Page 1 of 11 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 105
  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
    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.

  4. #4
    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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    4,301

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    I like the responses the OP received on another forum.

    And all of his studies are to fight a county trash collection law.

  6. #6
    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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    2,745

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Fascinating story. Do you have a question?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    4,301

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Quote Quoting pg1067
    View Post
    Fascinating story. Do you have a question?
    This is a debate the issues sub-forum.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    17

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    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.
    Those people are centrally considering the punishment and radical hurt which can be inflicted upon them by a brutally barbaric legal system; the language of the law per se has no capacity as an agency, nor do human beings determine themselves to act on the basis of given existing states of affairs alike law. You have missed the central thread of reasoning set forth in the OP, that determination is negation, and, you ought reflect further regarding the notion of existential absurdity, wherein persons who determine themselves to action on the basis of desideratum inauthentically name givens like law as the reason for their acts. Here we are considering a fresh theory of the origin of human action, entirely predicated upon Spinoza's ''determinatio negatio est'', which is an indefeasible description of human determination employed by Hegel, Heidegger, and Sartre. It is not ''philosophy'' which I am doing here; it is merely study and critique of the central presupposition upon which law is predicated, i.e., that law is presumed determinative of human conduct and/or that persons determine themselves to act, or not, on the basis of law, which Taxing Matters has not yet reflected sufficiently upon to begin to get a handle on said notion, and suffers under what I call jurisprudential illusion, which is polite for jurisprudential delusion.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    4,301

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Quote Quoting aurelieus
    View Post
    ...Taxing Matters has not yet reflected sufficiently upon to begin to get a handle on said notion, and suffers under what I call jurisprudential illusion, which is polite for jurisprudential delusion.
    I guess he put you in your place TM.

    That said, no matter if TM or anyone else has reflected sufficiently upon this particular mental diarrhea you are still going to have to pay your trash taxes or suffer whatever penalty your county applies to those that don't.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 1 of 11 1 2 3 ... LastLast
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources