Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 105

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    17

    Default Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    LAW is ONTOLOGICALLY UNINTELLIGIBLE

    With the publication of Jean Paul Sartre's (1901-1980) ''Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology'' (1943), an avant guard model of the mode of origin of human action upsurged via the language of non-being/nothingness/negation. Human action is described as arising ex nihilo, wherein all determination to action is of negative origin, in the sense that every human act is predicated upon desideratum, absence, lack, non-being, via a modus operandi dubbed the ''double nihilation''; and, it is via Sartre's radically negative theory of the nihilative origin of human action, whereby all positivist materialist causalist theory of the origin of a human act, including that entertained by the jurisprudence of decisional and legislated law, is rendered ontologically unintelligible nonsense.

    That human determination 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."

    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

    A human act does not, cannot, originate on the basis of given factual state(s) of affairs such as legislation or, case law precedent. Consider J. P. Sartre’s : “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.” 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.”

    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.

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

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

    Only the ''double nihilation'' is the negation, i.e., the negative process, the means, whereby human action originates/upsurges.

    To ''nihilate'' is to make nothing. Within the double nihilation are contained two negative moments wherein nothing is made such that on the one hand, the present is made nothing by transcending it toward the intended project, and, the intended project, as an absent, lacking, unaccomplished objective, constitutes the other negative moment which is precisely the moment wherein consciousness makes the nothing which is the not yet achieved objective of the intended project; and, that describes double nihilation.

    Human existential absurdity designates givens as cause/motive/determinant of one’s action, while, in reality, human action exclusively originates ex nihilo,via consciousnesses’ nihilative capacity. (Sartre, J.P., “Being and Nothingness”, Part Four).

    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.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    19,901

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Eschew obfuscation.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    17

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    There is no obfuscation; merely your particular lack of familiarity with the language and constructs of existential ontology.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    434

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Quote Quoting aurelieus
    View Post
    There is no obfuscation; merely your particular lack of familiarity with the language and constructs of existential ontology.
    "And Richard Cory one calm summer night went home and put a bullet through his head".

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    17

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Quote Quoting RJR
    View Post
    "And Richard Cory one calm summer night went home and put a bullet through his head".
    I sincerely would appreciate it if you would enlighten me concerning what you are signifying via the quotation.
    aurelieus

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    4,301

    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
    Read the poem.

  7. #7
    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. #8
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    1

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Quote Quoting flyingron
    View Post
    Eschew obfuscation.
    This is for "flyingiron". I would like to ask you a DMV question. Is there any way that I can private message you? Thank you!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,238

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Quote Quoting aurelieus
    View Post
    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.
    Philosophy can take you to absurd conclusions, like the one above. It is quite clear that most people do indeed take the law into consideration when deciding their actions and often conform their actions to what the law requires. People would not, for example, pay taxes but for the legal mandate to do so.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    24,521

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    I wondered at first if this was the resurrection of danielpalos but then I realized it couldn't be; the word "fallacy" is not contained anywhere in the post.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources