Law and Civilization

Sun 24 Jan, 2021 07:41 am

1. Now that America is replete with senseless homicide by zealot militaristic police, who murder citizens while absolutistically enforcing unviable miniscule ordinances, it is apt to critique the very notion of law itself, (via examining the most up to date thinking regarding how a human act comes into being); in order to consider whether American law and law enforcement now constitute an inacceptable absolute absolutism, of the very sort these United States of America was originally constituted to dispel; and, in order to give ourselves reflective pause, to ponder whether law constitutes a barbarically backwards, misconceived, approach to having and doing civilization.

2. The precept that given legislated and/or judicial decisional language of law, is linguistic phenomenon efficient for controlling and determining persons, in their origination of intentional acts, and/or inactions, via law, is, for reasons attendant upon the genuine authentic existential ontological structure of the originative modus operandi of a human act, radically in error.

3. J. P. Sartre’s,(1905-1980), account of how a human act originates (Sartre, Ch.4 “Freedom”) , is important for mankind and for the future of human civilization, in the sense that it is a means to our attaining an honest, ontologically accurate, and honorable system of civilization and justice.

4. Honorable, honest, just, civil civilization, cannot rationally and intelligibly be predicated upon a current ontologically mistaken legalist, positivist, materialist, causalist, scientistic quasi-Aristotelian, cinesiological, substance-in-motion version of origination of human action; for human determination to action is only of negative nihilative negational origin, upsurging via human consciousness, as a nothing nothinging. “Nothing nothings.” (Heidegger), and, that nothing which is human consciousness intentionally making acts in the world, is a constant engagement in making nothing in a doubly nihilative mode, known as “double nihilation”.

5. To nihilate is to “make nothing’’. Human consciousness, on the one hand, firstly makes nothing in the sense that consciousness’ imagined intended future, a non existent state of affairs, is a made not, a made not yet, which made imagined future not yet is one side of the coin of the double nihilation, which constitutes the purely negative originative modus operandi of intentional human conscious action.

6. On the other hand, on the other side of the coin of double nihilation, and secondly, is the existing present state of affairs becoming a state of affairs which consciousness makes nothing (nihilates), via transcending and abandoning, as passe and past, that extant state, by actively thrusting unto attaining a not yet and presently absent future.

7. It is the theoretical intelligibility, on the human ontological plane, of putatively mediating and attaining and determining justice, via employing given published language of law, which is being closely considered and questioned herein, thusly:
8. Sartre’s account of the mode of origin of a human act is a template for organizing human civilization in accord, not in disaccord, with the very ontological structure of being an acting person, and, is a means of transcending the ugly predatory and venal global con-games, which are our current mistaken positivist cinesiologically oriented (i.e., in-motion-moved-by-language-of-law), law enforcement/justice system(s).
9. Via law mankind has currently structured a system of punishment and justice predicated upon the delusion that given language of law is a determinative mover of the conduct of legislators, police and prosecutorial officers, magistrates, and, of all grassroots persons.
10. The constitution of a genuine, honest and honorable system of justice, and mode of human civilization, can be attained by reflectively transcending the extant delusional notion that language of law is a means of determining the course of a person’s conduct.
11. The subjoined is an delineation of the Sartreian account of the ontological mode of upsurge of a human act and, is key to recognizing the bad faith and dishonor exhibited by existing law enforcement/justice systems:
12. Out of 1943 France came a description of how all human action arises as a wholly negative procedure, explaining how and why what is absent and not yet existing, how and why what is desired and intended to be, is the fount of human action.

13. Language of law is a positive given factual phenomena, whereby police and prosecutorial officers, magistrates and legislators, invariably mistakenly claim, worldwide, to be originating social acts based upon existing factual law language.

14. This author endorses the following rationale set forth by J. P. Sartre (1901-1980): ” 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.” (Sartre,J.P., Chapter Four, “Freedom”). 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.” (Sartre, J. P., Chapter Four, “Freedom”).

15. The ontological concept that no given factual state of affairs is per se efficient to determine a human being to act (or forbear action), is central to Sartre’s avant-garde explanation of how a human act originates. Human consciousness, which intentionally originates action, is an absolute freedom which cannot possibly be bound and determined by what already exists, else innovation could not freely suddenly surge up in the world. Hence existing language of law, as a factual state of affairs, as an identity A=A, does not, cannot, itself determine the origination of either human action or, inaction. Nor can persons ontologically intelligibly claim to determine themselves to act or forbear action by law. Nor can persons correctly claim language of law to be the cause of their actions and or inactions, for human ontological absurdity consists in our being the indubitable sole free originative authors of the intentional acts which constitute our manifold projects, who, nonetheless, inauthentically, mistakenly, designate some given state of affairs already contained in the world, (e.g., a law), as motive, cause, original reason for being, of our act(s).

16. Language of law cannot rule except by delusion. Law is demonstrably not in fact a means to originate human action. Nonetheless, we mistakenly, dishonestly, immorally, murderously, delusionally, criminally, devilishly, treat law as if it is an absolutely absolute and indefeasible determinant of police, judicial, and, of all other forms of human conduct.

  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 719 • Replies: 1
Topic Closed
No top replies

Thu 7 Apr, 2022 01:56 pm
I have never read such nonsense based on political bias.
You say: "Law is demonstrably not in fact a means to originate human action. "
In the very next sentence you say: "Nonetheless, we (...) treat law as if it is (...) [a] determinant (...) of human conduct."

Law very much is a means to originate human action - just like your parents told you you're going to be sanctioned if you do XY and you did actually get sanctioned, the next time you wanted to do XY you subconsciously or consciously reflected whether or not XY was worth the consequences. The same applies for moral law, religious law, customary law and legal law.

The more I read the more your conclusions do not make sense.
"Hence existing language of law, as a factual state of affairs, as an identity A=A, does not, cannot, itself determine the origination of either human action or, inaction. Nor can persons ontologically intelligibly claim to determine themselves to act or forbear action by law"

I'll make it very easy to understand.
Human law is the order of sanctions.
The human brain does not like sanctions.
Humans will hence avoid sanctions.

The language of law does indeed not rule by the very fact that it is a language. It rules because it is accepted in the population, the government and therefore all the executive power of a government. Your conclusion that the language therefore does not influence human action at all is false.
0 Replies

Related Topics

how to overcome nihilism ? - Question by internetking001
I'm not here - Question by dalehileman
Is anyone a "type 2" Nihilist? - Discussion by Valence
Livia Soprano and Nihilism........... - Discussion by sylviarose67
Tattoo of "Optimistic nihilist" - Question by Beshking
Cucumber vs Lime - Discussion by loverofeyebrow
  1. Forums
  2. » Law and Civilization
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/08/2023 at 05:14:40