Solovyov's political and legal views. Political and legal views of V.S. Political views of S.M. Solovyov

The historian Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov (1820-1879) was close to this school. This is a large figure in BI from a family of a priest, all his life was connected with the study and teaching of history. As a child, I read Karamzin's IGR several times. Entered Moscow State University, studied with Pogodin, reading his library. After graduating, he taught at Moscow State University, headed the department after Pogodin, was dean of the Faculty of History, rector of Moscow State University. He was buried at the Novodevichy cemetery.

Political views of S.M. Solovyov

According to his political views, he is a supporter of the bourgeois monarchy, peaceful reforms and peaceful resolution of conflicts. The philosophical basis of the views is the ideas of Hegel.

1855 - defense master's thesis"On the attitude of Novgorod to the great princes"

Doctoral - "the history of relations between the princes of the Rurik house."

Since 1851, he worked on the work "The History of Russia from Ancient Times" (1 volume per year, worked until his death). By the end of life - 29 volumes. He brought the presentation to the end of the 18th century. There is no equal work for him. He also acted as a historiographer - he wrote "The Writers of Russian History of the 18th Century."

He explained the historical process by internal patterns (everything is natural and necessary). The driving force is the government, which represents its people. He denied the originality of Russian history, while recognizing its originality. He argued that, unlike the West, there was no feudalism in Russia, the Russians lived in peculiar geographical conditions (in the west, the territory is divided into isolated parts by mountains, and in Russia the plain led to greater mobility of the Russian people - the colonization of new territories was vital). In addition, Russia waged a constant struggle with the nomads - another specificity (this is the struggle of the forest with the steppe). These 2 factors determined the need for a strong state.

His history was also based on the theory of development from clan to state. Periodization: the development of the state and the degree of Europeanization - identified the stages:

IX - ser. XII - the dominance of tribal relations

· Wed XII - the end of the XVI centuries. - the transition of tribal relations into state

The beginning of the 17th century - turmoil that threatened the destruction of the state

· XVII - 1 | 2 XVIII centuries. - the state is cleared of enemies. Elected ruler of all the earth

· Wed. XVIII - cf. XIX - the need to borrow the fruits of European civilization

· Wed. 19th century - a new era when enlightenment brought its results

The structure of the chapters in the presentation: the political system - the position of the ruling stratum - the economy - the state of the producing class - the church - legislation - education.

A wealth of factual material in 29 volumes. He wrote that the influence of the Normans was insignificant, but in his opinion. They brought statehood and class division. He denied feudalism in Russia, although he studied in detail the period of feudal fragmentation. He denied the influence of the Mongol-Tatatras on the development of statehood, but also underestimated the consequences of the yoke. He associated the fall of the yoke with the creation of a strong state (he presented the process, but did not reveal the socio-economic prerequisites, reduced everything to the activities of the princes). He emphasized the regularity of Grozny's policy. The registration of serfdom took place under Fyodor Ivanovich - a forced measure caused by the needs of the state. He spoke of the futility of turmoil.

After 1861 his work became more mature. It was at this time that 19 volumes were published. In the post-reform period, he wrote a number of monographs: “Public readings about Peter the Great”, “History of the fall of Poland”, “Emperor Alexander I, politician and diplomacy”.

He came to the conclusion that the government of Alexander II failed to manage the course of reforms, and the evil of serfdom was replaced by the evil of freedom. Under these conditions, Russia needs a strong government capable of preventing a revolution. He considered Peter I to be the ideal of such power. Solovyov considered the appearance of Peter in the arena and his reforms to be natural and necessary. Reforms were needed before, but the conditions were such that the government was forced to enslave the peasants. Peter Solovyov compares the reforms with the French Revolution of the 18th century. He gave preference to reforms, not revolution. The wise monarch himself led the revolution from above.

Solovyov was one of the first to expound the history of Russia in the 17th-18th centuries. He sometimes walked on virgin soil (as did Miller).

He described the history of the post-Petrine period as the consequences of the Peter's reforms. Solovyov did not bring his presentation to Pugachev's peasant war, but in textbooks on Russian history he assessed it sharply negatively, since he considered speeches to be purely local and harmful. In his opinion, any nation throws out a restless element that rebels. In Russia, the instigator is the Cossacks - the main cause of peasant revolts.

Solovyov's work is colossal, but he described only Russian history (there is no place for non-Russian small peoples - this is the history of indigenous Russia). This is the pinnacle of bourgeois historiography.

Solovyov was repeatedly reprinted even in the 30s and Soviet times.

V. S. Solovyov (1853–1900), the main work is the dissertation "Crisis in Western philosophy. Against positivism.

In discussing the problems of organized theocracy (“divine-human theocratic state”), Solovyov singles out three elements of its social structure:

1) priests (part of God);

2) princes and chiefs (the active-human part);

3) the people of the earth (the passive-human part).

Political organizations in Solovyov's view are primarily a natural-human good, as necessary for our life as our physical organism. Christianity gives us the highest good, the spiritual good, and at the same time does not take away from us the lower natural goods - "and does not pull out from under our feet the ladder we are walking on."

Here the Christian state and Christian politics are of particular importance.

"The Christian state, if it does not remain an empty name, must have a certain difference from the pagan state, even though they, as states, have the same foundation and a common foundation." There is a moral necessity for the state. In addition to the general and above the traditional protective task that each state provides, the Christian state has also a progressive task - to improve the conditions of this existence, contributing to "the free development of all human forces, which should become bearers of the coming Kingdom of God."

The rule of true progress consists in the fact that the state as little as possible embarrasses inner world of a person, leaving him to the free spiritual action of the Church, and as fully and widely as possible provided external conditions for a worthy existence and improvement of people.

The right of freedom is based on the very essence of man and must be provided from the outside by the state. The degree of realization of this right is something that entirely depends on internal conditions, on the degree of moral consciousness achieved.

Solovyov's understanding of the law, in addition to a general respect for the idea of law, is characterized by the desire to single out and shade moral value law, legal institutions and principles.

Right - is "the lowest limit or some minimum of morality, equally obligatory for all."

For Solovyov, natural law is not some kind of isolated law that historically precedes positive law. Natural law in Solovyov, like in Comte, is a formal idea of law, rationally derived from the general principles of philosophy.

Natural law embodies the "rational essence of law", and positive law embodies the historical manifestation of law. The latter is legal, realized depending on the state of moral consciousness in a given society and on other historical conditions.

Natural law is reduced to two factors - freedom and equality, that is, it is the algebraic formula of any law, its rational (reasonable essence).

Freedom is the necessary substratum, and equality is its necessary formula. The goal of a normal society and law is the public good. This goal is a general one, and not only a collective one (not the sum of individual goals). A common goal in its essence unites everyone and everyone. At the same time, the connection of everyone and everyone takes place thanks to solidarity actions in achieving a common goal. The right to strive to realize justice, but the desire is only a general tendency, the “logos” and the meaning of law.

Positive law embodies and implements general tendencies in specific form. Law (justice) is in such a relationship with religious morality (love), in which the state and the church are.

Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov (1853–1900) left a noticeable mark in the discussion of many topical issues of his time, such as law and morality, the Christian state, human rights, as well as attitudes towards socialism, Slavophilism, Old Believers, revolution, and the fate of Russia. In his master's thesis "The Crisis in Western Philosophy. Against Positivism" (1881), he largely relied on the critical generalizations of I. V. Kireevsky, on his synthesis of philosophical and religious ideas, on the idea of the integrity of life, although he did not share his messianic motives and opposition Russian Orthodoxy of all Western thought. His own critique of Western European rationalism was also based on the arguments of some European thinkers.

Subsequently, the philosopher softened the general assessment of positivism, which at one time became not just a fashion in Russia, but, in addition, an object of idolatry. As a result, "only half of his teaching was given out as a whole Comte, and the other - and, according to the teacher, more significant, final - was hushed up." Comte's doctrine contained, according to Solovyov's conclusion, "a grain of great truth" (the idea of humanity), however, truth "falsely conditioned and one-sidedly expressed" (The Idea of Humanity by August Comte, 1898).

Vl. Solovyov eventually became perhaps the most authoritative representative of Russian philosophy, including the philosophy of law, who did a lot to substantiate the idea that law, legal convictions are absolutely necessary for moral progress. At the same time, he sharply dissociated himself from Slavophile idealism, based on "an ugly mixture of fantastic perfections with bad reality" and from the moralistic radicalism of L. Tolstoy, flawed primarily by the total denial of law.

Being a patriot, at the same time he came to the conviction of the need to overcome national egoism and messianism. "Russia possesses, perhaps, important and original spiritual powers, but in order to manifest them, in any case, it needs to accept and actively assimilate those universal forms of life and knowledge that have been developed by Western Europe. Our extra-European and anti-European originality has always been and is an empty claim; to renounce this claim is for us the first and necessary condition of all success.

Among the positive social forms of life in Western Europe, he attributed the rule of law, although for him it was not the final embodiment of human solidarity, but only a step towards the highest form of communication. In this matter, he clearly departed from the Slavophiles, whose views he initially shared.

His attitude to the ideal of theocracy developed differently, in the discussion of which he paid tribute to his passion for the idea of a universal theocracy under the rule of Rome and with the participation of autocratic Russia. In discussing the problems of organizing a theocracy ("God-human theocratic society") Solovyov singles out three elements of its social structure: priests (part God), princes and chiefs (the active-human part) and the people of the earth (the passive-human part). Such a division, according to the philosopher, naturally follows from the need historical process and constitutes the organic form of a theocratic society, and this form "does not violate the internal essential equality of all from an unconditional point of view" (ie, the equality of all in their human dignity). The need for personal leaders of the people is due to the "passive nature of the masses" (History and the future of theocracy. Study of the world-historical path to true life. 1885-1887). Later, the philosopher experienced the collapse of his hopes associated with the idea of theocracy.

More fruitful and promising were his discussions of social Christianity and Christian politics. Here he actually continued the development of the liberal doctrine of the Westerners. Solovyov believed that true Christianity should be public, that together with individual soul salvation, it requires social activity, social reforms. This characteristic formed the main initial idea of his moral doctrine and moral philosophy (Justification of the Good. 1897).

Political organization in Solovyov's view is primarily a natural-human good, just as necessary for our life as our physical organism. Christianity gives us the highest good, the spiritual good, and at the same time does not take away from us the lower natural goods - "and does not pull out from under our feet the ladder on which we are walking" (Justification of the Good).

Here, the Christian state and Christian politics are called upon to have special significance. "The Christian state, if it does not remain an empty name, must have a certain difference from the pagan state, even if they, as states, have the same foundation and a common foundation." There is, emphasizes the philosopher, the moral necessity of the state. Beyond the general and beyond the traditional protective task that every state provides (to protect the foundations of communication, without which humanity could not exist), the Christian state also has a progressive task - to improve the conditions of this existence, contributing to "the free development of all human forces that should become bearers of the coming kingdom of God."

The rule of true progress consists in the fact that the state should constrain the inner world of a person as little as possible, leaving it to the free spiritual action of the church, and at the same time, as accurately and widely as possible, provide external conditions "for a worthy existence and improvement of people."

Another important aspect political, organization and life is the nature of the relationship between the state and the church. Here, Solovyov traces the contours of a concept that would later be called the concept of a welfare state. It is the state that, according to the philosopher, should become the main guarantor in ensuring the right of every person to a worthy existence. The normal relationship between church and state finds its expression in the "permanent agreement of their highest representatives" - the primate and the king. "Next to these bearers of unconditional authority and unconditional power, there must be in society a carrier of unconditional freedom - a person. This freedom cannot belong to the crowd, it cannot be an "attribute of democracy" - a person must "earn true freedom through inner achievement."

The right of freedom is based on the very essence of man and must be provided from the outside by the state. True, the degree of realization of this right is something that entirely depends on internal conditions, on the degree of moral consciousness achieved. The French Revolution had an undeniably valuable experience in this area, which was associated with the "declaration of human rights." This announcement was historically new in relation not only to ancient world and the Middle Ages, but also later Europe. But this revolution had two faces - "the proclamation of human rights first, and then the unheard of systematic violation of all such rights by the revolutionary authorities." Of the two principles - "man" and "citizen", incoherently, according to Solovyov, compared side by side, instead of subordinating the second to the first, the lower principle ("citizen"), as more concrete and visual, turned out to be in fact stronger and soon "overshadowed supreme, and then swallowed up out of necessity." It was impossible to add the phrase “and the citizen” after “human rights” in the formula of human rights, since in this way heterogeneous things were mixed up and “conditional” was put on the same level. With unconditional". It is impossible in one's right mind to say even to a criminal or a mentally ill person, "You are not a man!", but it is much easier to say, "Yesterday you were a citizen." (The idea of humanity is from August Comte.)

Solovyov's legal understanding, in addition to a general respect for the idea of law (law as a value), is also characterized by the desire to highlight and shade the moral value of law, legal institutions and principles. Such a position is reflected in his very definition of law, according to which law is primarily "the lowest limit or some minimum of morality, equally mandatory for everyone" (Law and Morality. Essays on Applied Ethics. 1899).

Natural law for him is not some kind of isolated natural law that historically precedes positive law. It does not constitute a moral criterion for the latter, as, for example, in E. N. Trubetskoy. Natural law in Solovyov, like in Comte, is a formal idea of law, rationally derived from the general principles of philosophy. Natural law and positive law are for him only two different points of view on the same subject.

At the same time, natural law embodies the "rational essence of law", and positive law embodies the historical manifestation of law. The latter is a right realized depending "on the state of moral consciousness in a given society and on other historical conditions." It is clear that these conditions predetermine the features of the constant addition of natural law to positive law.

"Natural law is that algebraic formula under which history substitutes various real values of positive law." Natural law is reduced entirely to two factors - freedom and equality, that is, it, in fact, is an algebraic formula of any law, its rational (reasonable) essence. At the same time, the ethical minimum, which was mentioned earlier, is inherent not only in natural law, but also in positive law.

Freedom is the necessary substratum, and equality is its necessary formula. The goal of a normal society and law is the public good. This goal is a general one, and not only a collective one (not the sum of individual goals). This common goal in its essence unites everyone and everyone internally. At the same time, the connection of everyone and everyone takes place thanks to solidarity actions in achieving a common goal. Law strives to realize justice, but the desire is only a general tendency, "logos" and the meaning of law.

Positive law only embodies and realizes (sometimes not quite perfectly) this general trend in specific forms. Law (justice) is in such a relationship with religious morality (love), in which the state and the church are. At the same time, love is the moral principle of the church, and justice is the moral principle of the state. Law, in contrast to the "norms of love, religion," implies a compulsory requirement for the realization of the minimum good.

"The concept of law by its very nature contains an objective element or a requirement of implementation." It is necessary that the right always had the power to be realized, i.e. that the freedom of others "regardless of my subjective recognition of it or of my personal justice could always in fact limit my freedom on an equal footing with everyone else." Law in its historical dimension appears as "a historically mobile definition of the necessary forced balance of two moral interests - personal freedom and the common good." The same thing in another formulation is revealed as a balance between the formal-moral interest of personal freedom and the material-moral interest of the common good.

Solovyov's understanding of law had a noticeable impact on the legal views of Novgorodtsev, Trubetskoy, Bulgakov, Berdyaev, as well as on the general course of discussions on the relationship between church and state during the "Russian religious renaissance" (the first decade of the 20th century).

Nikolai Aleksandrovich Berdyaev (1874–1948) was one of the authoritative participants in the Russian religious revival at the beginning of the century, the initiator of the creation of the Academy of Spiritual Culture (1918–1922). In 1922 he was expelled from the RSFSR, lived in France, published the journal "The Way" (1925-1940), wrote a lot himself and was published in almost all European and many Eastern languages. He grew up in a military family, originating from an ancient Russian noble family and Tatar families, the count Choiseul family and from the descendants of French kings. For participation in a socialist circle, he was expelled from the University of St. Vladimir in Kyiv and exiled to the Vologda province. In exile he met with B. Savinkov, G. Plekhanov, A. Lunacharsky and other future prominent figures of the revolutionary movement. University education was cut off forever, but Berdyaev managed to become an extremely educated person, he was elected a professor at Moscow University. Having moved from liberal Marxism to the positions of idealism, he turned to the search for a "new path" in religious consciousness and problems of a historiosophical and eschatological nature. He was also engaged in the construction of a peculiar version of personalist philosophy, which made him a recognized authority in the field of the philosophy of existentialism.

Together with S. Bulgakov, P. Struve and S. Frank, Berdyaev was a participant in all three manifestos of Russian idealist philosophers of the first quarter of the century - the collections "Problems of Idealism" (1902), "Milestones" (1909), "From the Depths" (1918) . They are sometimes called manifestos of "vehovstvo". These publications became, in fact, an external fixation of the movement from liberal Marxism through a kind of moral liberalism to a national-patriotic outlook in the spirit of liberal conservatism with its foundations such as religion, idealism, liberalism, patriotism, traditionalism and people's rule.

The main theme of the collection "Milestones", published after the revolution of 1905, focused on the call to break with the traditions of Bakunin, Chernyshevsky, Lavrov and Mikhailovsky, which led the country to the abyss, and return to the objective foundations of Russian history and to the tradition represented by the names of Chaadaev, Dostoevsky and Vl. Solovyov. Berdyaev turned to this topic in subsequent years.

Describing the relationship between Marxism and the Russian revolutionary movement, which he often also refers to as Russian communism, Berdyaev in his 1929 pamphlet "Marxism and religion (Religion as an instrument of domination and exploitation)" wrote that Marxism is in any case "a very serious phenomenon in historical destinies At the same time, he believed that “classical Marxism is very outdated and does not correspond at all to modern social reality, or to the modern level of scientific and philosophical knowledge". Marxism claims to be an integral worldview, answering all the basic questions of life, giving the meaning of life. It is politics, and morality, and science, and philosophy. It is religion - new religion replacing the Christian one. Marxism is inspired and inspired by the growth of the organized power of the social collective over the world. Unlike Russian populist socialism, which was inspired by compassion for the people and sacrifice for the sake of their liberation and salvation, Marxist socialism, according to Berdyaev, is inspired by the strength and power over the world on the part of the proletariat. The organized proletariat, strong and dominating the world, is the earthly God who must replace the Christian God and kill all the old religious beliefs". The messianic role of the proletariat constitutes the basic myth of Marxism. The nightmare of Russian Marxism lies primarily in the fact that it brings death with it human freedom. Communism is a denial not only of God, but also of man, and both of these denials are interconnected.

Berdyaev called the theme of power and the justification of the state a "very Russian theme" and agreed with K. Leontiev that Russian statehood with strong power was created thanks to the Tatar and German elements. Developing this theme in The Origins and Meaning of Russian Communism (1937), Berdyaev wrote that in Russian history we see "five different Russias" - Russia of Kyiv, Russia of the Tatar period, Moscow Russia, Petrine Russia, imperial and, finally, new, Soviet Russia. He considered it very characteristic that anarchism as a theory and practice was the creation of mainly Russians, and the anarchist ideology itself was predominantly created by the highest stratum of the Russian nobility - such was the main and most extreme anarchist Bakunin, such is Prince Kropotkin and the religious anarchist Count L. Tolstoy.

The evil and sin of any power, Berdyaev believed, Russians feel more strongly than Western people. But the contradiction between Russian anarchism and love for freedom and Russian obedience to the state, the consent of the people to serve the formation of a huge empire, may surprise. The growth of state power, sucking all the juice out of the people, had the reverse side of the Russian freemen, the departure from the state, physical or spiritual. The Russian schism is the main phenomenon of Russian history. On the basis of the split, anarchist currents were formed. The same was true in Russian sectarianism. Leaving the state was justified by the fact that there was no truth in it, it was not Christ who triumphed, but the Antichrist.

Russian communism in Soviet Russia, according to Berdyaev, was a perversion of the Russian messianic idea. Russian communism asserts light from the East, which must enlighten the bourgeois darkness of the West. Communism has its truth and its lie. Truth is social, revealing the possibility of the brotherhood of people and peoples, overcoming classes; lies - in the spiritual foundations, which lead to the process of dehumanization, to the denial of the value of every person, to the narrowing of human consciousness, which has already been observed in Russian nihilism. Communism is a Russian phenomenon, despite the Marxist ideology. "Communism is Russian destiny, a moment of the inner destiny of the Russian people. And it must be outlived by the internal forces of the Russian people. Communism must be overcome, not destroyed. The truth of communism must enter the highest stage, which will come after communism, but freed from lies The Russian revolution awakened and unfettered the enormous forces of the Russian people. This is its main meaning."

Revolutionism, according to Berdyaev, consists in the radical destruction of the rotten, false and bad past, but it is impossible to destroy the eternally valuable, genuine in the past. Thus, the most valuable positive features of a Russian person, discovered by him during the years of revolution and war, – extraordinary sacrifice, endurance to suffering, the spirit of community (social life) - these are Christian traits developed by Christianity. The opposite of such a revolution is a revolutionary utopia, which, unfortunately, also has a chance to become a reality. "Utopias, unfortunately, are feasible. And, perhaps, the time will come when humanity will puzzle over how to get rid of utopias." The last thought captivated the famous English creator of dystopian novels, Aldous Huxley, who took it as the epigraph to the novel This Fearless New World.

Berdyaev entered the history of Russian political thought the recipient of the traditions of socio-critical philosophy, which has always been distinguished in its best examples by increased sensitivity to the diseases of the century and its social environment. In the first half of the century, many studied Russia according to Berdyaev, and he himself was called either an apostle, or a prisoner of freedom, or a rebellious prophet, intolerant of servility and compromise. He himself admitted that all his life he had been fighting for freedom and that all the clashes with people and directions occurred because of his freedom.

Berdyaev outlined his political credo in the chapter of his autobiography devoted to the issues of revolution and socialism. “The entire political structure of this world,” he wrote, “is designed for the average, ordinary, mass person, in whom there is nothing creative. The state, objective morality, revolutions and counter-revolutions are based on this. At the same time, there is a divine ray in any liberation. Revolutions "I consider them inevitable. They are fatal in the absence or weakness of creative spiritual forces capable of radically reforming and transforming society. But every state and every revolution, every organization of power falls under the rule of the prince of this world."

Unlike Vl. Solovyov, Berdyaev unequivocally expressed his deep doubts about the possibility of the existence of a "Christian state" for the reason that Christianity itself only "justifies and sanctifies the state" and state power in itself is a phenomenon of the order of "natural, not grace." In addition, any state, by its nature, is also ambiguous - it has a positive mission ("not in vain, providential" meaning) and at the same time it "perverts this very mission with the sinful lust of power and all kinds of untruth" (Philosophy of Inequality. 1923).

Socialism and anarchism - as the last temptations of mankind - eventually "come to non-existence" because of their thirst for equality (socialism), or in their thirst for freedom (anarchism). In this regard, the church (it is called upon to "protect the image of man" from the demons of nature), the state (it "protects the image of man from the bestial elements" and from "transcending all limits of evil will"), the right (it "protects freedom man from the evil will of people and the whole society"), the law (it exposes sin, puts limits on it, "makes possible a minimum of freedom in a sinful human life").

Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov (1853–1900) left a noticeable mark in the discussion of many topical issues of his time - law and morality, the Christian state, human rights, as well as attitudes towards socialism, Slavophilism, Old Believers, the revolution, the fate of Russia.

Vl. Solovyov eventually became perhaps the most authoritative representative of Russian philosophy, incl. philosophy of law, who did a lot to substantiate the idea that law, legal convictions are absolutely necessary for moral progress. Under ϶ᴛᴏm, he sharply dissociated himself from Slavophile idealism, based on "an ugly mixture of fantastic perfections with bad reality" and from the moralistic radicalism of L. Tolstoy, flawed primarily by the total denial of law. Being a patriot, at the same time he came to the conviction of the need to overcome national egoism and messianism. Among the positive social forms of life in Western Europe, he attributed the rule of law, although for him it was not the final embodiment of human solidarity, but only a step towards the highest form of communication. In this question, he clearly departed from the Slavophiles, whose views he initially shared. Fruitful and promising were his discussions of social Christianity and Christian politics. Here he actually continued the development of the liberal doctrine of the Westerners. Solovyov believed that true Christianity should be public, that together with individual soul salvation, it requires social activity, social reforms. By the way, this characteristic was the main initial idea of his moral doctrine and moral philosophy. It is worth saying that the political organization in Soloviev's view is primarily a natural-human good, just as necessary for our life as our physical organism. Here, the Christian state and Christian politics are called upon to have special significance. There is, emphasizes the philosopher, the moral necessity of the state. In addition to the general and above the traditional protective task that every state provides, the Christian state also has a progressive task - to improve the conditions of ϶ᴛᴏth existence, contributing to "the free development of all human forces, which should become the bearers of the coming Kingdom of God."

The rule of true progress lies in the fact that the state would constrain the inner world of a person as little as possible, leaving it to the free spiritual action of the Church, and at the same time, as accurately and widely as possible, provide external conditions "for a worthy existence and improvement of people."

Another important aspect of political organization and life is the nature of the relationship between the state and the church. Here, Solovyov traces the contours of the concept, which will later be called the concept of the welfare state. It is the state that, according to the philosopher, should become the main guarantor in ensuring the right of every person to a worthy existence. The normal relationship between church and state finds its second expression in "the constant agreement of their highest representatives - the high hierarch and the king." Next to these carriers of unconditional authority and unconditional power, there should be in society a carrier of unconditional ϲʙᴏboda - a person. By the way, this ϲʙᴏboda cannot belong to the crowd, it cannot be an “attribute of democracy” – a person must “deserve a real ϲʙᴏboda with an inner feat”.

Solovyov's legal understanding had a noticeable influence on the legal views of Novgorodtsev, Trubetskoy, Bulgakov, and Berdyaev.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

politics right voltaire rousseau era

List of used literature

1. Political and legal doctrine of V.S. Solovyov

Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov (1853-1900) left a prominent mark in the discussion of topical problems of the second half of the 19th century. His directions were: law, morality, the Christian state, human rights, socialism, Slavophilism, Old Believers, revolution and the fate of Russia. In his work Crisis in Western Philosophy. Against Positivism” (1881), he relied on the critical generalizations of I.V. Kireevsky, on his division of philosophical and religious ideas, although he did not share some of his views.

