• quintillus
    64
    EXISTENTIAL ONTOLOGICAL CRITIQUE OF LAW

    It is unacceptable among humans to kill another person, or to do ten thousand other vile acts; nonetheless, law is not an honorable, honest, or ontologically authentic means to deal with inacceptable acts.

    Law is existentially nonsensical and unintelligible, for there is no human ontological rationality attendant upon the mistaken jurisprudential presupposition that language of law is determinative of behavior.

    Supposed law mediated jurisprudential/prosecutorial/police conduct is neither true to, nor accordant with, the only authentic human ontological process of originating an act, which sole true human action originative/determinative mode is Spinoza's "determinatio negatio est" (determination is negation), posited by Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) in 1674. G.W. Hegel (1770-1831) subsequently recast the phrase to be all inclusive, thus: "Omnis determinatio est negatio." (All determination is negation.). J.P. Sartre (1901-1980) additionally explained the existential ontological rationale attendant upon Spinoza's dictum thus:

    “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, cannot 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.” (“Being and Nothingness: An Essay in Phenomenological Ontology.” J.P. Sartre, Part Four. 1943.)

    Law is an existing written factual theoretical construct which, because it is a given state of affairs, cannot possibly be determinative of the acts of human beings, who act solely on the basis of not yet achieved absences.

    Extant human civilization can uplift beyond existentially inauthentic "law", by first raising divers law enforcement consciousnesses up unto being reflectively aware of, and true to, the actual human ontological doubly nihilative process of free action origination, i.e., by constituting all law-oriented persons as being reflectively free persons.

    Via first raising jurisprudentially oriented persons up to possession of a reflectively free selfhood, we position ourselves to advance and uplift the honor, decency, honesty, dignity, and freedom of both jurisprudence, and, of civilization.

    Lawfully requiring that persons be determined or determine themselves to act, or to decline to act, by given written law, is wholly ontologically unintelligible, and, is actually an impossibility; ---(for all determination concerning human action is strictly predicated upon: what is not/negation/lack/absence/expectation/non-being, while, all the while, law is a wholly positive, extant, given, established, state of affairs); --- and, to punish persons for impossibly/nonsensically not determining themselves to act by given law, is a radically unethical inhuman jurisprudential misconduct:

    Would persons being in possession of reflective understanding of his or her existential ontological freedom uplift the dignity and honorable behavior of all persons constituting extant human civilization ? Or, would such understanding result in greater common abominable conduct among persons?
    Would generally knowing that law is an ontologically bogus state of affairs prompt persons to perform openly radical misconduct? Or, is a state of absolutely openly free human conduct necessarily an existential ontological normative state of civilizational affairs?

    The current state of civilization is a situation wherein police freely and openly murder citizens in the name of our pitifully ontologically unintelligible law; which state of affairs already constitutes an absolutely free and completely open sphere of free human conduct/misconduct. Hence, we already have absolute chaos under our so-called rule of law.
  • RogueAI
    2.4k
    Hence, we already have absolute chaos under our so-called rule of law.quintillus

    No we don't.
  • T Clark
    13k
    Law is an existing written factual theoretical construct which, because it is a given state of affairs, cannot possibly be determinative of the acts of human beings, who act solely on the basis of not yet achieved absences.quintillus

    Some thoughts 1) You seem to be talking about criminal law, which is only a small part of the law. For better or worse, a capitalist society needs laws to regulate commerce, finance, and especially property ownership. 2) Criminal law is not primarily intended to get people to do things, it's to get them not to do things. Although I agree law is not generally effective in promoting motivated action, it often works to prevent unwanted actions, e.g. I don't always drive the speed limit, but I do drive more slowly than I would if there were none. 3) Criminal law is not only intended to act as a deterrent, it is also meant to figure out how to deal with the consequences of illegal acts, e.g. restricting future actions of people who violate the laws.
  • quintillus
    64
    The police constantly killing citizens is nothing but chaos.
  • quintillus
    64

    I am referring to all law in my theoretical critique of law per se.

    Not doing something is what is known as a negative act.

    The U.S. Constitution is an admirable attempt to do something radically important via law, even though law is not effectually determinative among persons. Yes, we need to regulate our conduct in all our endeavors;-- I am simply pointing out that law is not the determinative agency that we think it is, so, we need to do a lot of re-thinking about regulating conduct. My proffer is that we first render everyone reflectively free.
  • quintillus
    64

    Yes, my subject matter is evolving/refining...
  • T Clark
    13k
    [deleted]
  • T Clark
    13k
    I am referring to all law in my theoretical critique of law per se.quintillus

    Most law is not about motivation at all. It is about how things are to be done or who's going to pay for it, not whether or not they are done at all.

    Not doing something is what is known as a negative act.quintillus

    As I noted, it may be true that law is not effective in motivating positive acts, that doesn't mean it can't be effective in motivating negative acts, i.e. preventing people from doing prohibited acts.

    My proffer is that we first render everyone reflectively free.quintillus

    By which you mean:

    ...being in possession of reflective understanding of his or her existential ontological freedom...quintillus

    Easier said than done. Much, much, much easier said than done. Very easy to say. Perhaps impossible to do in groups larger than five people. It is not an achievable method of governance in our society.
  • Ciceronianus
    2.9k
    Again?
    — Ciceronianus

    Again?
    T Clark

    Again?
  • T Clark
    13k
    [deleted]
  • quintillus
    64

    I am not at all saying that we will be able to govern society via being reflectively free.
    Yes, being reflectively free is attaining an understanding of how a human being originates action/inaction. It is simply understanding what double nihilation is, which Sartre fully describes in his "Being and Nothingness", Part Four.
    Attaining being reflectively free is done on an individual basis.
  • Ciceronianus
    2.9k
    Yes, again.T Clark

    You are our resident censor, our Cato (the Elder), our Anthony Comstock. Te saluto!
  • Banno
    23.1k
    Sure, one's actions are not determined by the law. But one can chose to follow the law, or not; and the law sets out what folk will do with you next.

    The argument in the OP is ridiculous.
  • quintillus
    64

    A judge, when convicting/sentencing someone, states by what law he is bound and determined to do so.

    You deem the OP ridiculous while, all the while, it is simply far beyond your present capacity to comprehend it.

    Following the law is a false determination to act on the basis of given law, and, I am pointing out that per existential ontological theory of how human action arises, given law does not, cannot, precipitate any human act whatsoever; which is why all our jails are wholly overcrowded, i.e., the requiring law which the prisoners supposedly broke is not, cannot, be determinative of human action...but the convicting judge thinks the law determines him, and, that it must necessarily determine, by its stolid requirement, the other fellow too...
  • Banno
    23.1k
    Right, OK.

    You have one idea; and it's a bad one.
  • Paine
    1.9k

    I don't get the ' precipitated' act part of your thesis. Laws are made on the basis of preventing a behavior, things people do. Bad laws certainly exist. But there are good laws too.

    The system sucks in many ways but what does the replacement look like?
  • quintillus
    64

    To precipitate something is to cause something. And, I am saying that law is not causal for human beings, i.e., my freedom cannot be caused by some existing fact to act; for my action only originates ex nihilo, out of nothing/negation.

    I am suggesting that we begin replacement by first uplifting the honor, honesty, and dignity of our legislators, judges, prosecutors and police, via assisting them to become reflectively free, and, thus, to lead them upward unto understanding the true structure of the origination of human action; which act-origination has nothing to do with law.
    I have not fully envisioned a future. I expect that other intelligences, upon becoming reflectively free, may have some dynamite thoughts regarding future sociospheric possibilities.
  • Paine
    1.9k

    I don't understand how you see law as a cause.
  • Banno
    23.1k
    ...my action only originates ex nihilo, out of nothing/negation.quintillus

    Ah, so there is no reason or explanation for your actions.

    That helps make sense of your posts.
  • quintillus
    64

    I do not see law as a cause or as capable of causing persons to act or not act; although everyone else does. Everyone thinks we humans are simply things which can be in motion moved by the language of law.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    12.3k
    I am suggesting that we begin replacement by first uplifting the honor, honesty, and dignity of our legislators, judges, prosecutors and police, via assisting them to become reflectively free, and, thus, to lead them upward unto understanding the true structure of the origination of human action; which act-origination has nothing to do with law.
    I have not fully envisioned a future. I expect that other intelligences, upon becoming reflectively free, may have some dynamite thoughts regarding future sociospheric possibilities.
    quintillus

    This is why "rule" works better by giving people guidance as to how to behave well, rather than telling them what not to do, and punishing them when they still do it. And so, The New Testament's "Love thy neighbour" (as positive direction) marks a vast improvement in the understanding of human nature, and human action in comparison to The Old Testament's "Ten Commandments" (as negative direction).
  • quintillus
    64

    Since, at present, you have not had any association with existential ontological notions of how nothingness underlies human action, you are mistakenly thinking that my actions have no explanation, while, all the while, my actions are explained by the not yet future which those actions are prefiguring. For example, I intended to write a critique of law, which critique was an absent non-entity, a nothing, which nothing I gave verbal substance...
  • quintillus
    64

    Yes. I have lately just remembered, a Baptist Minister who's daughter I was once dating, when he taught me that the instant at which Christ died on the cross, a curtain in a Jewish Temple was rent completely down the middle, representing the depassement of the LAW unto a new era of the love of Christ...So the notion of depassing law is nothing new at all...
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    12.3k

    It is as you say, a matter of human nature. We, as beings, are inclined to act, so it is in our nature to act. But the rule of government has two possible directions to take, either to encourage us to act, or to discourage us from acting. The latter is to go against human nature. But by enacting all sorts of boundaries, and threatening punishment to anyone who strays outside the boundaries, the government takes that direction of discouraging action. Instead, it ought to focus on defining what constitutes good in humane acts, and doing whatever it can to encourage such acts.
  • Paine
    1.9k
    I do not see law as a cause or as capable of causing persons to act or not act; although everyone else does. Everyone thinks we humans are simply things which can be in motion moved by the language of lawquintillus

    This 'everyone does' is not a very convincing argument about why people make laws.
  • Mikie
    6k
    Law is existentially nonsensical and unintelligible, for there is no human ontological rationality attendant upon the mistaken jurisprudential presupposition that language of law is determinative of behavior.quintillus

    To translate this awkward sentence:

    Supposition: Language of law is determinative of behavior.

    What does that mean? I don’t hear many arguing that the law, as its written, determines human behavior. It may encourage or discourage behavior.

    Anyway…because there’s no “ontological rationality” underlining this supposition, law is unintelligible. That’s your claim.

    What does ontological rationality mean?

    Until these basic terms are explained, your thesis is very unclear and comes across as both “ridiculous” and incoherent.
  • quintillus
    64

    Wow. Excellent suggestion regarding focusing on what constitutes humane good.
  • quintillus
    64

    I am not trying to explain why law is made...
  • Srap Tasmaner
    4.6k
    law does not, cannot, precipitate any human act whatsoever; which is why all our jails are wholly overcrowded, i.e., the requiring law which the prisoners supposedly broke is not, cannot, be determinative of human action...but the convicting judge thinks the law determines him, and, that it must necessarily determine, by its stolid requirement, the other fellow too...quintillus

    You don't need Sartre for this. Compare:

    Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice.Thoreau
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.