“Law” is Not Determinative of Conduct

[Ben]

This is getting tiresome, and, the membership here keeps on and on exhibiting a profound bigoted ignorance...

When you get to the point that you think everyone but you is a jackass, it's time to look in the mirror.

[RoadKingLarry]

Certainly I know what it means.  It means to argue against the  man and not against his position.  It is a logical fallacy taught in introductory logic.

We are not arguing against Sartre because we don't like the color of his tie or because we dislike his ethnicity or we think his mother was ugly.
We disagree with his philosophy in part because we question the basis of his understanding of human motivation and his self avowed beliefs in what makes a person or system "good". Most of us here have "been around the block" a few times have been, sometimes unwillingly, students of humanity.
Sartre was a proponent or Marxism. Can you point to any example of a Marxist based system that has uplifted the people under it?
Sartre believed that Guevara was a great man. How can you have any faith in the philosophy of person that considered a blood thirsty, murderous thug such as Guevara to be role model worthy of emulation?

[Ben]

You are dead wrong.  I am not misusing it. Members are arguing against the man, not against his position regarding the origin of a  human act.

No one here has argued against the man, we have argued against his worldview, which is part of his philosophy. If you can't see that now, perhaps you will in Philosophy 201 in your Sophomore year.

[RoadKingLarry]

Why can't you simply allow me the freedom to be who I am and to say what I say, without questioning each and every thing I write!?  You are hypercritical. No, English is not a second language. You clearly have not mastered "Being and Nothingness" and, hence, are not in a position to constantly claim I am misrepresenting the content thereof, and on and on about my lack of understanding of Sartre, while, you have no understanding at all. This is getting tiresome, and, the membership here keeps on and on exhibiting a profound bigoted ignorance...

What exactly did you expect when you started posting here? Accolades for your benevolent efforts to enlighten us poor benighted heathens?
You proffered a philosophical position and pronounced it as an in immutable truth.
Many of us disagreed based on the philosophers positions and world views each stating why we disagreed with his philosophy in large part because of his overall world view.
You seem to be deeply offended that we haven't lauded your high state of enlightenment and instead or discussing WHY we should change our minds you resort to informing us that we are bigoted and ignorant.
If you expect to go through life and never have people disagree with you then you are in for an interesting ride.

[Doggy Daddy]

vastly vast

highbrow!

[cordex]

Why can't you simply allow me the freedom to be who I am and to say what I say, without questioning each and every thing I write!? 

This is a discussion forum. We discuss things here. You haughtily posted an assertion as absolute truth. I disagree with some of what you said and thought it was interesting enough to respond. If you would prefer not to discuss your ideas you don’t have to share them.

You are hypercritical.

Maybe so. That is not my intent, however it is possible I reacted too strongly to your hyperconfidence.

No, English is not a second language. You clearly have not mastered "Being and Nothingness" and, hence, are not in a position to constantly claim I am misrepresenting the content thereof, and on and on about my lack of understanding of Sartre, while, you have no understanding at all. This is getting tiresome, and, the membership here keeps on and on exhibiting a profound bigoted ignorance...

I was not trying to be offensive. You seem to phrase things awkwardly and misuse words and terms such that they do not parse the way you seem to intend. It reminds me of some people I know for whom English is a second language.

That said, there is far more that I have not mastered than I have mastered.  I’m not ashamed to admit that. Even so, the quotes you took from Sartre don’t support the conclusions you claim to draw from that material, your communication is awkward and often unclear, you have failed to respond to a number of valid critiques, and Sartre isn’t the inspired prophet you hold him out to be.

Out of curiosity, is this the first time you’ve tried to pressure test your philosophy?

[Ron]

Maybe we should pass a law that there will be no laws.

Then we can all self actualize while our culture and civilization collapses around us 

Laws are like "memes", when crafted well or wisely they pass important cultural and civilization building information along to the following generations. 

[Bosco1]

No one here has argued against the man, we have argued against his worldview, which is part of his philosophy. If you can't see that now, perhaps you will in Philosophy 201 in your Sophomore year.

