expressed by him in 1956, "Leviathan" is inspired by the devil. Radical assessments of contemporaries are also given in the work of J. Bowle, where Hobbes is recognized as a very odious figure of his time. Hobbes most accurately reflected his attitude to such attacks in the preface to the treatise “On Freedom and Necessity”, where he stated with pain: “On this side of the sea, except for slander and dirt, which showered this book in sermons and private collections, no one printed anything against her ... What reception the book met on the other side of the sea, I do not know, but the Catholics, of course, it was received with bitterness ... ".
Characteristically, Hobbes was criticized by both Royalists and Puritans. For example, a prominent representative of conservative historiography R. Filmer, known as the author and preacher of the patriarchal theory of the origin of the state (“Adamite” theory of the origin of royal power), opposed the very possibility of creating a state through the conclusion of a social contract, denied the concept of a natural state preceding state formations, the right subjects in some cases resist the power of the ruler. It is not at all surprising that the last postulate we cited gave some royalists the opportunity to accuse Hobbes of sedition. However, Filmer fully agreed with Hobbes's provisions on the powers of the sovereign, however, with some reservation: "... I agree with him [Hobbes] regarding the rights of state power, but I do not accept the ways in which he receives them."
Puritan J. Lawson also considered the idea of a social contract utopian. On the other hand, being an adherent of the separation of powers in the state, Lawson accused Hobbes of being too sympathetic to absolute monarchy as a form of government.
Among the most vehement critics-conservatives of a religious persuasion, one should mention Bishop Lucky, T. Pierce, J. Glenville, S. Parker, J. Sheftos, R. Cook and, of course, R. Cadworth, who accused Hobbes of atheism and classified him among those writers “who, denying God, deny all dignity in human nature, who do not find in man anything worthy of praise or blame, and who do not see in our soul even the beginnings of love and justice.” Some apart in their circle stood another critic of the thinker's work G. More - a prominent representative of the Cambridge school, outraged by Hobbes's attempts to renounce the divine nature of the origin of royal power and recreate the natural conditions for the development of the human community, which, no doubt, alarmed philosophers and theologians, even who did not break with the ideals of the medieval scholastic worldview More H. A Collection of Several Philosophical Writings. L., 1662; see also: Smirnov A. History of English ethics. T.1. Kazan, 1880. P. 300.
Perhaps one can agree with the opinion of the liberal English historian of the XIX century. G.K. Robertson, who saw the reasons for such speeches in the fact that "the philosopher was the scarecrow of the last century" and, perhaps, only the lazy did not practice slander, honing his pen in order to prick Hobbes more painfully Robertson G.C. Hobbes. L., 1886. P.208..
There were also more moderate opponents of the Hobbesian doctrine, however, we still referred to the camp of conservative historians, such as E.A. Clarendon, A. Tenissen, R. Cumberland, who progressively, chapter by chapter, tried to refute the main provisions and conclusions of his socio-political theory.
Summarizing all the criticisms of the teachings of Hobbes, we note that in essence they are very similar. And this is obvious and quite natural, because, regardless of belonging to one or another political camp or religious direction, critics rejected everything that in the slightest degree did not fit into the traditional picture of the worldview, worldview, worldview. Wide sections of society could not yet realize the value of Hobbes' individualistic views.
However, the advanced thinkers of the second half of the 17th century, the bearers and preachers of the new bourgeois ideology, perceived the ideas of Hobbes as the most adequate and relevant for the contemporary stage of development of English society. So, the famous poet A. Cowley recognizes him as a genius, a discoverer of the depths new philosophy, and the historian P. Bayle - the greatest mind of the 17th century.
The French philosopher P. Gassendi praised Hobbes's book "On the Citizen" and wrote that "it deserves to be in the hands of all those who are able to think deeply ..."; speaking about the philosopher himself, he noted in the best way his ability to give a meaningful and profound argument on each issue under consideration: “... I don’t know anyone among philosophers who would be more free from prejudices and more thoroughly delve into what he is considering.” Another French philosopher and public figure M. Mersenne, expressing an opinion on the work "On a Citizen", called it a "literary treasure", the evidence base of which is in no way inferior to Euclid's "Principles".
Even Republican J. Harrington and Puritan J.K. Beckman, being rather opponents of Hobbes, recognized him as the most prominent and significant author of his time, whose political concept certainly deserves close attention, although it needs to be treated with a certain degree of criticism Valdenberg V.E. Law and law in the philosophy of Hobbes. pp.119-120; Laird J. Hobbes. L., 1934. P.294..
In the next two centuries, interest in the works of Hobbes did not weaken, which indicates the significance and topicality of his conclusions. He was still often portrayed as shameless and almost an anarchist, who trampled on all the values of the Christian world, undermined the foundations of traditional society, which was accompanied by many libelous publications addressed to him. The historian and philosopher D. Hume, quite in the spirit of conservatives, said that Hobbes' political views lead to direct tyranny, and his ethical concept is deeply immoral and corrupts people's minds so much that "... a good Christian could hardly hear the name of Hobbes without do not pray."
However, the ranks of the thinker's supporters did not thin out. So, the positivist historian of the XIX century. Vorlender wrote: “...Hobbes presented a new ethical theory for his time. Others were looking for a measure of duties in Holy Scripture, and Hobbes, on the contrary, exposes an objective and universal law as a measure of duties common to all, ”in which he saw a big step taken by the philosopher on the way to the era of rationalism Citations. Quoted from: Waldenberg V.E. Law and law in the philosophy of Hobbes. P.138 .. Moreover, the students and adherents of the utilitarian theory of I. Bentham, who, by the way, himself recognized himself as a follower of Hobbes, J. Mill, J. St. Mill J. Austin, G. Main, as well as the publisher of Hobbes' works, Sir W. Molesworth, shared the thinker's views on the prerogatives of sovereign power and the relationship between natural and state laws, considering him to be their predecessor Hobbes Th. Elements of Philosophy. The First Section. Conserning Body // The English Works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury. Now first collected and edited by Sir William Molesworth. V. I. L., 1839. XII; see: Bentham I. Introduction to the foundations of morality and legislation / Selected works. T.1. SPb., 1867; Mill J.St. Autobiography. SPb., 1874; He is. Logic system. M., 1914; Kuchkin V.M. The sociological concept of Thomas Hobbes and its historical significance. Diss. pp. 196-199; Nemchenko I.V. Thomas Hobbes and the English bourgeois revolution of the middle of the 17th century (on the question of the Renaissance content of the political system of Hobbes). Diss. M., 1981. S. 7-8 ..
So, from the time of its appearance, not a single creation of the thinker has left various sections of the public indifferent. The modern English researcher M. Carr wrote on this occasion that the publication of Leviathan caused a storm in England, comparable only to Darwin's theory of natural selection.
However, the first purely scientific work devoted to Hobbes was the book by J. Robertson, which laid the foundation for the academic study of the philosopher's ideas.
In the XX - at the turn of the XXI centuries. Hobbes's theory has not lost its relevance and attracts more and more both foreign and domestic researchers of his work. This is largely due to the similarity of the political situation in Europe in the 17th century. and at the present stage of historical development, which is characterized by a radical breakdown of the values of traditional civilization, a genuine revolution in the minds, that is, all the attributes inherent in the transition period. One of the main features of the study of Hobbes' work in modern times is that his interpretation is practically independent of the directions and schools to which his researchers belong.
J. Laird is one of the first in English historiography of the 20th century. interested in the origins of the political teachings of Hobbes. Nevertheless, this conservative historian saw in him a medieval philosopher with outdated compositional constructions, confirming this with the words that “... the voice and hand [of him - Hobbes - M.A.] were medieval ...”, the only merit of which he considered updating the methodological bases political philosophy. The Marxist historian M.M. Goldsmith, who noticed that Hobbes tried to create his own scientific philosophical system, relying on the methods and assumptions of scientific knowledge of the times of Galileo.
Structuralist L. Strauss made a special contribution to the study of the thinker's ideas, highly appreciating the novelty of his conclusions, logical constructions, methods (mainly the synthetic-analytical method) and a complete break with medieval philosophical traditions. The last statement, in our opinion, is somewhat premature, since a deeper analysis of the works of Hobbes still testifies to the dualism of his philosophical views, although the proximity to rationalism is obvious. The main achievement of the political concept of the philosopher L. Strauss considers the derivation of natural law from the principles of natural law and the recognition of its measure of the duties of subjects, noting that "... the limitations of civil society should be determined based on the natural law of man ...". He sees the source of the philosophical views of Hobbes in the life experience of the thinker, in the real events of his contemporary era, thereby recognizing the empirical nature of his judgments, thanks to which they are logical and easily perceived by the reader, and denying him their connection with ancient and medieval ideals.
A supporter of the idea of recognizing Hobbes' direct life experience as the root cause that influenced the formation of his political thinking and worldview is the representative of the Marxist trend in historiography, the Canadian researcher K. Macpherson, who tried to prove that real events are hidden behind the abstract maxims that the philosopher operated in his works and the problems of contemporary England, its social and political formations. At the same time, K. Macpherson pays special attention to the analysis of the economic life of the country, going, according to I.V. Nemchenko, "in an artificially complicated way," in which we may well agree with her. The method of studying this issue seems to the scientist “purely speculative”.
However, not all scholars agree with the assertion that Hobbes made empirical experience the basis of his political conception, and denied him a connection between his research and real events in England in the middle of the 17th century. So, the English researcher K.P. Minogue notes that Hobbes wrote his works in such an abstract manner that it is hardly possible to establish a connection between the provisions of his theory and the events of real life, and caustically emphasizes that since the philosopher was not involved in any of the spheres of life, whether it was advocacy or legal proceedings , then he can afford to build any assumptions about the events and phenomena of political life. Below K.P. Minogue adds that Hobbes' writings are "completely philosophical" and for this reason cannot be "corrupted" by "historical categories".
The American scientist J.P. Plamenatz, just like K.P. Minogue, denies the possibility of linking Hobbesian reasoning with life circumstances. He is echoed by A.G. Warender's point is that "a collection of historical examples" has little meaning for Hobbes.
Therefore, the point of view of P.A. Zagorin, who was one of the first to try to connect the ideas of Hobbes with the English Revolution and wrote: "Even against his will, Hobbes forged a revolutionary weapon." The author reproached his colleagues, in particular K. McPherson, for being too enthusiastic about finding a connection between the thinker's teachings and certain social strata, deepening in the study of the economic situation. The deep connection between Hobbes's teachings and the socio-political thought of the period of the revolution was pointed out by the English researcher K. Hill, who, comparing the ideas of the philosopher with the views of the leader of the diggers J. Winstanley, noted their similarity, which, in turn, explained by common socio-economic and political conditions in which they were formed.
Another controversial point in historiography is the question of the exceptional phenomenon of the teachings of Hobbes. So, for example, J. Bole, having given in his work an extensive criticism of the ideas of the philosopher, came to the conclusion that he had no like-minded people, and the thinker was a kind of white crow among his contemporaries. A well-known researcher of English history of the 17th century, at first a conservative and then a liberal historian, H.R. Trevor-Roper backed up this idea with the remark: "...[Hobbes]...It is an isolated phenomenon in English thought." The American scientist S.P. agrees with them. Lamprecht and English researcher S. Mints.
According to I.V. Nemchenko, the merit of refuting the view of Hobbes as a "lonely original" belongs to the English revisionist historian K. Skinner, "who in several brilliant articles proved the existence of positive links between the political teachings of Hobbes and the beliefs of his contemporaries" and made "a revolution in ideas about political views Hobbes". Skinner points out that even critics of Hobbesian theory - Clarendon, Harrington - highly appreciated his intelligence, encyclopedic education, excellent manner of presentation, and notes that Hobbes's works went through many editions during his lifetime. However, we will take the liberty of asserting that this idea was known even without C. Skinner. A number of contemporaries of the thinker and later admirers of his teaching, as mentioned earlier) called the philosopher their own. Skinner pays great attention to the study of the Hobbesian theory of sovereignty, especially the issue of political obligations. In particular, the problem of the performance of political duties in England in the 17th century. he sees in two significant social changes (“displacements”): 1) the execution of King Charles I and the subsequent establishment of the “Welfare State”, and 2) the removal from power of James I and the calling of William of Orange. Thus, the parliament always faced the problem of choosing whom to swear allegiance to, and the people did not have time to adapt to new political conditions.
Among the latest works on the issue under consideration, we note the works of representatives of neoliberal historiography J. Steinberg, S.A. Lloyd, W.B. Sullivan devoted to a deep analysis of not only the statements of Hobbes himself, but also the points of view of the researchers of his works. The undoubted advantage of the work of R. Krainak is the study of the problems of the Hobbesian theory of sovereignty and the philosopher's views on the causes of civil wars in England in the middle of the 17th century.
In Russian historiography, the teachings of Hobbes were considered from a liberal standpoint. Of the pre-revolutionary studies, it is worth mentioning the fundamental work of the lawyer V.E. Waldenberg "Law and law in the philosophy of Hobbes", dedicated to a detailed analysis of the state of pure nature, the relationship between the concepts of law and law in the state of nature and within the framework of the state. The work provides an extensive criticism of the philosopher's judgments, both by contemporaries and later researchers of the teachings of Hobbes, which is an undoubted merit of the work. The political theory of Hobbes is considered in the works of V.G. Kamburov, and his ethical system is reflected in the work of A.O. Makovelsky.
In Soviet historiography, very few works are devoted to the analysis of the thinker's theoretical attitudes. The first Soviet work exploring the Hobbesian system and later republished with minor changes was written by L.A. Cheskis, who highly appreciated the merits of the philosopher in the development and presentation of the ethical and political concept of the state, noting that "Hobbes was the first to lay the foundation for a positive science of morality or the science of morals." At the same time, Cheskis accused the thinker of the lack of historicism.
Let us note A. Deborin's "Foreword by the Editor" to Thomas Hobbes' "Selected Works", in which the author recognizes "a certain revolutionary sound" behind the thinker's sociological theory. This, however, did not prevent him later, without any justification, from calling the philosopher an ardent enemy of the revolution, a reactionary, which, in general, was not surprising, given the spirit of the times.
The opposite point of view is expressed by M. Petrosova, who argued that Hobbes' defense of the ideals of absolute monarchy was a kind of defensive reaction and the only way to "ensure the power of the state and citizens." This opinion is fully shared by D. Bihdriker. In turn, we also agree with the statement of M. Petrosova, which has not lost its relevance at the present stage of development of historical science. Among other works of the Soviet period, we note the works of B.V. Meerovsky and E.M. Weizmann, containing not only a description of the thinker's teachings, but also his biographical data.
2. The main ideas of Thomas Hobbes
If we try to characterize the internal logic Philosophical research Hobbes, the following picture emerges.
The problem of power, the problem of the genesis and essence of the state community was one of the central philosophical and sociological problems facing the leading thinkers of the 16th and 17th centuries in the era of the creation of national states in Europe, strengthening their sovereignty and the formation of state institutions. In England, under conditions of revolution and civil war, this problem was particularly acute. It is not surprising that the development of questions of moral and civil philosophy, or the philosophy of the state, attracted the attention of Hobbes first of all. The philosopher himself emphasized this in the dedication to the work "On the Body", in which he defines his place among other founders of science and philosophy of modern times.
The development of these questions forced Hobbes to turn to the study of man. English philosopher, like many other advanced thinkers of that era, who did not rise to the understanding of the real, material causes of social development, tried to explain the essence of social life, based on the principles of "Human Nature". In contrast to Aristotle's principle that man is a social being, Hobbes argues that man is not social by nature. In fact, if a person loved another only as a person, why should he not love everyone equally. In society, we are not looking for friends, but for the implementation of our own interests.
"What do all people do, what do they consider pleasure, if not slander and arrogance? Everyone wants to play the first role and oppress others; everyone claims talents and knowledge, and how many listeners in the audience, so many doctors. Everyone strives not for a hostel with others, but to power over them, and consequently to war. The war of all against all is even now the law for savages, and the state of war is still a natural law in relations between states and between rulers, "writes Hobbes. According to Hobbes, our experience, the facts of everyday life tell us that there is mistrust between people.
"When a man goes on a journey, a man takes a weapon with him and takes a large company with him; when he goes to bed, he locks the door; when he stays at home, he locks his drawers. What opinion do we have of our fellow citizens, since we travel armed "Once we lock our door, about our children and servants, since we lock our drawers? Do we not accuse people with these actions, just as I accuse them with my statements."
However, adds Hobbes, none of us can blame them. The desires and passions of people are not sinful. And when people live in the state of nature, no unjust acts can exist. The concept of good and evil can take place where society and laws exist; where there are no established ones, there can be no injustice. Justice and injustice, according to Hobbes, are not abilities of either the soul or the body. For if they were such, a person would own them, even being alone in the world, just as he owns perception and feeling. Justice and injustice are the qualities and properties of a person who does not live alone, but in society.
But what pushes people to live together in peace among themselves, contrary to their inclinations, to mutual struggle and mutual extermination. Where to look for those rules and concepts on which human society is based?
According to Hobbes, such a rule becomes a natural law based on reason, with the help of which everyone ascribes to himself abstinence from everything that, in his opinion, may be harmful to him.
The Hobbesian picture of the "state of nature" can be regarded as one of the first descriptions of the emerging English bourgeois society with its division of labor, competition, the opening of new markets, the struggle for existence. It seemed to the thinker himself that he recognized the nature of man in general, revealed a form of social life that is natural for all times and peoples. It was far from historicism.
In the nature of people, according to Hobbes, there are not only forces that plunge individuals into the abyss of "the war of all against all." Man also inherently possesses properties of a completely different plane; they are such that they awaken individuals to find a way out of such a disastrous state of nature. First of all, it is the fear of death and the instinct of self-preservation, which dominates over other passions. At the same time, natural reason comes forward, that is, the ability of everyone to reason sensibly about positive and negative consequences their actions. The instinct of self-preservation gives the first impulse to the process of overcoming the natural state, and the natural mind tells people on what conditions they can carry out this process. These conditions (the precepts of natural reason express them) are natural laws.
"Natural law is a rule that lies not in the agreement of people among themselves, but in the agreement of man with reason, it is an indication of reason as to what we should strive for and what we should avoid for the sake of our self-preservation." says Hobbes. So what are these natural laws of human community in the understanding of Hobbes?
The first basic natural law states: Everyone must seek peace with all the means at his disposal, and if he cannot obtain peace, he may seek and use all the means and advantages of war. From this law follows directly the second law: Everyone must be ready to give up his right to everything when others also wish it, since he considers this refusal necessary for peace and self-defense. In addition to the waiver of one's rights, there can also be (according to Hobbes) the transfer of these rights. When two or more people transfer these rights to each other, this is called a contract. The third natural law says that people must adhere to their own contracts. This law contains the function of justice. Only with the transfer of rights does cohabitation and the functioning of property begin, and only then is injustice possible in violation of contracts. It is extremely interesting that Hobbes derives from these basic laws the law Christian morality: "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you." According to Hobbes, natural laws, being the rules of our mind, are eternal. The name "law" for them is not quite suitable, but since they are considered as the command of God, they are "laws".
Hobbes' theory of the State follows logically from his theory of law and morality. The basis of the state lies in the reasonable desire of people for self-preservation and security. We already know what, according to Hobbes, the natural laws that are dictated by man by his mind. But reason does not always demand the fulfillment of these laws. For the fulfillment of these laws by some and the non-fulfillment by others leads the former directly to death, and not to self-preservation. From this it is clear that the observance of natural laws requires confidence in one's own security, and to achieve security there is no other way but to unite a sufficient number of people for mutual protection. For the common good, people, according to Hobbes, should agree among themselves to give up their rights to everything in the name of peace and the preservation of life and unite together to fulfill the agreement. Such an agreement or such a transfer of rights is the formation of a state. Hobbes defines the state as follows: "The state is one person or assembly, whose will, by virtue of the agreement of many people, is the law for them all, since it can use the strength and ability of each to ensure common peace and protection." The person or assembly to whose will all others are subject is called supreme power, all other citizens are called subjects.
But what are the rights of the State? The state, by virtue of the transfer of the rights of all to it, has all the rights that belong to a person in a state of nature, as we have seen, unlimited, then the rights of the state are also unlimited. There is no higher power on earth than state power, and there is no one who could hold this power accountable for its actions, because from the moment the state exists, it has all the rights of all people included in it without exception. “The only right on earth is the state law, and the state law is nothing more than the will of state power expressed externally. “Since in the state the will of state power becomes the only determining principle for the will of an individual, it is natural that submission to this power should be unconditional. For any resistance to state power would lead a person to a natural state of "war against all." Therefore, the same law that prescribes a man to desire peace requires absolute submission to state power.
According to Hobbes, the goal of the state is to abolish the natural state of man, and establish an order in which people would be provided with security and a peaceful existence. It is clear that in order to maintain this state of security, the state power must be armed with appropriate rights. These rights are:
Hobbes calls the first right "the sword of justice," that is, the right to punish those who break the law, because without this right, security cannot be ensured.
The second right is the "sword of war", that is, the right to declare war and conclude peace, as well as to establish the number of armed forces and funds necessary for waging war, for the security of citizens depends on the existence of troops, while the strength of troops depends on the unity of the state, and the unity states - from the unity of the supreme power.
The third right is the right of the court, that is, the consideration of cases where the application of the sword is necessary, since without the resolution of disputes it is impossible to protect one citizen from injustice on the part of another citizen.
The fourth right is the right to establish property laws, because before the establishment of state power, everyone had the right to everything, which was the reason for the war against everyone, but with the establishment of the state, everything must be determined what belongs to whom.
The fifth right is the right to establish subordination to the authorities, with the help of which it would be possible to carry out a balanced regulation of all functions of state power.
The sixth right is the right to prohibit harmful teachings that lead to a violation of peace and tranquility within the state, as well as aimed at undermining state unity.
All other rights, according to Hobbes, are contained in the above or can be logically derived from them.
Hobbes is opposed to the separation of the executive from the legislature. This separation of powers is for him the only reason for the civil war then raging in England. State power, according to Hobbes, in order to fulfill its main purpose - ensuring peace and security for citizens - must be indivisible and sovereign. She should stand above all and should not be subject to anyone's judgment or control. She must be above all laws, for all laws are established by her and only from her receive their strength. Whatever its form, it is inherently limitless. In a republic, the popular assembly has the same power over its subjects as the king has in monarchical government, otherwise anarchy will continue. The denial of absolute power comes, according to Hobbes, from ignorance of human nature and natural laws. It follows from the nature of sovereignty that it cannot be destroyed by the will of the citizens. For, although it proceeds from their free contract, the contracting parties have bound their will not only in relation to each other, but also in relation to the supreme power itself, therefore, without the consent of the supreme power itself, they cannot withdraw from their obligation.
Hobbes establishes three types of state power: monarchical, aristocracy and democracy; for the state power may be vested in one person or in a council of many. Accordingly, the council of many people consists either of all citizens, so that any of them has the right to vote and can participate, if he wants, in the discussion of affairs, or only from a part of them.
Tyranny and oligarchy are not separate forms of state power, but only other names of the same types - names that express our negative attitude towards each of these forms. The best form in terms of achieving the means for which state power exists is, according to the philosopher, a monarchy.
If the state power is armed with all the rights that belong to citizens in the state of nature, then it also bears those duties that follow from natural laws; these responsibilities are as follows:
The good of the people is the highest law, and therefore they are reduced to obedience to the dictates of reason, which requires the good of all people. And since this good is, first of all, peace, anyone who violates the peace, thereby opposes the prescription of state power. However, it must be added that peace is a blessing in so far as it contributes to the preservation of human life; but people strive not just for life, but for a happy life. Consequently, the task of the authorities is, therefore, to ensure not just life, but the happy life of citizens. But what is a happy life? Happiness, says the philosopher, consists in enjoying the various benefits of life, and in order to be able to enjoy all these benefits of life, the following is necessary: protection from external enemies, maintaining peace within the state, raising welfare and wealth, and granting the right to every citizen to enjoy freedom without prejudice to other citizens. The state power, therefore, must ensure these four conditions necessary for the happiness of the citizens living in the state. And in order for the state power to fulfill its duties, it must have certain rights, which I spoke about earlier.
Hobbes hands over to the state power all the rights arising from its nature: he reserves for the citizens only the right to physical life. Even in spiritual matters, he gives all power to the state. The state power may establish religion and rites. Non-believers must nevertheless obey the laws of the state and perform all religious outward rites. The inner world of faith and thought is not accessible to the authorities; therefore it cannot prescribe us to believe or not to believe. But if we were ordered, says Hobbes, in a non-Christian state, for example, "to express in language or external signs confessions that are contrary to Christianity, then we would have to obey the laws of the state, keeping faith in Christ in our hearts"
What should be, according to Hobbes's theory, the relationship between the state and the church? Hobbes believes that the church is not a simple union of believers; the union of believers without legal permission does not yet form a church. In order for a body of believers to become a legal assembly, it must receive the permission of the state authorities: only under this condition does it acquire the right to issue decrees. Consequently, only the supreme power, by its consent, turns the meetings of individuals into a correct, lawful assembly, into a church.
Since the church can be formed only with the consent and with the assistance of state power, it is clear that a single church cannot be formed from several politically different peoples. Every nation is at the same time church and state; the difference between church and state is only a difference in form. The same union of people is the state, inasmuch as it is composed simply of people, and the church, inasmuch as it is composed of believing people, Christians. From this relation of church and state it follows that citizens, who are bound by unconditional obedience to state power in temporal matters, are obliged to obey the church in spiritual matters. This obedience must be complete. For it is impossible to argue about the dogmas of faith: they are not subject to discussion, "they must be taken, - Hobbes remarks very caustically, - like a doctor's pills: whole and without chewing."
Hobbes was accused by many of his opponents of atheism. Hobbes tried to prove that the accusation was unfounded. But if it would be wrong to consider Hobbes an open atheist preaching atheism, then one can rightly assert that his teaching leads to atheism and that therefore his haters had every reason to consider his philosophy as atheistic.
Where does Hobbes see the roots of religion? The roots of religion, according to Hobbes, lie in man's fear for his future, the fear of the future encourages people to look for the causes of things and phenomena, because "knowledge of them allows people to arrange the present better and in such a way that it serves them more for their benefit." Two roads lead from here: one leads to the recognition of the existence of a higher power, which we call God; the other to the creation in the imagination of many gods, who should not only explain to us the cause of the objects and phenomena of the world, but also help us get the necessary objects if they are useful to us, and avoid them if they can harm us. Looking into the cause of things, people come to the conclusion that there must be an ultimate cause, which in itself has no cause. This last reason people call God. But this idea of a cause is only an abstract mental conclusion; people cannot have any idea of this last cause.
In most cases, ignorance of the nature of things and phenomena makes people believe that these phenomena are caused by some unknown, mysterious force. Since phenomena cause pleasure or pain to people, it is clear that they want to know what is the force that comprehensively influences their life, and they therefore invent all sorts of mysterious forces on which they depend. And "this fear of invisible and inexplicable things is the natural seed of what we call religion."
The gods, says Hobbes, are nothing but the creation of our imagination, and there is no thing with a name that would not be considered by people as a god or a devil. Hobbes' main ideas can be briefly summarized as follows: Fear of the future is the root of religion. Ignorance, that is, ignorance of the causes of the phenomenon, and the tendency to see mysterious forces and unknown spirits everywhere, is the main cause of religious beliefs and religious cult.Conscious deception and consolidation of ignorance among peoples, as The best way to keep them in obedience - all the activity of the ministers of religion boils down to this.
Such views on religion lead directly to atheism, and no matter how Hobbes emphasizes that he is talking only about pagan religions, and not about revealed religions, it is obvious to everyone that he is talking about all religions. We can safely say that Hobbes comes close to understanding religion and religious cults of that time, as a tool for submission.
We have already seen that Hobbes believes that the church should in any case be subject to state authority. Religion - not as a faith, but as a religion - is also entirely dependent on the state. According to Hobbes, religion is a superstition recognized by the state. Hobbes considers the church's claim to dictate its will to the state harmful, leading to anarchy and the return of society to its original state of war against everyone.
Some elements of Hobbes's doctrine of natural law also had a significant influence on the development of economic thought, which found its development in England of those times. First of all, this refers to the teachings of Hobbes about "war against all." Economic questions, in the narrow sense of the word, Hobbes paid relatively little attention in his writings. He touched on them insofar as they were connected with his general political theory. But they, however, deserve a comprehensive understanding and analysis, like any other aspects of the philosophical theory of Hobbes. The economic thoughts of Hobbes are mainly set out in his work Leviathan.
