Law is Not Determinative of Human Conduct

lwf said:

... and yours strikes me as pretension.

Click to expand...

Me too. It's very obvious. And boring. Sorry to pop in. I'm just gonna pop back out.

augustus said:

Me too. It's very obvious. And boring. Sorry to pop in. I'm just gonna pop back out.

Click to expand...

Augustus,
Perhaps you just now missed my very last post where I begin to re-write the OP in ordinary language, instead of existential phenomenological language.
What is "...very obvious." ? Merely to say "it is" completely leaves out whatever you are referring to and the reader is stranded. I am concerned with a dead serious topic, so you are bored, so what...a description of the horror of our legal system cannot possibly be delightful, or entertaining !
Enscausasui

Wisdom of Peterson Mmmmm word salad

Re: The Language of Law

nota bene said:

What's your point here?

Click to expand...

nota bene,
I have re-written the first few pages of my OP. See if the use of ordinary language helps you see the central point:

THE LANGUAGE of LAW is NOT A DETERMINATIVE CONTROLLING FORCE AMONG ALL FREE MEN and WOMEN WHO FROM BIRTH OWN the ORIGINAL HUMAN ONTOLOGICAL FREEDOM WHEREBY LAW is MADE.
1. Prior to any possible calling into question of the honor, authenticity, and efficacy of American enforcement and practice of law, it is advisable to take notice of a twentieth century explanation of how one causes oneself act, written by the Frenchman Jean Paul Sartre (1901-1980), in 1943.
2. When a person decides to do something, we say he or she has “determined” to do such and such. One can, as well, determine one’s self to do nothing. That doing nothing is usually in regard to some definite situation or other. A decision to do nothing in regard to a particular situation is what is known as a “forbearance”. In law a forbearance, doing nothing, is known as a “negative act”, and, it is in reference to law that I want to discuss how persons determine to do, or not to do, this or that.
3. Law is commonly thought, to be a means to make persons do, or not do, this or that. The idea is that if a particular law is put into writing by a legislature, or by a judge, it somehow compels people do what is required or, not do what is forbidden.
4. The language of law as language is commonly thought to determine persons, including judges; legislators; police and prosecutors, to do, or not do, specified acts. And, persons are commonly thought to determine themselves to do, or not do, certain acts by law, that is, somehow, by the force of, or, by the power of law, people are thought to be moved by law in their actions and inactions.
5. A law can be said to be a given, that is ,to be something that is, something that exists, something that is factual.
6. Now, the modern new idea to which I referred above, concerning how persons make themselves do, or not do, this or that, as set forth by J.P. Sartre: ”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.”***

Re: The Language of Law

enscausasui said:

nota bene,
I have re-written the first few pages of my OP. See if the use of ordinary language helps you see the central point.

Click to expand...

Not really. You might want to try spacing between paragraphs rather than presenting a tl;dr wall of text. I did slog through, but I have no idea at all what YOUR point is. See if you can try one sentence beginning with either "I think...." or "I believe...."

Re: The Language of Law

nota bene said:

Not really. You might want to try spacing between paragraphs rather than presenting a tl;dr wall of text. I did slog through, but I have no idea at all what YOUR point is. See if you can try one sentence beginning with either "I think...." or "I believe...."

Click to expand...

When one says "I believe..." one is ultimately expressing doubt; one is actually saying that one is unsure of and uncertain about what one

is maintaining. I am not in doubt or unsure, thus I cannot, do not, state mere belief.

In what I wrote I am introducing the reader to an issue which I raise about how

society currently thinks about what law does,in comparison to a view of how human behavior comes into being which

was written in 1943 by the well known thinker named Sartre. The central point being developed is that we are mistaken about law being

something which somehow makes us do things; that language of law has no force, no power, of itself, to make or determine us to do

anything. I absolutely cannot see how you do not see that that is what I am up to ! Enscausasui

Re: The Language of Law

enscausasui said:

When one says "I believe..." one is ultimately expressing doubt; one is actually saying that one is unsure of and uncertain about what one

is maintaining. I am not in doubt or unsure, thus I cannot, do not, state mere belief.

In what I wrote I am introducing the reader to an issue which I raise about how

society currently thinks about what law does,in comparison to a view of how human behavior comes into being which

was written in 1943 by the well known thinker named Sartre. The central point being developed is that we are mistaken about law being

something which somehow makes us do things; that language of law has no force, no power, of itself, to make or determine us to do

anything. I absolutely cannot see how you do not see that that is what I am up to ! Enscausasui

Click to expand...

I'm not willing to wade through, frankly. But here you go:

French philosopher Sartre said that we are mistaken about law being a factor which somehow makes us do things. Language has no force, no power, to make us do anything.

And now that this is clear, do you agree with him? I don't. The threat of legal consequences as expressed in the written laws influences my choices in behavior.

enscausasui said:

If you knew what an argumentum ad hominem was you would not be making such a ridiculous fool of yourself. I do not give a **** what the **** a vicious ignoramus like you is or is not convinced about...**** off.






Take your hatred elsewhere.

Click to expand...

Oy vey...

:doh




You're not going to win an argument by throwing a thesaurus at your Intro to Philosophy book, or by following a belligerently spastic outburst with that closer.

(Also, the pompous piffle in the OP is simply false as a general assertion. Perhaps those willing to commit the worst crimes - murderers, etc - are not deterred by law, but most people are deterred by the less serious laws.

Mr Person said:

Oy vey...

:doh




You're not going to win an argument by throwing a thesaurus at your Intro to Philosophy book, or by following a belligerently spastic outburst with that closer.

(Also, the pompous piffle in the OP is simply false as a general assertion. Perhaps those willing to commit the worst crimes - murderers, etc - are not deterred by law, but most people are deterred by the less serious laws.

Click to expand...

Any deterrence which law effects upon ordinary persons is strictly on account of the fear of punishment attendant upon "breaking the law" and, is not a deterrence effected by the language of the particular law prohibiting whatever it happens to be prohibiting, or prescribing. Reflect upon what Sartre is telling us, i.e., no factual, no given, no existing state of affairs effectuates a human act because the given is simply what it is and cannot get out of itself to act on anything. Law is a given. Law cannot, does not, act. It is really so straightforward and simple. Your ugly insults are insulting an established existential theory of the origin of human action which I did not author, I am simply employing that particular theory of the origin of action in regard to the common notion that law causes/makes/motivates persons to do or not do things; which notion is mistaken. I call the mistaken notion jurisprudential illusion.
I cannot tell what on earth you are referring to when you continually use of "that" to refer to whatever you are referring to ! It does not matter that what I write strikes you as pompous piffle, what I am writing is based in a long accepted mode of thinking, which Sartre expressed in very difficult language. I am making repeated good faith attempts to reduce my position to plainer and plainer language and, still, all you can manage is to give insult. I am not trying to win an argument; I am simply working to lay out a position that the language of law is not a determinative agent; only the promise of violence which stands behind law is effective, not the law per se. Thank you for your input, however insulting and uncivil...Enscausasui "Political bias optional, civility a must." Can you possibly be civil ?! No.

Re: The Language of Law

enscausasui said:

nota bene,
I have re-written the first few pages of my OP. See if the use of ordinary language helps you see the central point:

THE LANGUAGE of LAW is NOT A DETERMINATIVE CONTROLLING FORCE AMONG ALL FREE MEN and WOMEN WHO FROM BIRTH OWN the ORIGINAL HUMAN ONTOLOGICAL FREEDOM WHEREBY LAW is MADE.
1. Prior to any possible calling into question of the honor, authenticity, and efficacy of American enforcement and practice of law, it is advisable to take notice of a twentieth century explanation of how one causes oneself act, written by the Frenchman Jean Paul Sartre (1901-1980), in 1943.
2. When a person decides to do something, we say he or she has “determined” to do such and such. One can, as well, determine one’s self to do nothing. That doing nothing is usually in regard to some definite situation or other. A decision to do nothing in regard to a particular situation is what is known as a “forbearance”. In law a forbearance, doing nothing, is known as a “negative act”, and, it is in reference to law that I want to discuss how persons determine to do, or not to do, this or that.
3. Law is commonly thought, to be a means to make persons do, or not do, this or that. The idea is that if a particular law is put into writing by a legislature, or by a judge, it somehow compels people do what is required or, not do what is forbidden.
4. The language of law as language is commonly thought to determine persons, including judges; legislators; police and prosecutors, to do, or not do, specified acts. And, persons are commonly thought to determine themselves to do, or not do, certain acts by law, that is, somehow, by the force of, or, by the power of law, people are thought to be moved by law in their actions and inactions.
5. A law can be said to be a given, that is ,to be something that is, something that exists, something that is factual.
6. Now, the modern new idea to which I referred above, concerning how persons make themselves do, or not do, this or that, as set forth by J.P. Sartre: ”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.”***

Click to expand...

Wow. You are literally saying nothing of any discernible value using the maximum amount of words possible.

Re: The Language of Law

nota bene said:

I'm not willing to wade through, frankly. But here you go:

French philosopher Sartre said that we are mistaken about law being a factor which somehow makes us do things. Language has no force, no power, to make us do anything.

And now that this is clear, do you agree with him? I don't. The threat of legal consequences as expressed in the written laws influences my choices in behavior.

Click to expand...

No, Sartre never directly said that law does not motivate or cause us to do things. I am the a person applying Sartre's position regarding the origin of human action to an examination of the mode of origin of action which law advocates. Sartre is speaking about our human freedom, what he calls our original or ontological freedom. It is freedom that is not, cannot be determined to action by a given state of the world, then we would not be free. We are free, and freedom determines itself to act on the basis of what is not yet, not on the basis of what is. What is just is, it is in-itself or total coincidence with itself.

I agree with Sartre that my acts are determined by what is not, that all determination is negation. Yes, it is only the violence attendant upon violating law which influences your choices, it is not the language of law per se which effects you. All our legal system has is violence; we can do better...far, far better. Law is not all of a sudden just going to vanish, the movement of history is dialectical; thesis, anti thesis, synthesis, is the movent pattern of history...I am advocating am extreme antitheses of the common view of law as a force, a power, a determinative, causal agent, because, I have, via Sartre, ontological grounds for doing so. Enscausasui
You certainly presented me with a very extensive epistle to wade through, which I did, and, you were writing to a guy who can demonstrate the ontological impossibility of rules, laws, being an efficient determinative agency among persons. It is of extreme interest to me that the moderators of a forum transpiring within these United States, think that they can modify our Bill of Rights to say: "Choose your words carefully." Hilarious ! Wow, I must watch out, I'll be severely punished if I don't watch out for the strict absolutistic rules against free speech, passed, in congress, by legislative moderators. Will I even have a hearing ? No. Slippery slope.

Re: The Language of Law

Tanngrisnir said:

Wow. You are literally saying nothing of any discernible value using the maximum amount of words possible.

Click to expand...

Please do not hold it against me that you are unable to discern anything useful to you, fine. Perhaps you lack the education and reflection requisite to discern what the Other is saying, even in ordinary language. The number of words had to increase expotentially when I came down out of my ivory tower to attempt to communicate with those I had left behind in the dark cave of shadows, where the poor souls there do not discern anything clearly. Most of what I am doing is translating an existing theory of the origin of human action into smaller and simpler terms, for ordinary persons without degrees in Philosophy. The basis for my position was written in 1943 and, is, in turn, based on a phrase spoken in the seventeenth century, so, I am reiterating something of already established value, said to be infinitely rich, i.e., Spinoza's dictum (determination is negation), and, adding my own original thinking about law, onto the existing theory of the origin of the upsurge of human action, written by Sartre. Can you possibly set forth any position other that an argumentum ad hominum ?? Enscausasui

Re: The Language of Law

enscausasui said:

Please do not hold it against me that you are unable to discern anything useful to you, fine. Perhaps you lack the education and reflection requisite to discern what the Other is saying, even in ordinary language. The number of words had to increase expotentially when I came down out of my ivory tower to attempt to communicate with those I had left behind in the dark cave of shadows, where the poor souls there do not discern anything clearly. Most of what I am doing is translating an existing theory of the origin of human action into smaller and simpler terms, for ordinary persons without degrees in Philosophy. The basis for my position was written in 1943 and, is, in turn, based on a phrase spoken in the seventeenth century, so, I am reiterating something of already established value, said to be infinitely rich, i.e., Spinoza's dictum (determination is negation), and, adding my own original thinking about law, onto the existing theory of the origin of the upsurge of human action, written by Sartre. Can you possibly set forth any position other that an argumentum ad hominum ?? Enscausasui

Click to expand...

Oh, it's no matter. Having an education, and one that includes philosophy and logic, I'm just enjoying watching you flail about, desperately trying to make sense and have people taken your psychobabble seriously.

And I haven't offered any agumentum ad hominum.

Have you ever considered taking some philosophy or rhetoric classes at, say, your local community college? I think they might REALLY open your eyes. Philosophy is actually interesting and fun. You'd probably like it!

Re: The Language of Law

Tanngrisnir said:

Oh, it's no matter. Having an education, and one that includes philosophy and logic, I'm just enjoying watching you flail about, desperately trying to make sense and have people taken your psychobabble seriously.

And I haven't offered any agumentum ad hominum.

Have you ever considered taking some philosophy or rhetoric classes at, say, your local community college? I think they might REALLY open your eyes. Philosophy is actually interesting and fun. You'd probably like it!

Click to expand...

When you characterize me in terms of the number of words I employ, and, in your opinion, that I am saying nothing, and, am psycho-babbling, you are arguing against my person, not my position, which mode of approaching my concerns is ad hominum argumentation.

I am indeed struggling to explain some simple precepts of French existentialist thought, a philosophy in which I am degreed, to persons entirely unfamiliar with the extensive historical thinking attendant upon Spinoza's dictum. I make perfect sense; the persons whom I am addressing simply are not instrumented such that they can follow thought grounded in terms of negation. If you cannot see the simple notions which I have imparted via my last re-write, of just six segments of thought, you just plain cannot do so. So what ?

You are responsible for your own lack of understanding, and, I cannot possibly bend any lower, in what is clearly a vain attempt to communicate with forum members who know only insult and, behave like little girls, able only to cry and complain, when confronted with description of a significant illusion transpiring in American law.

Of all the persons I've interacted with here only three were members capable of uplifting the person with whom they are interacting. I am becoming exhausted by all the ignoble persons on this site, who are able only to offer disparagement and insult, and, are not worth the effort to attempt to have a civil and uplifting interaction with....clearly, I am proffering pears to swine. Enscausasui

Re: The Language of Law

enscausasui said:

When you characterize me in terms of the number of words I employ, and, in your opinion, that I am saying nothing, and, am psycho-babbling, you are arguing against my person, not my position, which mode of approaching my concerns is ad hominum argumentation.

Click to expand...

Newp. Just observing objective reality, as anyone who reads this dog's breakfast of a thread will understand.

I am indeed struggling to explain some simple precepts of French existentialist thought, a philosophy in which I am degreed, to persons entirely unfamiliar with the extensive historical thinking attendant upon Spinoza's dictum. I make perfect sense; the persons whom I am addressing simply are not instrumented such that they can follow thought grounded in terms of negation. If you cannot see the simple notions which I have imparted via my last re-write, of just six segments of thought, you just plain cannot do so. So what ?

