2
   

LAW is NEITHER OBEYED DISOBEYED NOR BROKEN

 
 
upsurge
 
Reply Thu 7 Nov, 2019 10:24 am
LAW IS NEITHER OBEYED DISOBEYED NOR BROKEN
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, unaccomplished, 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…"(1674) "...determination is negation...; 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..
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Fri 8 Nov, 2019 04:49 am
@upsurge,
Quote:
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.
Ya know, I was just gonna say that
Jewels Vern
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Nov, 2019 02:52 pm
@upsurge,
Quote:
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..


Well! That's easy for you to say!
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2019 04:45 am
@upsurge,
It always amazes me how so called philosophers can twist themselves in pointless knots.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2019 04:52 am
@vikorr,
The title ounds more like a new law of physics. e now have the CONSERVATION OF MASS ENERGY AND LAW
upsurge
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Nov, 2019 01:32 am
@farmerman,
Quite the contrary; I am maintaining that law is not in fact an efficacy among men, i.e., that we mistakenly deem law to be efficient to determine human action, or, that we determine to act or not on the basis of law.
Duane
upsurge
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Nov, 2019 01:45 am
@vikorr,
I am undoing the Gordian knot that is a language of law whereby we are suffocating and not fully permitting ourselves our very humanity, which is not, cannot, be determined by given language of law. Pointless? No.
Mine is the existentialist view that our claim that our acts have causes is absurdity.
Duane
0 Replies
 
upsurge
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Nov, 2019 01:52 am
@Jewels Vern,
Okay, poke fun, fine; you lack the capacity to be serious enough to see the gravity of the state of affairs I am describing!
Duane
0 Replies
 
upsurge
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Nov, 2019 01:54 am
@farmerman,
Okay, poke fun. I get a kick out of your good humored humor!
Duane
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Nov, 2019 07:53 pm
@upsurge,
The pointless knot I refer to relates to the state of affairs in the absence of laws, and your lack of direction. In other words (in relation to the first) - whether you can put together a cogent argument or not is meaningless as only laws are shown to work when it comes to ensuring (as a whole) societies function as cohesively / efficiently as possible.

It's a bit like the argument for whether or not 'self' exists - when made for the sake of argument of whether or not it exists. Such then becomes a pointless exercise in 'philosopy' because a sense of self is required for so much. If an alternative was offered, or if a 'point' was offered - and the alternative or point worked, it it doesn't quite become so pointless. Further pointlessness would arise if the masses couldn't comprehend, and only philosophers could - if in this context it resulted in some change in their lives that showed it worked.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Nov, 2019 02:03 am
@upsurge,
So, in sum what do we have here:

1 - An outdated and vain appeal to the freedom of the will which is self-contradictory because it both negates and requires causation.

2 - The negation of necessity of the State that started with the first cities necessity to protect the granaries for the winter, and further still the negation of the functional administrative nucleus of the family organization and the small hunter-gathering tribe.

3 - The negation of Roman Law which contributed in great measure for the longevity of the Empire.

4 - And finally the capital mistake, the negation of Science Logos and Order!

Did I tik all the boxes?

PS - I should ad that I don't care a jot for the Metaphysical debate on whether there is causation or perfect correlation of events, in practice they are the same.
upsurge
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jan, 2020 07:03 am
@vikorr,
It is not pointless to explain why law is not in fact an efficacy among men since, for example, thereby we comprehend why law per se does not stop "crime''.
0 Replies
 
upsurge
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jan, 2020 07:15 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Human action is not caused; is not a causal phenomenon. The absurdity of being human consists in our naming causes and motives for our acts from among things already contained in the world, when, in fact, human action only arises out of our recognition of desideratum; said state of affairs is what Sartre has dubbed as our ''existential absurdity''.
0 Replies
 
upsurge
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jan, 2020 07:25 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
I am originating description of the fact that language of law is not in fact efficient to determine persons to action or inaction, or, as a means whereby persons may determine themselves to act or no. We have been kidding ourselves for thousands of years that language of law per se is a force within the sociosphere, when, actually, no given state of affairs, like law, is truly involved in the origination of a human act or forbearance to act; hence, what I have named '''jurisprudential illusion'', wherein we men, not reflectively aware of the actual ontological modus operandi of the originative determination of a human act, mistakenly deem law to be originative and determinative of human action...
0 Replies
 
upsurge
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jan, 2020 08:26 pm
@vikorr,
It is not pointless to explain why law is not in fact an efficacy among men since, for example, thereby we comprehend why law per se does not stop "crime''. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Thomas Paine's description of the status quo immediately after the American Revolution when no law existed. He said all was tranquil because commerce had to continue uninterrupted for the sake of the maintenance of everyone's well being as usual, via trade.
Law is not the only mode of maintaining functionality, cohesiveness, peace, and efficiency of sociospheric interaction. Commerce is one means of maintaining order, and, Christians employing the golden rule in love is another means of keeping order among a populace; and, my position is not directionless because I am suggesting the pattern of our own ontology
cal structure is the efficient means to maintaining civil conduct among persons.

Have never heard of a philosophical position posited against the existence of the self! I really enjoyed your nicely thought-out response. The alternative I am suggesting is to allow our ontological characteristics to function in a state of affairs wherein if the Other attempts to injure me I am free to injure him to prevent his misconduct, which is our natural ontological mode of conduct; otherwise, ''law'' interfering with the operation of our ontological modes of conduct, the crooked state of affairs we have now, wherein the so called authorities venally make their livings practicing the law whereby they fine and variously eat out the substance of the grassroots, can thrive uninterruptedly.
What at this point only philosophers understand reflectively, i.e., the structure of the ontological mode of origination of a human act, everyone else understands pre-reflectively, for they all act only on the basis of recognition of desideratum at all times, and, can be brought to reflective awareness of how they normally originate their acts, via education...
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jan, 2020 12:39 pm
I hate speed limits. Just pointless.
PUNKEY
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Jan, 2020 04:29 pm
@Leadfoot,
Those 4-way stop signs are totally unnecessary.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » LAW is NEITHER OBEYED DISOBEYED NOR BROKEN
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.32 seconds on 03/28/2020 at 06:14:01