Comte's doctrine contained, according to Solovyov's conclusion, "a grain of great truth" (the idea of humanity), however, the truth is "falsely conditioned and one-sidedly expressed" (The Idea of Humanity by August Comte - 1898) Rubanik S.A. History of political and legal doctrines / S.A. Rubanik. - M.: Yurayt, 2012. - S. 189 ..

Over time, V. Solovyov became perhaps the most authoritative representative of Russian philosophy, including the philosophy of law, who did a lot to substantiate the idea that law, legal convictions are absolutely necessary for moral progress. At the same time, he sharply separated from Slavophile idealism, based on "an ugly mixture of fantastic perfections with bad reality" and from the moralistic radicalism of L. Tolstoy, "flawed primarily by the total denial of law."

He was a patriot and became convinced of the need to overcome national egoism and messianism. “Russia possesses, perhaps, important and original spiritual forces, but in order to manifest them, in any case, it needs to accept and actively assimilate those universal forms of life and knowledge that have been developed by Western Europe. Our extra-European and anti-European identity has always been and is an empty claim; to renounce this claim is for us the first and necessary condition for any success” Solovyov V.S. Three conversations about war, progress and the end of world history / V.S. Solovyov. - M.: Pravo, 2011. - S. 151 ..

His views on the basis of theocracy developed differently, in the discussion of which he paid tribute to his passion for the idea of a universal theocracy under the rule of Rome and with the participation of autocratic Russia. In discussing the problems of organizing a theocracy (“God-human theocratic society”), Solovyov singles out three elements of its social structure: priests (the part of God), princes and chiefs (the active-human part) and the people of the earth (the passive-human part). Such a division, according to the philosopher, naturally follows from the necessity of the historical process and constitutes the organic form of a theocratic society, and this form “does not violate the internal essential equality of all from an unconditional point of view” (i.e., the equality of all in their human dignity). The need for personal leaders of the people is due to the "passive nature of the masses" (History and the future of theocracy. Study of the world-historical path to true life). Further, the philosopher revised his views related to the idea of theocracy Nersesyants V.S. History of political and legal doctrines / M .: Norma, 2012. - P. 120 ..

More productive and developing were his discussions of social Christianity and Christian politics. Here he actually continued the development of the liberal doctrine of the Westerners. Solovyov believed that true Christianity should be public, that together with individual soul salvation, it requires social activity, social reforms. This characteristic formed the main initial idea of his moral doctrine and moral philosophy (Justification of the Good).

Political organization in Solovyov's view: “It is primarily a natural-human good, just as necessary for our life as our physical organism. Christianity gives us the highest good, the spiritual good, and at the same time does not take away from us the lower natural goods - and does not pull out from under our feet the ladder along which we are walking” Solovyov V.S. justification for goodness. Moral philosophy / V.S. Solovyov. - M.: Directmedia Publishing, 2002. - S. 156 ..

Of particular importance in this work is given to the Christian state and Christian politics: "The Christian state, if it does not remain an empty name, must have a certain difference from the pagan state, even though they, as states, have the same foundation and common foundation." There is, emphasizes the philosopher, the moral necessity of the state. Beyond the general and beyond the traditional protective task that every state provides (to protect the foundations of communication, without which mankind could not exist), the Christian state also has a progressive task - to improve the conditions of this existence, contributing to "the free development of all human forces that should become bearers of the coming kingdom of God."

According to V.S. Solovyov, the rule of true progress is that the state should constrain the inner world of a person as little as possible, leaving it to the free spiritual action of the church, and at the same time, as accurately and widely as possible, provide external conditions "for a worthy existence and improvement of people."

Another important aspect of political, organization and life is the nature of the relationship between the state and the church. Here, the philosopher traces the contours of the direction, which will later be called the concept of the welfare state. It is the state that, according to the philosopher, should become the main guarantor in ensuring the right of every person to a worthy existence. The normal relationship between church and state finds its expression in the "permanent agreement of their highest representatives - the primate and the king." Next to these bearers of unconditional authority and unconditional power, there must be in society the bearer of unconditional freedom - a person. This freedom cannot belong to the crowd, it cannot be an “attribute of democracy” - a person must “deserve real freedom with an internal feat” Soloviev V.S. Readings on Godmanhood. Theoretical philosophy / V.S. Soloviev. - M.: Academic Project, 2011. - S. 89 ..

The right of freedom is based on the very essence of man and must be provided from the outside by the state. True, the degree of realization of this right is something that entirely depends on internal conditions, on the degree of moral consciousness achieved. The French Revolution had an undeniably valuable experience in this area, which was associated with the "declaration of human rights." This announcement was historically new in relation not only to the ancient world and the Middle Ages, but also to later Europe. But this revolution had two faces - "the proclamation of human rights first, and then the unheard of systematic violation of all such rights by the revolutionary authorities." Of the two principles - "man" and "citizen", incoherently, according to Solovyov, compared side by side, instead of subordinating the second to the first, the lower principle (citizen), as more concrete and visual, turned out to be in fact stronger and soon "overshadowed the higher, and then devoured as needed.” It was impossible to add the phrase “and the citizen” after “human rights” in the formula of human rights, because in this way the heterogeneous was mixed up and the “conditional with the unconditional” was put on the same board. It is impossible in your right mind to say even to a criminal or a mentally ill person “You are not a man!”, but it is much easier to say “Yesterday you were a citizen” (August Comte’s idea of humanity).

For Solovyov's understanding of law, in addition to a general respect for the idea of law (law as a value), there is also a tendency to highlight and shade the moral value of law, legal institutions and principles. Such a position is reflected in his very definition of law, according to which law is, first of all, “the lowest limit or some minimum of morality, equally mandatory for everyone” (Law and Morality. Essays on Applied Ethics).

Natural law for him is not some kind of isolated natural law that historically precedes positive law. Natural law in Solovyov, as in Comte, is a formal idea of law, rationally derived from the general principles of philosophy. Natural law and positive law are for him only two different points of view on the same subject.

At the same time, natural law embodies the “rational essence of law”, and positive law embodies the historical phenomenon of law. Historical law is realized depending "on the state of moral consciousness in a given society and on other historical conditions." These conditions predetermine the features of the constant addition of natural law to positive law.

"Natural law is that algebraic formula under which history substitutes various real values of positive law." Natural law is reduced entirely to two factors - freedom and equality, that is, it, in fact, is the algebraic formula of any law, its rational (reasonable) essence. At the same time, the ethical minimum, which was mentioned earlier, is inherent not only in natural law, but also in positive law.

