Law

Critique of Law Per Se

on fundamental matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and ethics.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Law

#1  Postby antoninus » Apr 04, 2020 2:21 pm

LAW IS ONTOLOGICALLY UNINTELLIGIBLE

ABSTRACT
Jurisprudential thought mistakenly presupposes human social behavior is manageable by law, in inadvertent disregard of and contradiction with how human conduct actually arises ontologically.

The magistrate, police/ prosecutorial officer, attorney, or John Q. Citizen, who deems himself determined, or, to be able to determine himself to act, by given language of law, is mistaken on the ontological plane; for, all determination to action is negation, and, law as a positive given identity, cannot get out of its being-in-itself in order to act, therefore, jurisprudence exhibits itself to be unintentionally dishonorable, by solemnly regarding language of law as a means of effecting origin of human action and inaction.

The viability of law as a motivational force exercised on a basis of punishment, purportedly efficient to make and maintain decent civil interpersonal conduct, is questionable in terms of the incorrectness of scholars of jurisprudence in regard to a supposedly conduct-originative law linguistic, whereby language of law is mistakenly deemed to be a conduct-determinative causal force among men, thus, both jurisprudential scholarship and extant language of law exhibit vacuity in regard to the actual ontological mode whereby a human act originates; hence all current jurisprudence/law clearly appears to be confused and unintelligible at the level of the ontological mode of the origination of a human act, and therefore, law, as a mistakenly presupposed determinative efficacy among men, is subject to being restructured to avoid ultimately being discarded as a non-viable means to having and doing civilizational civility.


LAW IS ONTOLOGICALLY UNINTELLIGIBLE

No person in fact ever determines to act or forbear action on the basis of given published language of law, and, therefore, language of law, absolutely without originative connection with intentional human action/inaction, can, actually, be neither obeyed, disobeyed, nor broken.

All determination to action and inaction upsurges only on the basis of what is absent, is purely imagined, is an unaccomplished desideratum, and, has not yet intentionally transpired.

That human determination to action arises ex nihilo was first realized and enunciated by Baruch Spinoza (1632 -1677 ), as "...determinatio negatio est…" i.e., ...determination is negation...(1674); and was, subsequently, restated by G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831) as "Omnis determinatio est negatio.", i.e., "All determination is negation."

Human beings are ontologically barred from being determined to action or inaction by given states of affairs.

J. P. Sartre’s (1901-1980 ) examination of the ontological structure of the upsurge of a human act exhibits comprehension of Spinoza's dictum: “No factual state whatever it may be (the political and economic structure of society, the psychological “state,” etc.) is capable by itself of motivating any act whatsoever. For an act is a projection of the for-itself toward what is not, and what is can in no way determine by itself what is not.” (Being and Nothingness, 1943). And, further: “But if human reality is action, this means evidently that its determination to action is itself action. If we reject this principle, and if we admit that human reality can be determined to action by a prior state of the world or itself, this amounts to putting a given at the beginning of the series. Then these acts disappear as acts in order to give place to a series of movements...The existence of the act implies its autonomy...Furthermore, if the act is not pure motion, it must be defined by an intention. No matter how this intention is considered, it can be only a surpassing of the given toward a result to be attained. This given, in fact, since it is pure presence, can not get out of itself. Precisely because it is, it is fully and solely what it is. Therefore it can not provide the reason for a phenomenon which derives all its meaning from a result to be attained; that is, from a non-existent… This intention, which is the fundamental structure of human reality, can in no case be explained by a given, not even if it is presented as an emanation from a given.” (Being and Nothingness, 1943).

The intentional conduct of an individual human freedom cannot be determined and initiated by given law.

Civilization is currently predicated upon the putative rule of law and American civilization is founded upon the erroneous presupposition that language of law is determinative of both overt human conduct, and of human forbearance to act.

The venal jurisprudential attempt to monitor/control human conduct via language of law is a vain project unsuited to and in contradiction with the ontological structure of being a human being, wherein all determination is negation.

The world-wide presupposed efficacy of language of law as an originative determinative source of human conduct, is, when considered in the light of both Spinozas dictum, and, of the human ontological structure of the upsurge of an act, a completely nonsensical presupposition..


Human existential absurdity designates givens as cause/motive/determinant of one’s action, while, all the while, human action exclusively originates ex nihilo, via consciousnesses’ nihilative capacity.


Jurisprudential illusion is an instance of human existential absurdity wherein the illusion consists in blindly, mistakenly, presupposing given language of law to be determinative of human action and inaction; --- jurisprudential illusion is the ontologically unintelligible misconception of mistakenly presupposing given language of law determines one’s acts, and/or, that one determines one’s self to act, or forbear action, by given law.

America is currently suffering under radically rampant human misconduct, including daily mass mudrer, as a practico-inert consequence of attempting to constitute civilization via the ontologically unintelligible theoretical construct “law”; a “law” which is, in itself, defective and illusional human misconduct par excellence.
We Americans can exit practico-inert consequences of deeming law to be a means to civilization, and, actually achieve civilization by comprehending, and using, our human ontological structure as pattern for civilized adaptation to being sociosphereically human.
antoninus
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Duane Clinton Meehan
Posts: 1

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Law

#2  Postby Cito di Pense » Apr 04, 2020 4:29 pm

There are several unintelligible concepts being bandied about, here. What's the matter, did they send you home from college to ride out the pandemic?
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 30152
Age: 24
Male

Country: Nutbush City Limits
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Law

#3  Postby laklak » Apr 04, 2020 4:31 pm

I have no fucking idea what you're on about, but if we get rid of law does that mean I can go all Mad Max? I gotta use all this ammo for something.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 68
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: Law

#4  Postby Ironclad » Apr 04, 2020 4:40 pm

I might weld Boadiceas' to my hubcaps. Take a spin around the mall..
For Van Youngman - see you amongst the stardust, old buddy

"If there was no such thing as science, you'd be right " - Sean Lock

"God ....an inventive destroyer" - Broks
User avatar
Ironclad
RS Donator
 
Name: Nudge-Nudge
Posts: 23973
Age: 53
Male

Country: Wink-Wink
Indonesia (id)
Print view this post

Re: Law

#5  Postby Thommo » Apr 04, 2020 4:54 pm

antoninus wrote:Jurisprudential thought mistakenly presupposes human social behavior is manageable by law, in inadvertent disregard of and contradiction with how human conduct actually arises ontologically.


When ontology conflicts with observation, so much for ontology.

Laws have an obvious impact on human behaviour. This is incontrovertible - just visit any jail.

Of course there are many interesting questions about the extent of and limitations upon the influence of laws on human behaviour, and this is a rich vein of debate, discussion and research both ongoing and completed in the domains of psychology, sociology and criminology. Not so much metaphysics though, so I'm not sure how much this premise can really contribute to the subject.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27233

Print view this post

Re: Law

#6  Postby Macdoc » Apr 04, 2020 5:03 pm

Is there a nest somewhere that keeps breeding these :coffee:

Our poster in action
https://www.facebook.com/atheistforums/ ... 8422966183
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 17632
Age: 74
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Law

#7  Postby Thommo » Apr 04, 2020 5:12 pm

Oh shit, he's going to call the FBI on us! Although that might, perhaps, contradict the premise of the thread. :scratch:
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27233

Print view this post

Re: Law

#8  Postby laklak » Apr 04, 2020 5:25 pm

The FBI? Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 68
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: Law

#9  Postby Hermit » Apr 04, 2020 5:25 pm

Brilliant opening post, Duane Clinton Meehan. You should be able to have it published in a great multitude of peer reviewed journals. Many more, I expect, than Alan Sokal managed with his article titled "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity". Once you've done that, I beg for your return in order to lecture us about the implications of your analysis.

Yours in eager anticipation,

Hermit
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4867
Age: 68
Male

Print view this post

Re: Law

#10  Postby Hermit » Apr 04, 2020 6:13 pm

Macdoc wrote:Is there a nest somewhere that keeps breeding these :coffee:

Our poster in action
https://www.facebook.com/atheistforums/ ... 8422966183

From that link:
You guys need be very careful, as atheists, not to unwittingly write what you think to be disproof of God, which, in fact, turns out to be an ontological proof of God

Image
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4867
Age: 68
Male

Print view this post

Re: Law

#11  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 04, 2020 6:31 pm

We Americans can exit practico-inert consequences of deeming law to be a means to civilization, and, actually achieve civilization by comprehending, and using, our human ontological structure as pattern for civilized adaptation to being sociosphereically human.


U
S
A
!
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 30701
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Law

#12  Postby laklak » Apr 04, 2020 7:27 pm

WTF is a sociosphereically human? What in God's Holy Name are you blathering about?
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 68
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: Law

#13  Postby Thommo » Apr 04, 2020 9:01 pm

laklak wrote:WTF is a sociosphereically human?


I'm not sure, but google assures me this guy is coming close:
[Reveal] Spoiler: "A joke"
Image
Last edited by Thommo on Apr 04, 2020 9:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27233

Print view this post

Re: Law

#14  Postby laklak » Apr 04, 2020 9:08 pm

It only works for a spherical human in a vacuum.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 68
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: Law

#15  Postby Cito di Pense » Apr 04, 2020 9:10 pm

laklak wrote:It only works for a spherical human in a vacuum.


Non-interacting, indistinguishable spherical humans in a vacuum. Obeying Bozo-Feinstein statistics.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 30152
Age: 24
Male

Country: Nutbush City Limits
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Law

#16  Postby Svartalf » Apr 04, 2020 10:10 pm

Hermit wrote:
Macdoc wrote:Is there a nest somewhere that keeps breeding these :coffee:

Our poster in action
https://www.facebook.com/atheistforums/ ... 8422966183

From that link:
You guys need be very careful, as atheists, not to unwittingly write what you think to be disproof of God, which, in fact, turns out to be an ontological proof of God

Image

fluff, IIRC, what has been given to me as the "ontological proof of god" is actually a massive bit of sophistry, what does that tell about OP?
PC stands for Patronizing Cocksucker Randy Ping

Embrace the Dark Side, it needs a hug
User avatar
Svartalf
 
Posts: 2435
Age: 52
Male

Country: France
European Union (eur)
Print view this post


Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest