Historicity has dubbed certain ilks of human thought ''philosophy''. I am neither vain or uninformed enough to claim to be doing philosophy, rather, it is ideaology, i.e., the study of ideas, in which I am engaged. Sartre deemed himself an ideaologist, and, I am grounded in Sartre. Have you ever seen a fact? No. The world does not contain facts. I am claiming to be doing a novel application of a mode of thought already contained in the world, hence original thinking in the sense that I know of no other person in the world who has written a critique of the construct 'law' itself. That critique arises and originates out of a particular project which my consciousness has constructed, and, though grounded in twentieth century existential phenomenology, the critique upsurges out of that personal project. I deem it important to write a critique of the notion law, for we take it to be an absolute, while, all the while, it is merely, in the final analysis, a purely theoretical undertaking, whereby we humans are currently barbarically punishing/hurting one another, when, actually, language of law is not, cannot be, determinative of human conduct. All human conduct always arises only via the double nihilation, which I explained in simple terms in the text of the OP. There can be means to having civilizational civility without law, upon which I have both reflected and written upon extensively; however, at this point, I merely wish to attempt to impart the notion of jurisprudential illusion, which is somewhat analogous to Habermas' ''objectivistic illusion"...
It is beginning to appear clear to me that you are in possession of the ideal essay, which you deem I have failed to write, therefore, I suggest you publish it during your next post.
To continually rail against my particular style of writing is ad hominem attack, which is all you and hundreds of others I encounter can possibly do, and, it is even more dreadful, in your mere opinion, than my writing. Get off my case. Quit rattling my cage. WRITE A DESTRUCTION OF THE OP. Leave my person out of all this, it is a bore to continually be subjected to your disparagement of my person. This is not a classroom. You are not the teacher correcting my language. It is not your office to choose how I employ language! I am indifferent to your inane personal judgements against my person. What matters is the OP, can you defeat it or not?! You cannot, for, you are too radically nauseating a pillock to even begin to transcend doing personal attack and, instead, to address the task of doing a theoretical destruction of the OP.
This is not a hobby by which I am dabbling. I have, actually, via writing the short little OP, accomplished a theoretical destruction of the notion 'law', and, I am repeatedly challenging members of this forum to demonstrate otherwise, which no one is coming forward to do; because they cannot possibly refute an OP grounded in Sartre's employment of Spinoza's dictum ''determinatio negatio est''...