His economic views and utterances deal mainly with questions of value and money, two central issues philosophical problems attracted the attention of most early economists. I will try to quote the most characteristic statements of Thomas Hobbes, written by him in his Leviathan:
“As for the abundance of substances,” writes Hobbes, “nature limits them to products that God usually either bestows on humanity free of charge, or is sold for labor. from the labor and diligence of people."
In his book On the Citizen, Hobbes writes: “Two things are necessary for the enrichment of citizens: labor and thrift. A third thing is also useful, namely, the natural products of the earth and sea. The fourth source is war, which sometimes increases the wealth of citizens, but more often war only reduces it. Only the first two things are necessary, for even states that do not have a cultivated area can enrich themselves at the expense of well-developed trade and industry alone.
“The value or value of a man, as well as of all other things, writes Hobbes, is his price, that is, it is as much as the benefit and useful result can be obtained as a result of using his power or his intellectual abilities, and therefore it does not have of an absolute character, and does not depend on the needs and judgment of others.Man's labor is a commodity which, like any other thing, can be exchanged for rewards, and there were states which, possessing a territory in the amount only necessary for settlement, not only preserved However, they did not think their strength, but also increased them partly through the labor expended on trade between different regions, partly by selling manufactured goods from materials brought from other regions. In these sayings of Thomas Hobbes, we see the labor theory of value, which received its first expression from a student of Hobbes - no less famous philosopher Thierry. The statements of the philosopher in his work "Behemoth" are extremely interesting.
It is built in the form of a dialogue between two interlocutors discussing the causes of civil war and other turmoil that arises in the state: “In the event of rebellions under the pretext of oppression,” says the first interlocutor, “the big capitals are necessarily on the side of the rebels; for oppression is usually caused by taxes, and the townspeople, i.e. the merchants, engaged by profession in the pursuit of private profits, are by nature natural enemies of taxes, since all their pride lies in enriching themselves without limit through the art of buying and selling.
“But they say that of all professions, this is the most useful for society, since merchants give work to poor people.
“That means,” replies the first interlocutor, “that they force poor people to sell their labor to them at a price that is set by themselves, the merchants, so that usually these poor people could receive a better maintenance by working in a workhouse in Bradnamele than by spinning, weaving, and other similar works done by them, the only way they can help themselves a little is by their careless work, to the shame of our manufactories. ratings to date.
Chapter 2. What is a state? Its essence and mechanism.
1. Why does the state arise? 1.1.Natural state and natural laws.
So, the first question, which would be logical to consider, can be formulated as follows - How does the state arise? What are the reasons for its occurrence?
Thomas Hobbes answers this question in the following way. By virtue of their natural qualities, each person strives for the maximum satisfaction of his needs. In the absence of the state, there are no rules that would limit the individual, and every person without limitation has the right to everything, which inevitably entails such a state, which Hobbes calls "the war of all against all." After all, if every person has the right to everything, and the abundance around us is limited, then the rights of one person will inevitably collide with the same rights of another. Violence and oppression of some by others arise - this is, and there is a "war of all against all." Each seeks to destroy the other in order to make room for themselves. In this state, homo homini lupus est - man is a wolf to man. This state is dominated by:
selfishness;
thirst for power and profit;
enmity towards each other.
Hobbes is ready to argue as much as he likes with those who claim that people are social beings and can initially live in peace with each other, like, for example, ants and bees, perfectly doing without a state. The fact is that:
1. People constantly compete with each other, seeking ranks and honor, therefore, envy and hatred arise;
2. In animals (ants, bees), the common good coincides with the good of each individual. But the man, whose self-gratification consists in comparing himself with others, can only taste that which elevates him above the rest;
3. Not possessing reason, these beings do not see and do not think about errors in the management of their common affairs, and among people there are many who consider themselves wiser and strive to reform the social system, thereby introducing disorder and civil war into the state;
4. And, finally, the consent of these beings is conditioned by nature, and people - by agreement. Therefore, in order to make this agreement permanent and lasting, a general authority is needed to keep people in fear and direct them towards the common good.
In such a situation, a person risks losing the main good - his own life. The very existence of humanity is threatened.
Such detailed description the state of nature is given by Hobbes only in order to convince people of the need to establish and unconditionally submit to state power. Since the existence of man is always associated with some kind of inconvenience, but even the greatest oppression that state power can bring is nothing compared to the chaos that reigns in the state of nature.
Man instinctively strives to prevent a constant struggle in order to save life. The tool for the implementation of these aspirations is the mind. Natural laws arise, that is, general rules found by the mind, according to which a person is forbidden to do what is harmful to his life and what deprives him of the means to preserve it, and to neglect what he considers the best means to preserve life. Hobbes singled out several such laws:
The general rule of reason is that every person must seek peace if he can achieve it, but if he cannot achieve it, then he has the right to use any means that give advantages in war.
Part 1 - The first natural law - one should seek peace and follow it - this is the natural way to end the war.
2nd part - natural right - the right to defend oneself by all possible means. By this Hobbes says how to achieve peace.
The second natural law is that if other people agree, a person must agree to give up the right to all things to the extent necessary in the interests of peace and self-defense. And be content with such a degree of freedom in relation to other people, which he would allow from other people in relation to himself.
In other words, quod tibi fieri non vis, alteri ne feceris - what you don't want for yourself, don't do to others.
The natural law is justice, namely, people must fulfill the agreements they have concluded. Justice is born only here on this basis. But these laws themselves are still not enough to build a society, a power is needed that will force them to be observed, otherwise they are just words that cannot guarantee the safety of a person, and he defends it himself - a war of all against all.
1.2 Social contract
So Hobbes approached the creation of the state. So, what is needed is a general power that keeps people in fear and is directed towards the common good. Such power can be established in only one way, namely, by concentrating all power and strength in one person or in an assembly of people, which, by a majority of votes, could reduce all the Wills of citizens into a single will. Without this will various people are opposite. They do not help, but interfere with each other and reduce their strength to zero in front of the enemy, and without this, they are waging war for their private interests. This clearly does not contribute to the preservation of the life of each individual person.
So, this concentration of power is more than agreement or unanimity - it is a real unity, embodied in one person through an agreement made by each person with each other, in such a way as if each said to the other: “I empower this person or this collection of persons and I give him my right to govern myself, on the condition that you in the same way give him your right and authorize all his actions.
A multitude of people united in this way is the state. A state is a single person, for the actions of which a huge multitude of people have made themselves responsible for the actions by mutual agreement among themselves, so that this person can use the strength and means of all of them in such a way as he considers necessary for their peace and common defense.
The bearer of this person is the sovereign - he has supreme power. The rest of the people are subjects of the sovereign.
Thomas Hobbes calls the states arising from a voluntary agreement, based on the establishment or political states. States that come into being with the help of physical force, the thinker refers to those based on acquisition; He doesn't show much regard for them. And in this classification of states, Hobbes' dislike for the English pre-revolutionary feudal-monarchical order is also visible.
Whatever varieties and forms of the state are discussed, the sovereign power in it, according to Hobbes, is always absolute, that is, it is unlimited: it is as extensive as it can be imagined. The one to whom the supreme power is handed over (transferred) is not bound either by civil law or by any of the citizens. The sovereign himself makes and repeals laws, declares war and makes peace, resolves and resolves disputes, appoints officials, and so on. The prerogatives of the sovereign are indivisible and not transferable to anyone. “To divide the power of the state means to destroy it, since the divided powers mutually destroy each other.” The power of the sovereign is in fact his monopoly on the life and death of his subjects; Moreover, “everything that the supreme leader does in relation to the subject under any pretext, cannot be considered injustice or lawlessness in the proper sense.” Citizens have no rights in relation to the supreme power, and therefore it cannot rightfully be destroyed by people who agreed to establish it.
Thomas Hobbes understood that the approach he proposed to determine the size of the powers of the sovereign, the volume of the content of absolute power, could turn people away from it. He, however, assures: “There is nothing painful in absolute power, except for the fact that human institutions cannot exist without some inconvenience. And these inconveniences depend on the citizens, not on the authorities.” Hobbes peculiarly rejects the opinion that unlimited power must lead to many bad consequences. His main argument is that the absence of such power (turning into a continuous “war of all against all”) is fraught with much worse consequences. As the theoretician of political absolutism T. Hobbes, the possibility of tyrannical use of the unlimited and uncontrolled power of the state worries much less than unbridled conflicts of private interests and the confusion of social anarchy they generate.
2. What is the state? Its essence and mechanism for the implementation of its functions. 2.1 Rights and obligations of the sovereign. Obligations and freedom of subjects.
The writings of Hobbes speak of "the duties of the sovereign." All of them, according to the thinker, are contained in one provision: the good of the people is the highest law. The duty of the sovereign, according to Hobbes, is to govern the people well, for the state is established not for its own sake, but for the sake of the citizens. These formulas are full of political wisdom and humanism. But within the framework of the teachings of T. Hobbes on the state, they look more like decorative inserts - beautiful-hearted and practically meaningless phrases. The fact is that, according to Hobbes, people who already exercise supreme power are not in any real dependence on the people and therefore do not bear any obligation to them. Rulers only experience something subjective "in relation to reason, which is a natural, moral and divine law, and to which they must obey in everything, as far as possible." Since Hobbes does not allow the creation of appropriate social and legal institutions that would make such obedience to the sovereign from outside, it generally seems chimerical. This is completely in the spirit of the ideologists of absolutism - to entrust the care of order in society to the apparatus, civil laws, to all the real physical power of the state, and to leave care for the well-being of the people at the mercy of the "good will" of the rulers.
The state is established when a plurality of people agree and make an agreement, each with each, that in order to establish peace among them and protect against others, each of them will recognize as his own actions and judgments of that person or assembly of people to whom the majority gives the right to represent everyone. From this flow all the rights and duties of the one or those to whom the supreme power and subjects have been transferred by agreement of the people:
1. Subjects cannot change the form of government;
2. Supreme power cannot be lost;
3. No one can, without violating justice, protest against the establishment of a sovereign;
4. Subjects cannot condemn the actions of the sovereign. He who is authorized by another cannot commit an unlawful act towards him by whom he is authorized;
5. Any sovereign is not punishable by subjects. Every subject is responsible for the actions of his sovereign, therefore, in punishing the sovereign, he is punishing another for the actions of himself;
6. Sovereign judge in matters of what is necessary for peace and the protection of his subjects. The right to a goal gives the right to the means to achieve the goal. He is also a judge as to what doctrines should be taught to the subjects;
7. The right to prescribe rules to subjects, by which everyone knows exactly what is his property, that no one else can, without violating justice, take it away from him. These rules about property, about good and evil, regular and illegal - are civil laws;
8. The sovereign also has judicial power and the right to decide disputes. Without this, laws are empty words;
9. The right to declare war and make peace;
10. The right to choose all advisers and ministers, both civilian and military. The end justifies the means to achieve it.
These rights are indivisible, since a kingdom divided within itself cannot be preserved. There can be no granting of the rights of the sovereign without a direct renunciation of the sovereignty. The power and honor of the subjects disappear in the presence of the supreme power. Since this huge sphere of competence is indivisible and inseparable from the supreme power. Sovereignty is not so harmful as the absence of it, and harm occurs when the majority finds it difficult to submit to the minority.