Click to expand...

You'll understand, of course, if no rational adult believes you're 'degreed' in that and all the laughter that comes from it.

You are responsible for your own lack of understanding, and, I cannot possibly bend any lower, in what is clearly a vain attempt to communicate with forum members who know only insult and, behave like little girls, able only to cry and complain, when confronted with description of a significant illusion transpiring in American law.

Click to expand...

It's sad that you don't understand law or philosophy.

Of all the persons I've interacted with here only three were members capable of uplifting the person with whom they are interacting. I am becoming exhausted by all the ignoble persons on this site, who are able only to offer disparagement and insult, and, are not worth the effort to attempt to have a civil and uplifting interaction with....clearly, I am proffering pears to swine. Enscausasui

Click to expand...

Realism in the works of Tarantino
Rudolf Reicher

Department of Deconstruction, Oxford University

1. Tarantino and neosemanticist cultural theory

The characteristic theme of de Selby’s[1] critique of
Sartreist existentialism is the fatal flaw, and some would say the absurdity,
of neostructuralist class. It could be said that the primary theme of the works
of Tarantino is a self-falsifying reality.

“Culture is a legal fiction,” says Debord. Baudrillard’s analysis of realism
implies that the goal of the poet is significant form. But Lacan suggests the
use of cultural capitalism to attack outmoded perceptions of society.

“Class is fundamentally responsible for capitalism,” says Baudrillard;
however, according to Buxton[2] , it is not so much class
that is fundamentally responsible for capitalism, but rather the defining
characteristic of class. The main theme of Bailey’s[3] model
of preconceptualist cultural theory is the role of the artist as observer. It
could be said that a number of discourses concerning the postcapitalist
paradigm of narrative may be discovered.

If realism holds, we have to choose between neosemanticist cultural theory
and textual narrative. Therefore, Marx uses the term ‘Lyotardist narrative’ to
denote a mythopoetical whole.

The subject is interpolated into a neosemanticist cultural theory that
includes language as a totality. However, many situationisms concerning the
dialectic, and therefore the failure, of neosemanticist society exist.

The subject is contextualised into a constructive predialectic theory that
includes consciousness as a reality. Thus, in Vineland, Pynchon affirms
neosemanticist cultural theory; in The Crying of Lot 49 he reiterates
patriarchial theory.

Baudrillard uses the term ‘neosemanticist cultural theory’ to denote a
self-referential whole. In a sense, Marx promotes the use of the neotextual
paradigm of expression to modify and challenge class.
2. Neosemanticist cultural theory and conceptual dematerialism

Re: The Language of Law

enscausasui said:

No, Sartre never directly said that law does not motivate or cause us to do things. I am the a person applying Sartre's position regarding the origin of human action to an examination of the mode of origin of action which law advocates. Sartre is speaking about our human freedom, what he calls our original or ontological freedom. It is freedom that is not, cannot be determined to action by a given state of the world, then we would not be free. We are free, and freedom determines itself to act on the basis of what is not yet, not on the basis of what is. What is just is, it is in-itself or total coincidence with itself.

I agree with Sartre that my acts are determined by what is not, that all determination is negation. Yes, it is only the violence attendant upon violating law which influences your choices, it is not the language of law per se which effects you. All our legal system has is violence; we can do better...far, far better. Law is not all of a sudden just going to vanish, the movement of history is dialectical; thesis, anti thesis, synthesis, is the movent pattern of history...I am advocating am extreme antitheses of the common view of law as a force, a power, a determinative, causal agent, because, I have, via Sartre, ontological grounds for doing so. Enscausasui
You certainly presented me with a very extensive epistle to wade through, which I did, and, you were writing to a guy who can demonstrate the ontological impossibility of rules, laws, being an efficient determinative agency among persons. It is of extreme interest to me that the moderators of a forum transpiring within these United States, think that they can modify our Bill of Rights to say: "Choose your words carefully." Hilarious ! Wow, I must watch out, I'll be severely punished if I don't watch out for the strict absolutistic rules against free speech, passed, in congress, by legislative moderators. Will I even have a hearing ? No. Slippery slope.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're on about here.

