You clearly have no formal education in logic/philosophy and, are ignorantly attacking my scholarly position, via your unfortunate ignorance. Flake off. Go grow up...Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 7:02 pmUhhh, nothing of that sort is going on here.upsurgent wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 5:53 pmGravity; diseases; earthquakes are not ontological; they are ontic, i.e., unintelligent substances, and hence, are not subjects of any ontological consideration whatsoever. Animal predators have no capacity to comprehend human concern regarding their hunger, and, it would never occur to a rational person to question animal predation.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 5:10 pm
Laws and law enforcement are a worldly and social phenomenon.
If you are going to critique the way the world is because you don't understand social psychology, juurisprudence and self-organization the least you can do is try not to manufacture excuses as to why the world's getting in the way of your freedom.
Gravity, diseases, earthquakes and predators are a constraint on your freedom too, yet you have no ontological critique of any of those things.
You simply don't understand the game or how to play it.
I am not making excuses; I am describing the incompetant conduct of so-called authorities. I have continually played the bogus, tiresome, viscious, predatory law-game; and, am now responsible to describe the unethically inhuman character thereof.
You have no possible knowledge of any lack of understanding of mine...
You are making a logically fallacious and, hence, wholly invalid argumentum ad hominem against my radically superlative intellect...and, are failing to distinguish the ontic from the ontological.
Irrespective of the categories you manufacture in order to justify your words; irrespective of which conceptual categories you think the world (or parts thereof) should obediently fit into (and more importantly - remain there unobjectionably) your entire line of reasoning is based upon ... how you say...
Existential Ontological Critique of Law
Re: Existential Ontological Critique of Law
Re: Existential Ontological Critique of Law
Au contraire.
It's precisely because I have a bunch of education in (the defficiencies of) logic/philosophy is why I am effectively using your own critique against itself.
Of course, you are free to vent your frustrations under the guise of being scholarly, but I think it would be far more effective and way more emotionally rewarding if you did it on a couch with a shirnk.
Re: Existential Ontological Critique of Law
No, you are not using my position against itself, for, when you claimed to do so you left out the term 'law', the language of which I am challenging. I have predicated my position upon the thought of Spinoza, Hegel, and Sartre, and, hence, you are mistakenly thinking that you are condemning me, while, all the while, you are feebly and mistakenly/unwittyingly attempting to overthrow those luminaries !? You failed to spell 'jurisprudence' and 'deficiency'' correctly, which speaks to your careless vile.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 7:32 pmAu contraire.
It's precisely because I have a bunch of education in (the defficiencies of) logic/philosophy is why I am effectively using your own critique against itself.
Of course, you are free to vent your frustrations under the guise of being scholarly, but I think it would be far more effective and way more emotionally rewarding if you did it on a couch with a shirnk.
Continue insulting me via your mean ignorance and I will report your posts as abuse...
Re: Existential Ontological Critique of Law
But you are challenging the language of the law on the basis that it isn't determinative of behaviorupsurgent wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 7:49 pmNo, you are not using my position against itself, for, when you claimed to do so you left out the term 'law', the language of which I am challenging.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 7:32 pmAu contraire.
It's precisely because I have a bunch of education in (the defficiencies of) logic/philosophy is why I am effectively using your own critique against itself.
Of course, you are free to vent your frustrations under the guise of being scholarly, but I think it would be far more effective and way more emotionally rewarding if you did it on a couch with a shirnk.
Which is the exact same basis on which I am challenging your language. Your categories, judgments and definitions (even if you based it on the word of God himself) aren't determinative of behavior either.
You seem exceptionally highly strung. Surely some typos can't be causing you this much anxiety? Really do consider some mental healthcare...
Isn't it rather ironic that you are seeking refuge behind the threat of "reporting me for abuse" to the supposed authorities? I bet you even expect them to enforce the language of the code of conduct!
Still, I have hurled absolutely no insults at you yet, but if you continue in this self-important fashion it won't be long now.
Re: Existential Ontological Critique of Law
You need attack my OP, not my person...you are doing unacceptable argumentum ad hominem on and on, and are too vile and asleep to know it.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 7:56 pmBut you are challenging the language of the law on the basis that it isn't determinative of behaviorupsurgent wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 7:49 pmNo, you are not using my position against itself, for, when you claimed to do so you left out the term 'law', the language of which I am challenging.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 7:32 pm
Au contraire.
It's precisely because I have a bunch of education in (the defficiencies of) logic/philosophy is why I am effectively using your own critique against itself.
Of course, you are free to vent your frustrations under the guise of being scholarly, but I think it would be far more effective and way more emotionally rewarding if you did it on a couch with a shirnk.
Which is precisely why I am pointing out that your language, categories and definitions (even if you based it on the word of God himself) aren't determinative of behavior either.
You seem exceptionally highly strung. Surely some typos can't be causing you this much anxiety? Really do consider some mental healthcare...
Isn't it rather ironic that you are seeking refuge behind the threat of "reporting me for abuse" to the supposed authorities?
Still, I have hurled absolutely no insults at you yet, but if you continue in this self-important fashion it won't be long now.
Re: Existential Ontological Critique of Law
So you think the language and laws of logic, rhetoric and philosophical discourse determine behaviour while legal language doesn't ?!?
So weird.
Also.. you really should consider getting some proffessional help with your paranoia. Literally nobody is attacking you. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of your premise.
Re: Existential Ontological Critique of Law
No given factual language whatever it may be determines a human act; only consciousness does determination. Consciousness is negation.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 8:12 pmSo you think the language and laws of logic, rhetoric and philosophical discourse determine behaviour while legal language doesn't ?!?
So weird.
Also.. you really should consider getting some proffessional help with your paranoia. Literally nobody is attacking you. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of your premise.
You are failing to comprehend the process of negation whereby conscious human determination transpires. You repeatedly, confusedly, mistakenly keep telling me what I think...while, all the while, no language; no logic; no rhetoric; no philosophy determines free consciousness to do, or not to do anything.
You are radically mixed-up; confused; and so abysmally cruel/ignorant that you continually, indecently, insult my person.
Re: Existential Ontological Critique of Law
Given factual language I haven't insulted you just yet, but I am also beginning to regret that I've been holding out this long.upsurgent wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 8:43 pmNo given factual language whatever it may be determines a human act; only consciousness does determination. Consciousness is negation.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 8:12 pmSo you think the language and laws of logic, rhetoric and philosophical discourse determine behaviour while legal language doesn't ?!?
So weird.
Also.. you really should consider getting some proffessional help with your paranoia. Literally nobody is attacking you. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of your premise.
You are failing to comprehend the process of negation whereby conscious human determination transpires. You repeatedly, confusedly, mistakenly keep telling me what I think...while, all the while, no language; no logic; no rhetoric; no philosophy determines free consciousness to do, or not to do anything.
You are radically mixed-up; confused; and so abysmally cruel/ignorant that you continually, indecently, insult my person.
Re: Existential Ontological Critique of Law
Since you claim philosophical reflectivity, critique/defeat the philosophical position that all determination is negation, instead of doing personal insult...But determinatio negatio est is radically too deep for you, isn't it!?Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 8:48 pmGiven factual language I haven't insulted you just yet, but I am also beginning to regret that I've been holding out this long.upsurgent wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 8:43 pmNo given factual language whatever it may be determines a human act; only consciousness does determination. Consciousness is negation.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 8:12 pm
So you think the language and laws of logic, rhetoric and philosophical discourse determine behaviour while legal language doesn't ?!?
So weird.
Also.. you really should consider getting some proffessional help with your paranoia. Literally nobody is attacking you. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of your premise.
You are failing to comprehend the process of negation whereby conscious human determination transpires. You repeatedly, confusedly, mistakenly keep telling me what I think...while, all the while, no language; no logic; no rhetoric; no philosophy determines free consciousness to do, or not to do anything.
You are radically mixed-up; confused; and so abysmally cruel/ignorant that you continually, indecently, insult my person.
Re: Existential Ontological Critique of Law
That's a pretty trivial position to defeat.
It's not possible that ALL determination is negation given that SOME determination is NOT negation.
Of course, it is for you to determine whether the negation of negation is itself a negation or non-negation.
Re: Existential Ontological Critique of Law
Via the above you have completely now exhibited the blathering ignoramus that you really are. You have, among other foolishness, posited an infinite regress!
Re: Existential Ontological Critique of Law
Where do you see any infinities in my finite English sentences?upsurgent wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 9:41 pmVia the above you have completely now exhibited the blathering ignoramus that you really are. You have, among other foolishness, posited an infinite regress!
Whatever infinities you appear to be encountering are necessarily in your head.
Alas, I think it is time we wrapped up the pleasantries. You [mindless invective redacted].
Even if there was any infinite regress, so what? Are you so incompetent in Mathematics/computer science/infinitary logic that a mere infinity should trouble you?
[Edited by iMod]
Re: Existential Ontological Critique of Law
Now, perhaps the monitors will notice your radically horridly abusive misconduct.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 9:56 pmWhere do you see any infinities in my finite English sentences?
Whatever infinities you appear to be encountering are necessarily in your head.
Alas, I think it is time we wrapped up the pleasantries. You [mindless invective redacted].
Even if there was any infinite regress, so what? Are you so incompetent in Mathematics/computer science/infinitary logic that a mere infinity should trouble you?
[Edited by iMod]
Re: Existential Ontological Critique of Law
I am sure they will also notice it was merely in response to your incessant abuse aimed at me.upsurgent wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 10:16 pmNow, perhaps the monitors will notice your radically horridly abusive misconduct.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 9:56 pmWhere do you see any infinities in my finite English sentences?
Whatever infinities you appear to be encountering are necessarily in your head.
Alas, I think it is time we wrapped up the pleasantries. You [mindless invective redacted].
Even if there was any infinite regress, so what? Are you so incompetent in Mathematics/computer science/infinitary logic that a mere infinity should trouble you?
[Edited by iMod]
Justifiable self defense!
Re: Existential Ontological Critique of Law
No. If and when there is a review of your posts to me it will be plain that you began and continually insulted me...Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 10:26 pmI am sure they will also notice it was merely in response to your incessant abuse aimed at me.upsurgent wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 10:16 pmNow, perhaps the monitors will notice your radically horridly abusive misconduct.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 9:56 pm
Where do you see any infinities in my finite English sentences?
Whatever infinities you appear to be encountering are necessarily in your head.
Alas, I think it is time we wrapped up the pleasantries. You [mindless invective redacted].
Even if there was any infinite regress, so what? Are you so incompetent in Mathematics/computer science/infinitary logic that a mere infinity should trouble you?
[Edited by iMod]
Justifiable self defense!