Duties of a Sovereign. Ensuring the welfare of the people - all the duties of the sovereign follow from this:
1. Through education and laws. The fulfillment of this duty implies not only the care of individuals, but also the making and application of good laws;
2. To renounce any of his essential rights is contrary to the duty of the sovereign. As well as leaving the people in the dark about their foundations. Since the abolition of the essential rights of supreme power would entail the disintegration of the state and the return of each person to the state and disasters of the war of all against all, it is the duty of the sovereign to retain these rights in full;
3. Uniform taxation. Equal justice also includes equal taxation, the equality of which does not depend on the equality of wealth, but on the equality of the debt of every person to the state for his protection;
4. State charity. If many people, through unavoidable accidents, have become unable to support themselves by their labor, then they should not be left to private charity, but the necessities of existence should be provided to them by the laws of the state;
5. Good laws - that is, those that are necessary for the good of the people and at the same time are generally understood;
6. Punishment;
7. Awards;
8. Appointment of commanders.
Freedom of subjects. Freedom means the absence of resistance (an external obstacle to movement). A free man, according to Thomas Hobbes, is one to whom nothing prevents him from doing what he wants. Civil laws are artificial bonds that restrict freedom. The freedom of subjects consists only in those things which the sovereign, in regulating their actions, has passed over in silence. Different states have different degrees of freedom. The freedom of the subject does not abolish or limit the power of the sovereign over the life and death of his subjects. The freedom that writers praise is the freedom of sovereigns - in the international arena - the war of all against all, and so freedom is the same in democracy and in a monarchy.
In the act of submission, both our obligation and our freedom are included.
Subjects have the freedom to defend their lives even against those who legally encroach on it (some rights cannot be alienated by agreement);
They don't have to hurt themselves;
Even in war, if they have not made a voluntary commitment to fight.
But no one has the freedom to resist the state in order to protect another person, guilty and innocent. The greatest freedom of subjects comes from the silence of the law. If a subject has any dispute with the sovereign, and this is based on a previously issued law, then the subject is not so free to pursue his right, as if it were a lawsuit with another subject. The duties of subjects also include:
understand the futility of changing the form of government;
not to give preference to any popular person as opposed to the sovereign;
have time to study one's duty to the sovereign
In all political matters the power of the representatives is limited, and its limits are prescribed by the supreme power.
2.2. State employees.
"Who is a public servant?" Hobbes asks himself. And he himself answers that a civil servant is one to whom the sovereign entrusts a certain range of affairs with the authority to represent the face of the state in it. The civil servants are not those who serve the holder of the sovereignty in his natural capacity, but only those who serve the sovereign in the direction of the affairs of state. Hobbes identifies several types of ministers:
1. Ministers for general administration. Some of the civil servants are entrusted with the general administration or the whole state, or only a part of it. These ministers are protectors, regents, governors;
2. Ministers for special administration, such as for managing the household. That is, they are entrusted with a special range of cases within the country or abroad. They are entrusted with the management of the state economy, the collection and receipt of taxes, duties, land taxes and quitrents, all other state revenues, as well as control over these articles;
3. Ministers for the instruction of the people. The servants of the sovereignty are also those who have the authority to teach, or to enable others to teach the people their duties towards the sovereignty;
4. Ministers for the administration of justice;
5. Ministers of Enforcement - These are the servants who carry out the execution of judgments, promulgate the sovereign's commands, suppress riots, arrest and imprison criminals, and perform other acts for the preservation of peace.
2.3 Civil laws.
Civil laws are laws that people are obliged to observe not as members of a particular state, but as members of a state in general. The law in general is the command of a person, addressed to the one who previously undertook to obey this person. The civil law for every subject are those rules which the state orally, in writing, or by other sufficiently clear signs of its will, prescribes to him, so that he uses them to distinguish between right and wrong, that is, between what agrees and what is inconsistent with the rule.
1. The sovereign is the legislator. Only he can repeal the law;
2. The sovereign is not himself subject to civil laws - for he is free who can become free at will;
3. Practice derives the force of law, not from the length of time, but from the consent of the sovereign;
4. Natural and civil laws coincide in content. For natural laws, which consist in impartiality, justice, and so on, in the state of nature are not laws in the proper sense of the word, but only qualities that dispose people to peace and obedience. Only when the state is established, and not before, do they really become laws, for then they are the orders of the state. Civil and natural law are not different types, but different parts of the law, of which one (the written part) is called civil, the other (unwritten) is called natural;
5. The laws of a province are not made by custom, but by the power of the sovereign. If the sovereign of one state has conquered a people who previously lived under the rule of written laws, continues to rule according to the same laws even after the conquest, then these laws are the civil laws of the conqueror, and not of the conquered state;
6. Law is established not by juris prudentia, or the wisdom of subordinate ideas, but by the reason and command of an artificial man, the state;
7. The law is the law only for those who are able to understand it;
8. All unwritten laws are natural laws. Natural laws - do not need any publication or proclamation - they are contained in one proclamation recognized by all: do not do to another what you would consider unreasonable on the part of another in relation to yourself;
9. With the exception of natural laws, all other laws have as their essential feature that they are brought to the attention of every person who will obey them either orally, or in writing, or by any other act known to proceed from the supreme authority. Nothing is law when the legislator is unknown;
10. The interpretation of the law depends on the supreme power, for otherwise a clever interpreter could give the law a meaning opposite to that put into the law by the sovereign, and thus the interpreter would turn out to be the legislator. All laws need interpretation;
And weapons. Such a state of states, Hobbes emphasizes, should be considered natural, "because they are not subject to any common authority, and the unstable peace between them is soon broken." It is obvious that the era in which he lived gave great attention to the views of Hobbes. At that time, continuous and bloody wars were waged by European states. Despite this, there were thinkers who, in the same ...
2. logical-theoretical, 3. structural-functional. These methods served as a methodology in the course of the study of this topic. Chapter 2. The main points of the political concept of Hobbes 2.1 The origin of the state The political theory of Hobbes was directed against the scholastic feudal-religious views on the state and law. Ideologically focused on...