U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-11-2020, 08:46 PM
 
18 posts, read 4,550 times
Reputation: 15

Advertisements

Mysticism; Belief characterized by self-delusion or dreamy confusion of thought, especially when based on the assumption of occult qualities or mysterious agencies. (Bing).

ABSTRACT
Jurisprudential thought mistakenly presupposes human social behavior is manageable by law, in inadvertent disregard of and contradiction with how human conduct actually arises ontologically.

The magistrate, police/ prosecutorial officer, attorney, or John Q. Citizen, who deems himself determined, or, to be able to determine himself to act, by given language of law, is mistaken on the ontological plane; for, all determination to action is negation, and, law as a positive given identity, cannot get out of its being-in-itself in order to act, therefore, jurisprudence exhibits itself to be unintentionally dishonorable, by solemnly regarding language of law as a means of effecting origin of human action and inaction.

The viability of law as a motivational force exercised on a basis of punishment, purportedly efficient to make and maintain decent civil interpersonal conduct, is questionable in terms of the incorrectness of scholars of jurisprudence in regard to a supposedly conduct-originative law linguistic, whereby language of law is mistakenly deemed to be a conduct-determinative causal force among men, thus, both jurisprudential scholarship and extant language of law exhibit vacuity in regard to the actual ontological mode whereby a human act originates; hence all current jurisprudence/law clearly appears to be confused and unintelligible at the level of the ontological mode of the origination of a human act, and therefore, law, as a mistakenly presupposed determinative efficacy among men, is subject to being deemphasized to avoid ultimately being discarded as a non-viable means to having and doing civilizational civility.


LAW IS ONTOLOGICALLY UNINTELLIGIBLE

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.

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.

That human determination to action 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."

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

J. P. Sartre’s (1901-1980 ) examination of the ontological structure of the upsurge of a human act exhibits comprehension of Spinoza's dictum: “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.” (Being and Nothingness, 1943). 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.” (Being and Nothingness, 1943).

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

Civilization is currently predicated upon the putative rule of law and American civilization is founded upon the erroneous presupposition that language of law is determinative of both overt human conduct, and of human forbearance to act.

The venal jurisprudential attempt to monitor/control human conduct via language of law is a vain project unsuited to and in contradiction with the ontological structure of being a human being, wherein all determination is negation.

The world-wide presupposed efficacy of language of law as an originative determinative source of human conduct, is, when considered in the light of both Spinoza's dictum, and, of the human ontological structure of the upsurge of an act, a completely nonsensical presupposition..


Human existential absurdity designates givens as cause/motive/determinant of one’s action, while, all the while, human action exclusively originates ex nihilo, via consciousnesses’ nihilative capacity.


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.

America is currently suffering under radically rampant human misconduct, including daily mass mudrer, as a practico-inert consequence of attempting to constitute civilization via the ontologically unintelligible theoretical construct “law”; a “law” which is, in itself, defective and illusional human misconduct par excellence.
We Americans can exit practico-inert consequences of deeming law to be a means to civilization, and, actually achieve civilization by comprehending, and using, our human ontological structure as pattern for civilized adaptation to being sociosphereically human.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-12-2020, 04:13 PM
 
Location: Northern Maine
5,466 posts, read 2,628,972 times
Reputation: 8011
Quote:
Originally Posted by aurelieus View Post
Mysticism; Belief characterized by self-delusion or dreamy confusion of thought, especially when based on the assumption of occult qualities or mysterious agencies. (Bing).

ABSTRACT
Jurisprudential thought mistakenly presupposes human social behavior is manageable by law, in inadvertent disregard of and contradiction with how human conduct actually arises ontologically.

The magistrate, police/ prosecutorial officer, attorney, or John Q. Citizen, who deems himself determined, or, to be able to determine himself to act, by given language of law, is mistaken on the ontological plane; for, all determination to action is negation, and, law as a positive given identity, cannot get out of its being-in-itself in order to act, therefore, jurisprudence exhibits itself to be unintentionally dishonorable, by solemnly regarding language of law as a means of effecting origin of human action and inaction.

The viability of law as a motivational force exercised on a basis of punishment, purportedly efficient to make and maintain decent civil interpersonal conduct, is questionable in terms of the incorrectness of scholars of jurisprudence in regard to a supposedly conduct-originative law linguistic, whereby language of law is mistakenly deemed to be a conduct-determinative causal force among men, thus, both jurisprudential scholarship and extant language of law exhibit vacuity in regard to the actual ontological mode whereby a human act originates; hence all current jurisprudence/law clearly appears to be confused and unintelligible at the level of the ontological mode of the origination of a human act, and therefore, law, as a mistakenly presupposed determinative efficacy among men, is subject to being deemphasized to avoid ultimately being discarded as a non-viable means to having and doing civilizational civility.


LAW IS ONTOLOGICALLY UNINTELLIGIBLE

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.

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.

That human determination to action 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."

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

J. P. Sartre’s (1901-1980 ) examination of the ontological structure of the upsurge of a human act exhibits comprehension of Spinoza's dictum: “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.” (Being and Nothingness, 1943). 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.” (Being and Nothingness, 1943).

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

Civilization is currently predicated upon the putative rule of law and American civilization is founded upon the erroneous presupposition that language of law is determinative of both overt human conduct, and of human forbearance to act.

The venal jurisprudential attempt to monitor/control human conduct via language of law is a vain project unsuited to and in contradiction with the ontological structure of being a human being, wherein all determination is negation.

The world-wide presupposed efficacy of language of law as an originative determinative source of human conduct, is, when considered in the light of both Spinoza's dictum, and, of the human ontological structure of the upsurge of an act, a completely nonsensical presupposition..


Human existential absurdity designates givens as cause/motive/determinant of one’s action, while, all the while, human action exclusively originates ex nihilo, via consciousnesses’ nihilative capacity.


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.

America is currently suffering under radically rampant human misconduct, including daily mass mudrer, as a practico-inert consequence of attempting to constitute civilization via the ontologically unintelligible theoretical construct “law”; a “law” which is, in itself, defective and illusional human misconduct par excellence.
We Americans can exit practico-inert consequences of deeming law to be a means to civilization, and, actually achieve civilization by comprehending, and using, our human ontological structure as pattern for civilized adaptation to being sociosphereically human.
Thats is incoherent psychobabble with philosophical pretentions.
We're all under duress, we can pull through this.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2020, 04:59 PM
 
12,544 posts, read 6,758,704 times
Reputation: 29661
Lol! I'm thinking if I can survive that rhetoric, this virus will be a breeze! Holy cow , that OP was ten minutes of my time I'd like back. Lawfully I'm deserving of a refund . consumer law 101.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2020, 05:16 PM
 
18 posts, read 4,550 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesg View Post
Thats is incoherent psychobabble with philosophical pretentions.
We're all under duress, we can pull through this.
jonesg;
The piece is an exercise in existential ontology and has no connection with psychology. It is a critique of the universal presupposition that language of law is somehow determinative of human behavior, based upon the Sartreian/Spinozian precept that all human determination is negation.

I have degrees in philosophy. What are your credentials? I ask about your educational status on account of the grammatical confusion exhibited within the radically flippant structure of your response, i.e., "Thats is..."!?
aurelieus

Last edited by aurelieus; 04-12-2020 at 05:43 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2020, 05:34 PM
 
18 posts, read 4,550 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nov3 View Post
Lol! I'm thinking if I can survive that rhetoric, this virus will be a breeze! Holy cow , that OP was ten minutes of my time I'd like back. Lawfully I'm deserving of a refund . consumer law 101.
Nov 3;
The piece is original scholarly ratiocination and, requires an existentialist intellectual instrumentation to follow and comprehend the author's seeming abstruse language.

You will be provided with whatever coin it takes to satisfy your request for a refund, just name it...
aurelieus
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2020, 05:56 PM
 
1,456 posts, read 419,283 times
Reputation: 1480
Hey Duane

I expect you'll be moving on to yet another forum after this thread?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2020, 06:14 PM
 
Location: San Angelo, TX
2,072 posts, read 3,591,405 times
Reputation: 2645
Interesting take; but human law, in all its forms, allowed for the modern world. We went to the moon.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2020, 06:18 PM
 
17,456 posts, read 23,595,759 times
Reputation: 19242
Quote:
Originally Posted by aurelieus View Post
Nov 3;
The piece is original scholarly ratiocination and, requires an existentialist intellectual instrumentation to follow and comprehend the author's seeming abstruse language.

You will be provided with whatever coin it takes to satisfy your request for a refund, just name it...
aurelieus



He'll accept sham edition of those, quantity 6.


Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2020, 06:30 PM
 
18 posts, read 4,550 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danbo1957 View Post
Interesting take; but human law, in all its forms, allowed for the modern world. We went to the moon.
Danbo;
Indeed. And, within our ongoing progression, I am attempting to originate a reflective comprehension of the theoretical/ontological shortcomings of our legalistic approach to civilization, whereby we can raise ourselves to a more completely human sociosphere, wherein was have transcended the barbarity of punishing persons based upon an ontologically unintelligible and dishonest language of law, and, proceed unto an ilk of dignity wherein law serves as mere suggestion and guideline for noble beings aware of the impossibility of attempting to manage human freedom via law.
aurelieus
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2020, 06:30 PM
 
Location: North Carolina
6,087 posts, read 3,979,388 times
Reputation: 10514
Quote:
Originally Posted by aurelieus View Post
jonesg;
The piece is an exercise in existential ontology and has no connection with psychology. It is a critique of the universal presupposition that language of law is somehow determinative of human behavior, based upon the Sartreian/Spinozian precept that all human determination is negation.

I have degrees in philosophy. What are your credentials? I ask about your educational status on account of the grammatical confusion exhibited within the radically flippant structure of your response, i.e., "Thats is..."!?
aurelieus
OP, I'm not the person you're responding to. I'll try to be a little more polite, but I'm wondering if they were just asking for a summary of your post that a layperson could grasp at a beginner level. Are you saying that laws have too many "gotcha" clauses and traps that are unintuitive for a "reasonable person" (often used as a legal standard), which make it difficult for even the most conscientious person to abide by all of them?

I'm not doubting your knowledge or credentials on philosophy, but there was quite a bit of jargon in the first post that made it difficult (at least for me) to follow.

Unless your narrative was trying to show an example of what legalese is like? I'm seriously not trying to be rude, but I had a hard time in determining what your point is as well. Your title peaked my interest, so that is why I am asking.

Last edited by Jowel; 04-12-2020 at 06:41 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top