Freedom is the necessary substratum, and equality is its necessary formula. The goal of a normal society and law is the public good. This goal is a general one, and not only a collective one (not the sum of individual goals). This common goal in its essence unites everyone and everyone internally. At the same time, the connection of everyone and everyone takes place thanks to solidarity actions in achieving a common goal. Law strives to realize justice, but the desire is only a general tendency, the "logos" and the meaning of law.

Positive law only embodies and realizes (sometimes not quite perfectly) this general trend in specific forms. Law (justice) is in such a relationship with religious morality (love), in which the state and the church are. At the same time, love is the moral principle of the church, and justice is the moral principle of the state. Law, in contrast to the "norms of love, religion," implies a mandatory requirement for the implementation of the minimum good" Solovyov V.S. justification for goodness. Moral philosophy / V.S. Solovyov. - M.: Directmedia Publishing, 2002. - S. 169 ..

"The concept of law, by its very nature, contains an objective element or a requirement for implementation." It is necessary that the right always had the power to be realized, that is, that the freedom of others “regardless of my subjective recognition of it or of my personal justice, could always in fact limit my freedom on an equal footing with everyone else.” Law in its historical dimension appears as "a historically mobile definition of the necessary forced balance of two moral interests - personal freedom and the common good." The same thing in another formulation is revealed as a balance between the formal-moral interest of personal freedom and the material-moral interest of the common good.

Solovyov's legal understanding had a significant impact on the legal views of Bulgakov, Berdyaev and others, as well as on the general course of discussions on the relationship between church and state during the "Russian religious renaissance" (the first decade of the 20th century).

So, summing up the teachings of V.S. Solovyov about law, we can conclude that:

Morality - always strives to build an ideal; prescribes proper behavior, is addressed only to the inner side of the will of the individual.

Law - is conditional and involves limitation, because in the legal field, an act and its result are important; considers the external manifestation of the will - property, action, the result of action.

The task of law is not to make the Kingdom of God on earth, but not to turn people's lives into Hell.

The purpose of law is to balance two moral interests: personal freedom and the common good. The "common good" should limit the private interests of the people, but it cannot replace them. Solovyov opposed the death penalty and life imprisonment, which, in his opinion, contradict the essence of law.

Law is "the limitation of personal liberty by the requirements of the common good".

Signs of the law: 1) publicity; 2) specificity; 3) real applicability.

Signs of power: 1) publication of laws; 2) a fair trial; 3) enforcement of laws.

The state - protects the interests of citizens.

Christian state - protects the interests of citizens and seeks to improve the conditions for the existence of a person in society; takes care of the economically weak.

The progress of the state consists in “constraining the inner moral world of a person as little as possible and ensuring external conditions for a worthy existence and improvement of people as accurately and widely as possible.”

“Legal coercion does not force anyone to be virtuous. Its task is to prevent evil person become a villain (dangerous to society)." Society cannot live solely on moral law. To protect all interests, legal laws and the state are needed.

2. Highlight the characteristic features of medieval political and legal thought

Political and legal doctrines in Western Europe of the medieval era were constantly changing. The changes and significant shifts that took place in them were a natural consequence of the serious changes that accompanied the evolution of the socio-economic and political systems of feudal society in the countries of Western Europe. Evolution includes three major historical stage Sharapova T.A. History of political and legal doctrines. Lecture notes / T.A. Sharapova. - M.: A-Prior, 2012. - S. 89 .:

the first - early feudal (end of the 5th - middle of the 11th century);

the second - the time of the full development of the feudal system, the phase of its heyday (mid-XI - end of the XV century);

third - late Middle Ages(late XV - early XVII century); a period of decline, the decline of feudalism and the birth of capitalist social relations.

The phased nature of the development of feudal society largely predetermined the features and dynamics of medieval Western European political and legal thought. The peculiarity of people's moods was given by the fact of an exceptionally strong influence on it. Christian religion and Roman catholic church. This church almost undividedly dominated the sphere of spiritual life for almost all of the Middle Ages. In the hands of the clergy, politics and jurisprudence, like all other sciences, remained applied branches of theology. Throughout the political history of the Western European Middle Ages, there was a fierce struggle between the Roman Catholic Church, the papacy and secular feudal lords (primarily monarchs) for the leading role in society. Accordingly, one of the central problems of the then political and legal knowledge was the question of which authority (organization) should have priority: spiritual (church) or secular (state) Rubanik S.A. History of political and legal doctrines / S.A. Rubanik. - M.: Yurayt, 2012. - S. 143 ..

Justifying the political claims of the church, its ideologists argued that the power of sovereigns comes from the church, and it received its authority directly from Christ. Hence the unconditional duty of Christian sovereigns to obey the head christian church. For example, according to the doctrine of "two swords", developed in the XII-XIII centuries, the founders of the church had two swords. They sheathed one and kept it with them. The other church handed over to sovereigns so that they could manage earthly affairs. It is not appropriate for the church itself to use a naked sword, to hold a bloody weapon. However, she sets it in motion, but with the help of sovereigns, endowed by the church with the right to command people and punish them. According to the theologians, the sovereign is a servant of the church, serving her in such matters that are unworthy of a clergyman.

It is worth noting that those who resisted the desire of the church to subjugate sovereigns, secular feudal lords, who resisted her persistent attempts to lead political life in society, who advocated the primacy of the state over spiritual authority, generally shared the principles Christian doctrine. Appeal to texts Holy Scripture as decisive proofs of correctness, the scholastic manner of substantiating the defended theses, the language of theology, etc. - all this was usually present in the speeches of representatives of each of the warring camps. Various ideological currents in which protest was expressed against the dominance of the official church, the exploitation and arbitrariness of secular feudal lords (plebeian and burgher heresies), also generally did not go beyond the religious worldview. True, the socio-political programs that were born in the bosom of these opposition movements differed sharply from the socio-class attitudes of the ideologists of feudalism. Machin I.F. History of political and legal doctrines / I.F. Machin. - M.: Yurayt, 2012. - S. 105.

Forming and developing on the basis of feudal relations, under the colossal influence of Christianity, the Catholic Church, the political and legal knowledge of medieval Western Europe, at the same time, perceived and continued in its own way in the new historical conditions a number of significant ideas of ancient political and legal thought. Such ideas include, in particular, the notion of the state as a kind of organism, the position of correct and incorrect state forms and their circulation, the idea of natural law as a norm arising from the nature of things, the position of the high importance of law for the organization of normal public life, etc.