Re: The Language of Law

enscausasui said:

When you characterize me in terms of the number of words I employ, and, in your opinion, that I am saying nothing, and, am psycho-babbling, you are arguing against my person, not my position, which mode of approaching my concerns is ad hominum argumentation.

I am indeed struggling to explain some simple precepts of French existentialist thought, a philosophy in which I am degreed, to persons entirely unfamiliar with the extensive historical thinking attendant upon Spinoza's dictum. I make perfect sense; the persons whom I am addressing simply are not instrumented such that they can follow thought grounded in terms of negation. If you cannot see the simple notions which I have imparted via my last re-write, of just six segments of thought, you just plain cannot do so. So what ?

You are responsible for your own lack of understanding, and, I cannot possibly bend any lower, in what is clearly a vain attempt to communicate with forum members who know only insult and, behave like little girls, able only to cry and complain, when confronted with description of a significant illusion transpiring in American law.

Of all the persons I've interacted with here only three were members capable of uplifting the person with whom they are interacting. I am becoming exhausted by all the ignoble persons on this site, who are able only to offer disparagement and insult, and, are not worth the effort to attempt to have a civil and uplifting interaction with....clearly, I am proffering pears to swine. Enscausasui

Click to expand...

Swine like pears.

Re: The Language of Law

You'll understand, of course, if no rational adult believes you're 'degreed' in that and all the laughter that comes from it.

2007, B.A. Philosophy, California State University of the East Bay, (CSUEB). The laughter arises from a series of persons who are far too limited to follow or understand theoretically oriented modes of thought.

Re: The Language of Law

nota bene said:

Swine like pears.

Click to expand...

That was a typographical error. It was meant to read ...pearls...; and, I meant that you are one of the nice and decent persons around here, nota bene. I had given up on this site because of the overall inhumanity of the people I have encountered here, then, this evening I got a friend request, so I am just here perusing posts that appeared during my absence. This site is too much of a hassle because, the majority of the members are so uneducated that it is absolutely impossible to communicate in any really meaningful and edifying way with them; all they know is ridicule and insult and disparagement and disrespect, and, no one needs that form of flux...

Re: The Language of Law

enscausasui said:

That was a typographical error. It was meant to read ...pearls...; and, I meant that you are one of the nice and decent persons around here, nota bene. I had given up on this site because of the overall inhumanity of the people I have encountered here, then, this evening I got a friend request, so I am just here perusing posts that appeared during my absence. This site is too much of a hassle because, the majority of the members are so uneducated that it is absolutely impossible to communicate in any really meaningful and edifying way with them; all they know is ridicule and insult and disparagement and disrespect, and, no one needs that form of flux...

Click to expand...

No, don't give up on the site; participate and help improve it.

Re: The Language of Law

nota bene said:

No, don't give up on the site; participate and help improve it.

Click to expand...

Thanks a million note been, you are delightful. We'll see, although members which I encounter are inordinately dreadful, mean, and vicious; therefore, naturally, I've lost my enthusiasm on account of endless ad hominem attacks, which absolutely destroy any possible dialogue and fruitful dialectical interchange.

Re: The Language of Law

enscausasui said:

Thanks a million note been, you are delightful. We'll see, although members which I encounter are inordinately dreadful, mean, and vicious; therefore, naturally, I've lost my enthusiasm on account of endless ad hominem attacks, which absolutely destroy any possible dialogue and fruitful dialectical interchange.

Click to expand...

Wheat...chaff...blossoms...thorns....