I am predicating a critique of law upon Sartre's explication of how a human act originates in the world.  I  know absolutely nothing of his politics. Several members here are saying that I should reject his explanation of how an act originates, because, he expressed admiration for a Cuban person who was a monster. Sorry, that does not constitute any reason whatsoever to disdain and ignore his theory of origin of a human act; and, to claim to reject Sartre's theory of action because of his regard for some human monster, is clearly an ad hominem fallacy being employed against a man, instead of against his position regarding human action. I cannot and will not do such an absolutely fallacious and absurd thing!

[Bosco1]

This is a discussion forum. We discuss things here. You haughtily posted an assertion as absolute truth. I disagree with some of what you said and thought it was interesting enough to respond. If you would prefer not to discuss your ideas you don’t have to share them.
Maybe so. That is not my intent, however it is possible I reacted too strongly to your hyperconfidence.
I was not trying to be offensive. You seem to phrase things awkwardly and misuse words and terms such that they do not parse the way you seem to intend. It reminds me of some people I know for whom English is a second language.

That said, there is far more that I have not mastered than I have mastered.  I’m not ashamed to admit that. Even so, the quotes you took from Sartre don’t support the conclusions you claim to draw from that material, your communication is awkward and often unclear, you have failed to respond to a number of valid critiques, and Sartre isn’t the inspired prophet you hold him out to be.

Out of curiosity, is this the first time you’ve tried to pressure test your philosophy?

The portions of Sartre which I employed absolutely and precisely uphold the position which I posited regarding the law.  Which portions of Sartre you referred to as a word salad; which indicates to me that you have no respect whatsoever for the texts, and, you absolutely fail comprehend said texts.
No, this is not the first time I have engaged groups of persons regarding my position regarding law.  I have been doing so for years; however, all that I have posted thus far has been in radically technical existential ontological language.  For this attempt I worked for more than a week to write my position in the simplest terms I could muster, and, made it short and sweet in three parts. I radically appreciate your concern and participation. You are arguing against my person instead of my position much of the time, which is tiresome.
Please re-study the Sartrean texts upon which I am depending.  I think that if you do so you will ultimately see that I am correctly employing said texts....

[Bogie]

Do you support law?
 
What the SS did under Hitler was "legal."
 
The Jim Crow gun laws were "legal."

[RoadKingLarry]

I am predicating a critique of law upon Sartre's explication of how a human act originates in the world.  I  know absolutely nothing of his politics. Several members here are saying that I should reject his explanation of how an act originates, because, he expressed admiration for a Cuban person who was a monster. Sorry, that does not constitute any reason whatsoever to disdain and ignore his theory of origin of a human act; and, to claim to reject Sartre's theory of action because of his regard for some human monster, is clearly an ad hominem fallacy being employed against a man, instead of against his position regarding human action. I cannot and will not do such an absolutely fallacious and absurd thing!

You missed the point, entirely.

If Hitler spouted these same philosophies would you accept them at face value?
I believe that Sartre had a fallacious understanding of human nature and the motivations underlying it therefore giving him a unsupportable foundation for his beliefs. My belief that his understanding human nature being deficient led to a philosophy that is deficient and results in just so much clap-trap nonsense.
My evidence supporting that belief is the man's support of and admiration of murderous regimes and individuals while at the same time touting human freedom.
I also believe that the rare cogent points he made were purely accidental, much like the old saw that even a blind hogs finds an acorn from time to time.
 

[dogmush]

1. You aren't wrong that we don't have a ton of respect for the texts of a Communist existentialist around here. Perhaps you should have read some of the texts this forum's name is taken from.

2. If that's a week's effort in clear and concise communication,  another week, at least, was in order.

3. In my admittedly brief college philosophy course I saw nothing in Sartre's works that struck me as a cosmic truth.  As I mentioned before his concept of "condemned to freedom" doesn't match my experience in the real world. Like many of the 19th and 20th century  philosophers he said insulated from the world and contemplated obtuse theories that they never personally had to see tried.  When they were tried and the results of those theories were genocide they harumphed, said the people implemented their theories incorrectly,  and went back to their pampered, paid for,  celebrity lifestyle.  That's not attacking the man, that pointing out his inexperience with human nature outside sycophants, while philosophizing on human nature.