In the method of medieval political and legal thinking, developed within the framework of theological scholasticism, there was a very large share of religious dogmatism. But there was also a pronounced tendency to ensure the rigor of reasoning, consistency, consistency and clarity of the conclusions obtained. The scholastics showed great interest in questions of logical technique: methods of classification, forms of disputes, the art of argumentation, and so on. Under appropriate circumstances, the emphasis on the proper logical aspects of the study opened up the possibility of a transition to a rational study of objects, to the substantiation of rationalistic methodology, brilliantly carried out in the 17th century. F. Bacon, R. Descartes, T. Hobbes, B. Spinoza, G. Leibniz.

The changing and becoming more complex needs of production, communication and exchange, the needs of political and legal development did not allow the political and legal doctrines of the Western European Middle Ages to remain in a state of rest, stimulated the gradual expansion and deepening of knowledge about politics, the state and law. Slowly, by no means straightforward and simple, but this knowledge has progressed in many directions. They were a necessary and important link in the history of world political and legal thought Mazarchuk D.V. History of political and legal doctrines / M .: TetraSystems, 2011. - P. 65 ..

The exploitation and violence, arbitrariness and inequality that took place in the Middle Ages provoked the protest of the oppressed. With the dominant position of religion in public consciousness In the Middle Ages, such a class protest could not help but take on a religious veneer. It took the form of various deviations from doctrine and practice in Western Europe. Roman Catholic Church, papacy. Currents, opposition or directly hostile to the official dogma, received the name of heresies.

At the first stage of the evolution of feudal relations, heresies did not yet have a mass base. In the XI-XII centuries. there was an upsurge of heretical movements. Quite large groups of people began to take part in them. In the XI-XIII centuries. the flow of oppositional heretical movements was not strictly differentiated according to social class characteristics. Later, in the XIV-XV centuries, plebeian-peasant and burgher (urban) heresies emerged as independent currents.

One of the first major heretical movements that had a European resonance was Bogomilism (Bulgaria, X-XIII centuries). The Bogomil doctrine reflected the mood of the enslaved Bulgarian peasants, who opposed the feudal church exploitation and the national oppression of the country by the Byzantine Empire. Views similar to those of Bogomil and growing on approximately the same (with Bogomilism) social soil were preached in Western Europe in the 11th-13th centuries. Cathars, Patarenes, Albigensians, Waldensians, etc.

The oppositional nature of the mentioned heresies was given, first of all, by the sharp criticism of the contemporary Catholic Church contained in them. Its hierarchical structure and pompous ritualism, its unjustly acquired wealth and its wicked priests, who perverted, according to the heretics, were sharply condemned. true teaching Christ. The pathos of most of these heresies consisted, in particular, in the fact that they condemned the established and growing inequality (especially property inequality), rejected property, and condemned profit. For the Bogomils, Cathars, and Waldensians, not only the official church and its institutions were unacceptable; they also denied statehood, the whole system social life Dyachkova N.N. History of political and legal doctrines. Part 1. History of political and legal doctrines of foreign countries / N.N. Dyachkova, V.E. share. - M.: MGOU, 2011. - S. 114 ..

The programs of the heretical movements, which expressed the interests of the most disadvantaged, the plebeian-peasant masses, called on the faithful to return to the early Christian organization of the church. The Bible became in the hands of heretics a formidable and powerful weapon in their struggle against the Roman Catholic Church. Then the latter simply forbade the laity (the bull of Pope Gregory IX, 1231) to read the main book of Christianity.

The most radical of the heretical currents also adopted some of the ideas of Manichaeism. The Manicheans declared the entire corporeal world (natural-cosmic and social, human) to be the offspring of the devil, the eternal embodiment of evil, deserving only contempt and destruction. Such indiscriminate denigration of the world as a whole, as well as the assignment of the supposed ideal to the past, distorted the actual socio-political needs of the masses of the people of that time; it weakened the attractive force of heretical movements Nersesyants V.S. History of political and legal doctrines / M .: Norma, 2012. - P. 167 ..

In the XIV-XV centuries. in the general stream of opposition heretical movements, two independent currents clearly emerged: burgher and peasant-plebeian heresies. The first reflected the socio-political interests of the wealthy strata of the townspeople and the social groups adjoining them. The burgher heresy was in close contact with the burgher's concepts of the state, in which the urgent need for the formation of a single national statehood was theoretically comprehended. The political leitmotif of this heresy is the demand for a "cheap church", which meant the abolition of the class of priests, the elimination of their privileges and wealth, a return to the simple structure of the early Christian church.

Prominent representatives of the burgher heresy are John Wycliffe in England) and the Czech theologian Jan Hus. J. Wycliffe insisted on the independence of the English Church from the Roman Curia, challenged the principle of the infallibility of the popes and objected to the interference of church circles in the affairs of the state. At the same time, he rejected the leveling slogans of the peasant-plebeian ideologists, believing that private property and the division of society into estates came from God. Jan Hus was a follower of J. Wycliffe. The unorthodox content of the sermons of J. Hus coincided with the motives of the national liberation struggle of the broad masses of the Czech Republic against the German feudal lords. The ideas of Wycliffe and Hus differed little from each other.

Peasant-plebeian heretical movements XIV-XV centuries represented by the performances of the Lollards (mendicant priests) in England and the Taborites in the Czech Republic. The Lollards, who desired the transfer of land to peasant communities and the liberation of farmers from the fetters of serfdom, tried to put into practice the simple, ascetic lifestyle of the early Christians. In the Taborite movement, a republican tendency emerged. Neither the Lollards nor the Taborites succeeded in achieving their goals. They were defeated by the combined efforts of spiritual and secular feudal lords.

The noose, the executioner's ax, the fire have always been the last arguments of the church and the then state in the fight against heresies. With the death of heretics, heretical ideas did not die and did not disappear without a trace.

Thus, in the history of Western Europe, the Middle Ages occupied a vast, more than a thousand-year era (V-XVI centuries). The economic system, class relationships, state orders and legal institutions, the spiritual climate of medieval society were the factors that influenced the content, differentiation, and social orientation of the political and legal ideas of the Western European Middle Ages. It is possible to single out the main features of the political and legal thought of Western European medieval society: the dominant role of the church in the ideology of medieval society; ideological basis all political and legal doctrines of the Middle Ages were religious ideas, texts of holy scripture; the problems of state and law were discussed in the process and as a result of the struggle for power and privileges between the Catholic clergy and secular feudal lords; heretical movements as a form of political and legal ideology opposed to feudalism.

3. Make a comparative table of the political and legal views of the French enlighteners: F-M. Voltaire, J.-J. Rousseau

	Voltaire's views (1694-1778)	Rousseau's views (1712-1778)
Direction	Enlightenment, classicism	Political radicalism
Science and art	The philosopher associated the upcoming transformations in society with the development of knowledge and the rise of culture, which, in his opinion, will lead to the fact that the rulers will realize the need for reforms.	"The progress of the sciences and arts, without adding anything to our well-being, only spoiled our morals." The dissemination of knowledge unnecessary to man gives rise to luxury, which in turn leads to the enrichment of some at the expense of others, to the alienation of the rich and the poor.
	“Christianity and reason cannot exist simultaneously,” wrote Voltaire. Enlightened people do not need Christian revelations. Faith in a punishing god must be preserved only in order to inspire the unenlightened (“the mob”, as well as unreasonable rulers) with a moral pattern of behavior. Hence the famous saying of Voltaire: "If God did not exist, then he would have to be invented."	He had a deep religious feeling. “Christianity,” writes Rousseau, “preaches only slavery and dependence; his spirit is too profitable for tyranny... True Christians are made to be slaves; they know about it, and it doesn't bother them much. Brief earthly life has too little value in their eyes." He contrasted the materialism, skepticism and even atheism of the typical French enlighteners with faith in a supreme being.
Revolution	Voltaire's attitude to the revolution was typical of the French enlighteners of the 18th century. Justification of previous revolutions (for example, the execution of the English king Charles I), dreams of overthrowing tyrants among the enlighteners were combined with arguments about the undesirability of bloodshed, about the detrimental consequences of a civil war, etc. In the ideology of the liberal bourgeoisie, to these considerations is added the fear of the uprisings of the working masses. “When the mob begins to philosophize,” Voltaire argued, “everything perished.” They pinned their hopes on gradual reforms from above.	In the state of nature, everything rests on strength, on the law of the strongest. Rebellion against tyranny is a legitimate act, as are the decrees by which a despot governs his subjects. "Violence supported him, violence overthrows him: everything goes its natural way." As long as the people are forced to obey and obey, they do well, the thinker wrote. But if the people, given the opportunity to throw off the yoke, overthrows tyranny, they do even better. The above statements contained the justification of the revolutionary (violent) overthrow of absolutism.
human	Despotic rule will be replaced by the kingdom of reason and freedom, in which every person will be granted natural rights - the right to personal integrity, the right to private property, freedom of the press, freedom of conscience, etc.	In the state of nature, law does not exist.
own	Only the owners should govern the state. Recognizing natural equality (we are all equally human), Voltaire strongly rejected both social and political equality. “In our unfortunate world, it cannot be that people, living in society, would not be divided into two classes: one is the class of the rich who order, the other is the poor who serve.”	He stigmatizes private property, which gives rise to luxury and poverty, denounces "an excess of idleness for some, an excess of work for others." Opponent of the socialization of private property.
	Under freedom, Voltaire understood the elimination of feudal vestiges that fetter the creative initiative of a person, his private entrepreneurial activity. Voltaire reduced freedom to the independence of citizens from arbitrariness: "Freedom consists in being dependent only on laws."	The sovereignty of the people is manifested in the exercise of their legislative power. Entering into polemics with the ideologists of the liberal bourgeoisie, Rousseau argued that political freedom is possible only in a state where the people legislate. Liberty, according to Rousseau, consists in the fact that citizens are protected by laws and make them themselves. Based on this, he formulates the definition of the law. “Any law, if the people did not directly approve it themselves, is invalid; it's not a law at all."
states	Voltaire belongs to those thinkers who attach paramount importance not to the forms of government of the state, specific institutions and procedures of power, but to the principles implemented with the help of these institutions and procedures. For him, such socio-political and legal principles were freedom, property, legality, humanity.	The common good as the goal of the state, in his opinion, can be revealed only by a majority of votes. “The general will is always right,” the thinker argued.
Separation of powers	He preferred the republic, but believed that it was of little use in practice. Voltaire called parliamentary institutions in England a model of the state organization of his time. The political ideal of Voltaire, especially in recent works, approached the idea of a separation of powers.	Against the doctrine of separation of powers. People's rule, he believed, excludes the need for the division of state power as a guarantee of political freedom. In order to avoid arbitrariness and lawlessness, it is enough, firstly, to distinguish between the competence of the legislative and executive bodies (the legislator should not, for example, make decisions regarding individual citizens, as in Ancient Athens, since this is the competence of the government) and, secondly, subordinate the executive power to the sovereign. Rousseau contrasted the system of separation of powers with the idea of delimiting the functions of the organs of the state.

Thus, the philosophical activity of Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, two, perhaps, the main ideologists of the Great French Revolution, is multipolar. They were symbols of the French Enlightenment, so to speak, two antipodes. The table above summarized the views of these thinkers on various areas of life, such as: state structure, goals of the state, law and freedom, religion and culture, etc.

Bibliography

1. Voltaire. Philosophical writings / Voltaire. - M.: Nauka, 1988. - 752 p.

2. Dyachkova N.N. History of political and legal doctrines. Part 1. History of political and legal doctrines of foreign countries / N.N. Dyachkova, V.E. share. - M.: MGOU, 2011. - 220 p.

3. Mazarchuk D.V. History of political and legal doctrines / M.: TetraSystems, 2011. - 128 p.

4. Machin I.F. History of political and legal doctrines / I.F. Machin. - M.: Yurayt, 2012. - 416 p.

5. Nersesyants V.S. History of political and legal doctrines / M.: Norma, 2012. - 704 p.

6. Rubanik S.A. History of political and legal doctrines / S.A. Rubanik. - M.: Yurayt, 2012. - 480 p.

7. Rousseau J.-J. Confession; Walks of a lonely dreamer; Discourses on sciences and arts; Reasoning about inequality: Collection (translated from French by Gorbova D.A., Rozanova M.N., Khayutina A.D.) / J.-J. Rousseau. - M.: Phoenix, 2004. - 888 p.

8. Rousseau J.J. On the social contract / J.J. Rousseau. - M.: Phoenix, 2001. - 416 p.

9. Soloviev V.S. Three conversations about war, progress and the end of world history / V.S. Solovyov. - M.: Pravo, 2011. - 275 p.

10. Soloviev V.S. Readings on Godmanhood. Theoretical philosophy / V.S. Soloviev. - M.: Academic Project, 2011. - 296 p.

11. Soloviev V.S. justification for goodness. Moral philosophy / V.S. Solovyov. - M.: Directmedia Publishing, 2002. - 480 p.

12. Sharapova T.A. History of political and legal doctrines. Lecture notes / T.A. Sharapova. - M.: A-Prior, 2012. - 192 p.

Hosted on Allbest.ru

Help on Tele2, tariffs, questions