Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 105
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    17

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    Whether you recognize it or not, your argument is rooted in a particular philosophical viewpoint. It is certainly not fact, as you yourself indicated by noting it to be a "fresh theory". You may buy into that philosophical view; it may suit your particular world view. But I deal with the practicality of daily living and experience, and in my experience people very much do take the law into account in their actions. They may not like every law they follow, but they do it because they don't want to risk the consequences that may follow for breaking the law. You may think that all law is "barbaric" but humans have found it useful for thousands of years to have some rules for people to follow to keep society orderly.

    If your hobby is dabbling in these esoteric philosophy theories, have it. Personally I see little value in such things, but I know some people love delving into them.
    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"...

    Quote Quoting Mark47n
    View Post
    Stating an opinion regarding the mode in which you choose to communicate is not an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack would be me saying that your argument isn't valid because you're a great pillock. Is the difference clear enough?

    You also tend to refer to yourself in the third person, especially when you invite dispute. I don't know what that's about but it makes me think of either the Borg or Bob Dole, I can't decide which.

    Is this how you have conversations? Face to face? Do you use, day to day, this unnecessarily convoluted language? If so, do people's eyes glaze over while you take 20 minutes to express a thought (this would be hyperbole)? For myself, it's not that I don't understand what your saying, it's that the way you choose to say it makes me want to pull your tongue out of your head.

    Overall I give you an 'F' in communication skills.
    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.

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post


    If your hobby is dabbling in these esoteric philosophy theories, have it. Personally I see little value in such things, but I know some people love delving into them.
    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''...

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,238

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Quote Quoting aurelieus
    View Post
    Have you ever seen a fact? No. The world does not contain facts.
    I have seen many facts. That you say facts do not exist underpins my fundamential problem with your hypothesis. I reject the very foundations on which you build it, and as the foundations are IMO flawed, so is the rest that flows from it. You will reject that of course, as you believe the foundations of your hypothesis sound. So there is no reconciling the two views. As a result, I see no value in trying to address your hypothesis in detail.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    24,521

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    ^^^^^^Like. About a thousand times

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    47.606 N 122.332 W in body, still at 90 S in my mind.
    Posts
    1,678

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    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''...
    If you've accomplished a theoretical destruction of law the next step is to test that theory. Go out and perform some egregious violation of what us poor saps call the 'law'. The more egregious the better. When you go before a judge present your argument as you've so loquaciously spelled out here. Show us that your theory is fact...even though facts don't exist, right, because I've never seen one?

    Really. Do it and put your money where your extremely large and arrogant pseudo-intellectual mouth is. Until you do that all you're doing is adding to global warming.
    "Where do those stairs go?"
    "They go up!"

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    17

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    I have seen many facts. That you say facts do not exist underpins my fundamential problem with your hypothesis. I reject the very foundations on which you build it, and as the foundations are IMO flawed, so is the rest that flows from it. You will reject that of course, as you believe the foundations of your hypothesis sound. So there is no reconciling the two views. As a result, I see no value in trying to address your hypothesis in detail.
    It is completely senseless and in vain merely to say you reject a construct, you are under the necessity to explain how and why, else one is being a mere child. You are correct that there is no value in interacting with you, there is only, for the most part, depressing dread.

    Quote Quoting Mark47n
    View Post
    If you've accomplished a theoretical destruction of law the next step is to test that theory. Go out and perform some egregious violation of what us poor saps call the 'law'. The more egregious the better. When you go before a judge present your argument as you've so loquaciously spelled out here. Show us that your theory is fact...even though facts don't exist, right, because I've never seen one?

    Really. Do it and put your money where your extremely large and arrogant pseudo-intellectual mouth is. Until you do that all you're doing is adding to global warming.
    More dumb pure assertion mistakenly positing against the person and not the position. It would be certain suicide to present a magistrate with what he is not equipped to comprehend; this ilk of forum is testing-ground/preparatory-ground, and, it is abundantly clear that there is only retarded/bigoted/ barbaric blind hatred exhibited here, with no possibility of clear thinking ratiocination, which is all that is needed to fairly test the OP. Far too much absolute, sick, treacherous, nauseating ignorance here, and in courtrooms...
    I have members of forums all over the world voicing agreement and assent with the fundamentals of the OP; Mark47n is just plain too vacuous even to begin to understand and he can only do insult.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,238

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Quote Quoting aurelieus
    View Post
    It is completely senseless and in vain merely to say you reject a construct, you are under the necessity to explain how and why, else one is being a mere child.
    No. I owe you no explanation for why I reject the premise on which your argument is built. I am not trying to convince you of anything; I am simply telling you that you fail to convince me of your theory because you present concepts, like the idea that facts do not exist, that I reject. Calling me a child for not engaging you on your terms, though, tells me a bit about your mindset. You decry insults by others, but seemingly do not mind hurling insults yourself. Why is that?

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    434

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Quote Quoting aurelieus
    View Post
    I sincerely would appreciate it if you would enlighten me concerning what you are signifying via the quotation.
    aurelieus
    "I shall be telling this with a sigh
    Somewhere ages and ages hence:
    Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
    I took the one less traveled by,
    And that has made all the difference."

    You travelled the wrong road!

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    17

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    No. I owe you no explanation for why I reject the premise on which your argument is built. I am not trying to convince you of anything; I am simply telling you that you fail to convince me of your theory because you present concepts, like the idea that facts do not exist, that I reject. Calling me a child for not engaging you on your terms, though, tells me a bit about your mindset. You decry insults by others, but seemingly do not mind hurling insults yourself. Why is that?
    When you undertook insult I reciprocated, it is that simple. No, you do not owe me grounds for pure assertions, you owe to reason/rationality.
    I need to recall from which thinker I learned the world does not contain facts, Ryle perhaps, in his discussion of quasi-referential the-phrases, i.e., one need be careful not to be misled when a 'the' precedes a term, as in ''the unicorn'', into thinking the world contains unicorns; it is in the same sense that ''...the fact..'' is a systematically misleading quasi-referential the-phrase. That the world does not contain facts is not my idea, it stems from linguistic analysis; and, jumping all over me about it only illustrates your vacuous technique of absurdly addressing persons, instead of the merits of the position/argument that person has set forth. Flake-off bumkin.

    Quote Quoting RJR
    View Post
    "I shall be telling this with a sigh
    Somewhere ages and ages hence:
    Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
    I took the one less traveled by,
    And that has made all the difference."

    You travelled the wrong road!
    More senseless pure blind assertion, without adequate explanation. It is not sufficient merely to assert error, one need, as in legal argumentation, provide "points and authorities'', silly, get it!?

    Quote Quoting cbg
    View Post
    ^^^^^^Like. About a thousand times
    Really!? What!? A positive/uplifting reply! Wow!

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8,006

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    So, in case you hadn't figured it out Stable Genius....no one wants to play your game of "Look at my verbal diarrhea." So how about you accept that and go find a sandbox to annoy kids in?
    I am the Mouse Man

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    434

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    More senseless pure blind assertion, without adequate explanation. It is not sufficient merely to assert error, one need, as in legal argumentation, provide "points and authorities'', silly, get it!?
    Captain, you do not seem to understand. The laws of physics are consistent throughout the Galaxy. Where physical laws do not exist, nor can reality exist. When physical laws change, so must the thought process to accept or reject them as reality.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources