The relationship between individual and social existence of human beings in Werner Maihofer’s philosophical-legal conception

N.V. Gaivoronyuk,O.Z. Pankevich
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24144/2788-6018.2023.03.81
2023-07-18
Analytical and Comparative Jurisprudence
Abstract:The article examines the arguments presented by the 20th century German philosopher Johannes Thyssen regarding the issue of the relationship between individual and social aspects of human existence in law. Thyssen chooses the interpretation of human existence in law by the German legal philosopher Werner Maihofer as the subject of critical commentary. Thiessen analyzes and comments on the views of W. Maihofer, taking into account his approach to clarifying the relationships between individual and social existence, as well as their justification in the context of contrasting real and false existence. The philosopher sees the main mistake of W. Maihofer in the wrong interpretation of the relationship between the individual and the general, which distorts the understanding of the essence of man. At the same time, he recognizes the correctness of W. Mayihofer’s general approach to explaining the essence of man as an individual and as a social being. At the same time, J. Thyssen draws attention to the separation of the named components due to W. Maihofer’s introduction into his own existential concept of „being-as“ (German: Als-Sein, being in a certain social role). Such separation, according to J. Thyssen’s conclusions, leads to the dismemberment of Maihofer’s law into existential natural law and institutional natural law. However, Thyssen does not explain the very process of this dismemberment and the role of existential being-as in this process. It is noted that Thyssen considers Maihofer’s work as an attempt to expand the philosophical approach to the topic of human existence through the analysis of human existence in law. But Thyssen’s proposed way of overcoming this isolation remains without proper justification. The authors prove that W. Maihofer’s distinction between two aspects of human existence ‒ beingas-Self and being-as ‒ as well as the separation of existential and institutional natural law calls into question the existentialist character of W. Maihofer’s philosophical and legal concept in the part that concerns social and legal roles.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?