Slip 1.5A1a

Zettelkasten Wiki
#1

Slip 1.5A1a Rousseau 17.3g2a

Lindsay, p. 130ff. distinguishes three aspects of the volonté générale, which Rousseau does not separate and on the mixture of which his effect is based.

  1. All individual wills - that boils down to the primitive consent theory of unanimity.

  2. The will which is directed towards the general good, ie is determined from the goal. The distinction between the particular and the general will is then equated with special and general interest. This general good is recognizable when people are just up - right. But how the general good can be recognized in practice, Rousseau does not solve this question. Esp. he does not claim: in parliament or by majority vote. These are later simplifications.

continued …

Note 1.5A - criticism of previous views
#2

…

Slip 1.5A1a1

  1. Will not for something general, but for something general: Will of the community as personne morale.
#3

Slip 1.5A1b - Bosanquet

see. The Reality of the General Will, in “Aspects of the Social Problem”

on Bosanquet’s theory Lindsay, p. 243ff.

Influence of Rousseaus and Hegels.

Bosanquet describes the general will as a “working system of dominant ideas”. That alone shows that it is actually not a will.

The will is largely unconscious and needs interpretation.

#4

Slip 1.5A1c Certainly in this tradition is the doctrine of the nation (or other associations) as a spiritual Personality, as a subject with "Selbstbewusstein " represented, for example, von Husserl, Ideen II, p. 351

Similarly Ideas II, S. 243 , the speech by the state, nation club, etc. as a single public spirit, as (!) (!) Objectivity higher level than the individual spirit leiber umspannender “” sense “or” spirit “.”

extremely unclear!

This teaching comes in its most effective form from Romanticism. While the Romanists in
Savigny’s episode only ascribed a real spirit to the state (?? so claims Cohen, Reason and Nature, p. 387)

… continued

#5

…

1,5A1c1 the Germanists (Beseler and especially his student Gierke) apply the teaching to all human associations (but not also to all business associations). see. Gierke, On the essence of human associations.

similar Figgis, Churches in the modern State Laski, The Personality of Associations, Harvard Law Review 29 (1916), 404

The thesis is that associations have real personality. see. the criticism by Cohen, R. and N., p. 388ff. This thesis can only be defended if one leaves in the dark what one understands by personality and invokes more or less vague analogies to human existence. These analogies are circulated and that leads to DC - positions, even where this is not objectively justified. "This confusion seems to me to show itself in Mr. Laski’s

continued …

#6

…

1.5A1c2 contention that a corporation (as a mind distinct from that of its officers or members) can have the feeling of gratitude (or perhaps even the capacity to eat dinners). "Cohen, R. and N., p. 390 under Appeal to Laski, p. 483.

Dahlmann, Politics I, § 6 : “For the state is not just something common among men, not merely something Unabhängiges, he is also something together Grown, a physically and spiritually geeinigte personality.”

#7

1.5A1c3 English Hegelianism also adopts the doctrine of group spirit. See in particular:

LT Hobhouse, Development and Purpose, New York 1913
L.T. Hobhouse, Social Development, New York 1924
Graham Wallas, The Great Society, New York 1914

The socio-psychological teaching of McDougall, The Group Mind, New York 1920, which was very influential in the twenties, leads in the same direction.

#8

1,5A1d Spann, Organization VII : Internal unity of the organization as a universalistic whole, which exists before the individual parts and only allows them to come to a dependent meaning as members.

see. also 28.4