Ilia Chavchavadze - brainGuide

I. The origin of the state
cept is substantially based on Rousseau’s model of socially „general
will“, which became the basis of agreement on the origin of the state with
the last. The question is, how could the realization of the given will be
achievable under those social-cultural circumstances (with no specialized
meaning of the concept), on the ground of which proceeds the construction
of politically organized society. If we look through the prestate
epoch, it is evident that there is not any psychological basis, by which it
could be possible to fulfill the discussing will. More than that, in actual
case it takes place the lack of proper psychological basis even for its formation,
since man of before-state era – this is an individual of stereotypic
view, whose creative mentality cannot spread over such wide scales.
The similar discordance manifests itself with Locke. On the one hand,
he considers that the state order is the condition taken by the people’s
agreement; on the other hand, he points out that the society of prepolitical
„natural state“ represents a unity of „wild tribes“. But he says nothing
about that, how the „wild tribes“ come to an agreement of such complexity!
What about the aspect actual for us, it is obvious that Locke’s and
I. Chavchavadze’s points of view basically differ from one another. While
Locke explains the origin of the state essentially by its repressive nature
(„restraining of violators of natural state“, „protection of already existing
rights“ by the same meaning etc.), in the conception of I. Chavchavadze
the main accent is laid on the regulative function of the state: The starting
point is the conformity of the phenomenon of state with the nature of individual
(and not, restrictively, the interests of the victims of encroachment
upon „natural rights“). To say better, Locke excludes the creation of
social relations as state’s innate function.
The predecessor of Locke, Hobbes, dealing with the origin of the
state, points out the inner and the outer public necessity. According to
Hobbes, as we see it later with Locke too (though, in general, Locke subjects
Hobbes’ philosophy to sharp criticism), in the society, which is not
stately organized is settled everlasting scare, people feel invincible threat
125