[Bosco1]

What exactly did you expect when you started posting here? Accolades for your benevolent efforts to enlighten us poor benighted heathens?
You proffered a philosophical position and pronounced it as an in immutable truth.
Many of us disagreed based on the philosophers positions and world views each stating why we disagreed with his philosophy in large part because of his overall world view.
You seem to be deeply offended that we haven't lauded your high state of enlightenment and instead or discussing WHY we should change our minds you resort to informing us that we are bigoted and ignorant.
If you expect to go through life and never have people disagree with you then you are in for an interesting ride.

Yes you have exhibited a profound bigoted ignorance, via doing ad hominem fallacious argument against Sartre. Sartre's politics are not reasonable reason to reject his theory of origin of human acts! If I were to tell you, at this moment, that I cannot possibly accept your writings, because you voted for a particular candidate in a recent election, that would be a personal attack against your person and, a failure to reason against your written position per se.

[Hawkmoon]

Why can't you simply allow me the freedom to be who I am and to say what I say, without questioning each and every thing I write!?

Why don't you do the same for us?

You came here and opened this discussion. No one has said that you are not free to be who you are or to say whatever you want to say. But your freedom to be who you are and to say what you want is not dependent on anyone's acceptance of or belief in anything you say. If you believe each individual should be free to express his or her thoughts, then you have to accept that other individuals -- who may not agree with your thoughts - are equally free to say whatever they want.

[Bosco1]

You missed the point, entirely.

If Hitler spouted these same philosophies would you accept them at face value?
I believe that Sartre had a fallacious understanding of human nature and the motivations underlying it therefore giving him a unsupportable foundation for his beliefs. My belief that his understanding human nature being deficient led to a philosophy that is deficient and results in just so much clap-trap nonsense.
My evidence supporting that belief is the man's support of and admiration of murderous regimes and individuals while at the same time touting human freedom.
I also believe that the rare cogent points he made were purely accidental, much like the old saw that even a blind hogs finds an acorn from time to time.

You completely and absolutely radically amaze me! Your capacity to kid yourself about yourself is profoundly incredible. That you seriously expect me to absolutely disregard a beautiful theory of the origin of our human acts, simply because Sartre believed this or that about communism, is profoundly absurd.

[Bosco1]

Why don't you do the same for us?

You came here and opened this discussion. No one has said that you are not free to be who you are or to say whatever you want to say. But your freedom to be who you are and to say what you want is not dependent on anyone's acceptance of or belief in anything you say. If you believe each individual should be free to express his or her thoughts, then you have to accept that other individuals -- who may not agree with your thoughts - are equally free to say whatever they want.

Yes, I was somewhat stressed from all of this intense interaction when I wrote that. I should not have said it. Of course you guys are free to write whatever.

[Bosco1]

highbrow!

Thank you much!

[RoadKingLarry]

You completely and absolutely radically amaze me! Your capacity to kid yourself about yourself is profoundly incredible. That you seriously expect me to absolutely disregard a beautiful theory of the origin of our human acts, simply because Sartre believed this or that about communism, is profoundly absurd.

So far you are the only one here that thinks his theories are beautiful. When one of us disagrees with your position you accuse us of bigotry and ignorance, which by the way is an ad hominem attack.
Your capacity to kid yourself about yourself is profoundly incredible, absurd and disrespectful of other peoples beliefs. I hope that when you grow up you will come to understand that your opinions are just that, opinions. Yours is no more valuable or valid than mine or anyone else on this forum or anywhere else you may find yourself. Denigrating people that disagree with you won't get you very far in a polite society.
I find your demands that we agree with your position extremely immature and arrogant beyond measure. My beliefs are based on 60+ years of life experience. Yours appear to be based on the ramblings of a lunatic pulled from a dog eared philosophy text book in some two bit liberal arts college.

This clip pretty well sums up my thoughts on your rant -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq-v1TTUyhM

Have a nice day!
 

[Ron]

Thank you much!

I'm not convinced that your posts aren't in bad faith.

[sumpnz]

The portions of Sartre which I employed absolutely and precisely uphold the position which I posited regarding the law.  Which portions of Sartre you referred to as a word salad; which indicates to me that you have no respect whatsoever for the texts, and, you absolutely fail comprehend said texts.
No, this is not the first time I have engaged groups of persons regarding my position regarding law.  I have been doing so for years; however, all that I have posted thus far has been in radically technical existential ontological language.  For this attempt I worked for more than a week to write my position in the simplest terms I could muster, and, made it short and sweet in three parts. I radically appreciate your concern and participation. You are arguing against my person instead of my position much of the time, which is tiresome.
Please re-study the Sartrean texts upon which I am depending.  I think that if you do so you will ultimately see that I am correctly employing said texts....

I took a 300 level course called “Social and Political Philosophy” at the university of Oregon.  Most of the philosophy texts we read (and Hannah Arendt was easily the worst offender of those texts) were all a bunch of pretentious nonsense masquerading as enlightened arguments.  Sartre is no different.  Philosophy types are the champions of saying absolutely nothing of substance among voluminous verbiage.

[Bosco1]

Maybe we should pass a law that there will be no laws.

Then we can all self actualize while our culture and civilization collapses around us 

Laws are like "memes", when crafted well or wisely they pass important cultural and civilization building information along to the following generations.

There is a sense wherein it can be said that there is no law, for, indeed, law is not actually determinative of human conduct.
Our civilization is collapsing given all this constant ongoing mass murder.

[Ron]

There is a sense wherein it can be said that there is no law, for, indeed, law is not actually determinative of human conduct.
Our civilization is collapsing given all this constant ongoing mass murder.

Who here is arguing that law is determinative of human conduct?

LAW
: a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority: as
1
: a command or provision enacted by a legislature

2
: something (as a judicial decision) authoritatively accorded binding or controlling effect in the administration of justice

[cordex]

Let's step back a moment.  As far as I can tell you've offered three fundamental assertions confused by contradictory and confusing side quests.  Frankly, your apparent weaknesses in writing and the way you improperly phrase things in such a way that you are saying something very different than you claim to intend has repeatedly derailed the discussion.

Regardless, the three fundamental assertions I've gathered are:
1. Law does not perfectly define or control human action.
This is really the only element for which you have provided supporting arguments.  I mostly agree with it, but I'd note that in many cases human action does tend to follow certain paths, especially when confronted with extremes such as threat of force ... which is typically the enforcement mechanism for law.  So this is literally true, but in practice often not as clear-cut.

2. Law is malicious, evil, hateful, rapacious and doubleplus ungood.
Again, there is no real support for this assertion, but I'll agree partially.  Like all exercise of power, law has the capacity to be misused and abused.  On the other hand, law has the capacity of carrying forward historical practices that worked well.  Law has the ability to (imperfectly) protect people, to set guiderails on their behavior and to punish people who do evil.  The "law=EVIL" schtick is absolutely comically lacking in nuance.  As has been noted, there are plenty of places where law does not exist.  I do not choose to relocate to those places with my family.

3. If people become educated by Bosco1 they will become as peaceful as lambs and there will be nothing but rainbows and buttercups and daisies.
Hogwash.  Utter hogwash.  Your only defense for this assertion was the old "But, but, but, real communism responsible anarchy has never been tried!"

So, in short, the Sartre deviation is really a non-issue as Sartre doesn't progress your argument past the first point.  You've made two unsupported assertions which I largely disagree with.  Do you think I'm missing something important?

[Bosco1]

I took a 300 level course called “Social and Political Philosophy” at the university of Oregon.  Most of the philosophy texts we read (and Hannah Arendt was easily the worst offender of those texts) were all a bunch of pretentious nonsense masquerading as enlightened arguments.  Sartre is no different.  Philosophy types are the champions of saying absolutely nothing of substance among voluminous verbiage.

The portion of Sartre which I appreciate is his study of being, of what we are as human beings; which is known as ontology. When one first encounters his idiosyncratic language of ontology, that language is radically unintelligible, which, however, does not mean it is in fact not intelligible language. It requires long and intense study to begin to learn and understand the existential language of ontology. Decades actually.
I went to college intermittently from 1963 to 2007. Chicks; employment; interesting studies; the GI Bill. Took only two degrees.
You need to give it lots of time if you are truly into philosophy/ideaology.

[Bogie]

Ever notice that a whole bunch of "academics" seem to think that theory trumps experience? And then refuse to believe differently when presented with different evidence...
 
<do we have a bumblebee emoji?>