Existential Ontological Critique of Law

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

upsurgent
Posts: 77
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2019 8:48 pm

Existential Ontological Critique of Law

Post by upsurgent »

EXISTENTIAL ONTOLOGICAL CRITIQUE OF LAW

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.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Existential Ontological Critique of Law

Post by FlashDangerpants »

upsurgent wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 1:39 pm the mistaken jurisprudential presupposition that language of law is determinative of behavior.
Is there really some jurisprudential presupposition that the language of law somehow replaces the role of belief in the motivation to act? I can't even imagine how that argument would work.
upsurgent
Posts: 77
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2019 8:48 pm

Re: Existential Ontological Critique of Law

Post by upsurgent »

In our American legalistic society it is simply presumed, supposed, presupposed, that law, a language, is somehow (it is not explained how) directly determinative of human conduct, and/or, that persons somehow determine themselves to act, or not, by law. In philosophy, when attacking an untenable position, one aims at the presupposition(s) entailed therein. Hence I am maintaining that jurisprudence is predicating its entire being upon an unexamined/unexplained supposition that law is an efficacy among persons purely by dint of the fact that it is given...
Impenitent
Posts: 4332
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Existential Ontological Critique of Law

Post by Impenitent »

the law itself may be nonsensical and unintelligible...

enforcement- selective enforcement is never nonsensical, it is tyrannical...

defund everything and use a shotgun

-Imp
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Existential Ontological Critique of Law

Post by FlashDangerpants »

upsurgent wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 10:04 pm In our American legalistic society it is simply presumed, supposed, presupposed, that law, a language, is somehow (it is not explained how) directly determinative of human conduct, and/or, that persons somehow determine themselves to act, or not, by law. In philosophy, when attacking an untenable position, one aims at the presupposition(s) entailed therein. Hence I am maintaining that jurisprudence is predicating its entire being upon an unexamined/unexplained supposition that law is an efficacy among persons purely by dint of the fact that it is given...
Kinda sems like you are tilting at straw windmills tbh.
upsurgent
Posts: 77
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2019 8:48 pm

Re: Existential Ontological Critique of Law

Post by upsurgent »

No, the difficulty I am confronting is radically real.

Our so-called legal justice system is manned entirely by persons who actually do not have an understanding of what human freedom is, and, for their living, are continually persecuting ontologically free citizens via an instrument called "law", which law they mistakenly believe to have directorial/determinative/originative power to cause acts; while, all the while, human action does not, cannot originate causally on the basis of given factual states of affairs like law.
upsurgent
Posts: 77
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2019 8:48 pm

Re: Existential Ontological Critique of Law

Post by upsurgent »

Impenitent wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 12:52 am the law itself may be nonsensical and unintelligible...

enforcement- selective enforcement is never nonsensical, it is tyrannical...

defund everything and use a shotgun

-Imp
Appears that you are radically angry regarding the constant misconduct of inauthoritative authorities; however, human existential ontological language and the honest/authentic freedom-precepts which that language conveys, are radically more efficacious than firearms...
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Existential Ontological Critique of Law

Post by FlashDangerpants »

upsurgent wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 1:11 pm No, the difficulty I am confronting is radically real.

Our so-called legal justice system is manned entirely by persons who actually do not have an understanding of what human freedom is, and, for their living, are continually persecuting ontologically free citizens via an instrument called "law", which law they mistakenly believe to have directorial/determinative/originative power to cause acts; while, all the while, human action does not, cannot originate causally on the basis of given factual states of affairs like law.
Can you provide a citation in support of this extravagant claim?

The default view shared by humanity at large is the folk psychological model that approximates to both the modern BDI model of belief desire and intent and also Aristotle's Practical Syllogism. I am sure you assume it broadly true that your own actions are the result of your desires and beliefs influencing your choices, no?

If these person within the justice system are such incredible behaviourists that they cannot accept psychological nouns or verbs and assume instead that human action is entirely explained by legalsitic laws (not even laws of nature) then there should be some very unusual texts that cover this strange theory you credit them with.
upsurgent
Posts: 77
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2019 8:48 pm

Re: Existential Ontological Critique of Law

Post by upsurgent »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 1:33 pm
upsurgent wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 1:11 pm No, the difficulty I am confronting is radically real.

Our so-called legal justice system is manned entirely by persons who actually do not have an understanding of what human freedom is, and, for their living, are continually persecuting ontologically free citizens via an instrument called "law", which law they mistakenly believe to have directorial/determinative/originative power to cause acts; while, all the while, human action does not, cannot originate causally on the basis of given factual states of affairs like law.
Can you provide a citation in support of this extravagant claim?

The default view shared by humanity at large is the folk psychological model that approximates to both the modern BDI model of belief desire and intent and also Aristotle's Practical Syllogism. I am sure you assume it broadly true that your own actions are the result of your desires and beliefs influencing your choices, no?

If these person within the justice system are such incredible behaviourists that they cannot accept psychological nouns or verbs and assume instead that human action is entirely explained by legalsitic laws (not even laws of nature) then there should be some very unusual texts that cover this strange theory you credit them with.
I am grounding my assertions regarding human freedom upon “Being and Nothingness: An Essay in Phenomenological Ontology.” J.P. Sartre, Part Four. Freedom. 1943. The OP includes two quotations from Part Four. Freedom. of Sartre's "Being and Nothingness". I have not researched any texts written by our inauthoritative authorities regarding their behavioristic weltanschauung, I am proceeding strictly on the basis of my lifetime observation of their positivist approach to civic life.
Yes, it is broadly true that my own actions are the result of my desires and my beliefs, wherein desire is lack and belief is an ilk of nonentity.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Existential Ontological Critique of Law

Post by FlashDangerpants »

So you are slandering these people by insisting that they hold a truly weird and entirely implausible view of human psychology just because you got arrested for something and are unhappy?
upsurgent
Posts: 77
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2019 8:48 pm

Re: Existential Ontological Critique of Law

Post by upsurgent »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 3:28 pm So you are slandering these people by insisting that they hold a truly weird and entirely implausible view of human psychology just because you got arrested for something and are unhappy?
I am not writing due to some past incident wherein I was arrested!? I just plainly recognize an unintentional dishonesty entailed within law, via my studies in existential ontological freedom, and, I want to openly proclaim that unintentional dishonesty, ascribable to a lack of reflective understanding of human freedom by our so called authorities. It is not slander to critique a mistaken view of the mode of upsurge of human action.
Impenitent
Posts: 4332
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Existential Ontological Critique of Law

Post by Impenitent »

upsurgent wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 1:21 pm
Impenitent wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 12:52 am the law itself may be nonsensical and unintelligible...

enforcement- selective enforcement is never nonsensical, it is tyrannical...

defund everything and use a shotgun

-Imp
Appears that you are radically angry regarding the constant misconduct of inauthoritative authorities; however, human existential ontological language and the honest/authentic freedom-precepts which that language conveys, are radically more efficacious than firearms...
sticks and stones

-Imp
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Existential Ontological Critique of Law

Post by Skepdick »

upsurgent wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 1:39 pm EXISTENTIAL ONTOLOGICAL CRITIQUE OF LAW

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.

...
Laws and law enforcement are a worldly and social phenomenon. They are used and abused by humans like anything else.

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.

The world owes you neither sensibility nor intellligiblit - you simply don't understand how it works.
upsurgent
Posts: 77
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2019 8:48 pm

Re: Existential Ontological Critique of Law

Post by upsurgent »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 5:10 pm
upsurgent wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 1:39 pm EXISTENTIAL ONTOLOGICAL CRITIQUE OF LAW

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.

...
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.
Gravity; 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.

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.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Existential Ontological Critique of Law

Post by Skepdick »

upsurgent wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 5:53 pm
Skepdick wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 5:10 pm
upsurgent wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 1:39 pm EXISTENTIAL ONTOLOGICAL CRITIQUE OF LAW

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.

...
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.
Gravity; 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.

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.
Uhhh, nothing of that sort is going on here.

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...
upsurgent wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 1:39 pm ..the mistaken ... presupposition that language ... is determinative of behavior...
Post Reply