Law is neither obeyed disobeyed nor broken
LAW IS NEITHER OBEYED DISOBEYED NOR BROKEN
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, unaccomplished, 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…"(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 anintention. 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..
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, unaccomplished, 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…"(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 anintention. 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..
Comments (10)
A law is not a state of affairs. The state of affairs is that a given law is in force. But the law itself is normative.
Quoting Duane Meehan
That's not what the term "rule of law" means. The "rule of law" is the principle that executive power is exercised according to a set of rules, and it's adherence to those rules can be adjudicated.
Quoting Duane Meehan
No-one who has given the matter some though assumes that laws somehow determine human actions.
"rule of law", a phrase, not a word, has a vast and some think an almost indeterminate meaning, and, is commonly held to mean that our civilization is predicated upon all persons therein being ruled and ruling themselves by law(s).
"No-one who has given the matter some though assumes that laws somehow determine human actions.'' Echarmion
The magistrate who passes sentence upon persons will tell you that he is bound and determined by law to do so; I was once in traffic court when the judge informed me precisely that he is bound and determined by law to do that which he has just informed me of...
"A law is not a state of affairs." Echarmion
That assertion strikes me as a bit silly; everything, even nothing, is a state of affairs !
Citation?
Duane
Quoting Duane Meehan
There is a difference between saying "no person is above the law" and "the actions of every person are determined by law".
Quoting Duane Meehan
A court case may be the closest you'd come to laws outright determining actions. You still decide to abide by the law though. You're not determined to do so.
Quoting Duane Meehan
Rules are not states of affairs. "You should do X" is a rule, it tells you what to do. It's not a state of affairs, a description of the way things are. You're missing the distinction between "the law" as a description of the laws e.g. a country has enacted, and "the law" as the body of rules thus established.
Shouldn't it be obviously false if you observe others at all?
That is simply not true. Many people don't rob banks because they know they will get caught and get severely punished by law. Many people would kill if they hadn't considered the legal consequences of their actions.
In fact, everyone who breaks a law is either in the illusion that they will get away with it, despite the knowledge of what the law says and the applicable punishment, or else in a state where breaking the law and getting punished for it is less torturous than not breaking the law.
Eg. a man will steal a loaf of bread if he needs to feed his starving children or himself.
Eg. a waiter will not declare all his tip income in his tax return.
BUT
not all people who want fame and fortune quickly and without working for it rob a bank
not all people who hate living in their marriage or who hate their boss will kill their spouses or bosses.
To "abide by the law" is actually to do absolutely nothing whatsoever. I can name particular nothings which I am doing; e.g., I am not murdering someone; however, that doing nothing of murder is not ascribable to the state of affairs wherein law prohibits murder, it is merely that I am simply doing nothing, which is a negative action. When I am not doing murder I am intentionally not doing murder, which intentional negative act is not ascribable to a law which prohibits murder, for I am just plain doing nothing...
My positive acts all have an originative upsurge out of nothingness; for example, I recently needed to learn how to properly quote a member. That need to find out how to correctly respond was a negative structure, that is, a lack, an absence, a desideratum; and it is desideratum which is the originative determinative efficacy whereby I performed the acts of searching the site until I discovered the requisite technique.
Echarmion, I find a good deal of your responses essentially impossible for me to respond to, but I will continue to reflect upon those responses until, perhaps, I can respond...
I am able to make my original claim that existing language of law is not determinative of human conduct because Spinoza and Sartre have shown that all determination is negation, i.e., that no given, existing, present state of affairs, since it is what it is, an identity A=A, it cannot get out of itself in order to act upon a human being in order to accomplish a particular end. It is my understanding that all positivist determinists who think that language of law is a determinative force among men are deluded, and, they have not studied Spinoza, or Sartre, or lack the intellectual instrumentation to fathom what Spinoza has given mankind. I am attempting to put Spinoza and Sartre into the simplest possible language, which is extraordinarily difficult, although, I do think that my one page description of the actual mode of origin of human action achieves the end I desire, i.e., relative simplicity in explaining to people that all intentional action and inaction upsurge in the world only via negation, i.e., via lack, absence, need, desideratum...