“Law” is Not Determinative of Conduct

[Northwoods]

Oh, and Bosco1, please learn the quote function better.  Your response is supposed after the [/quote].  It makes it much easier to read your responses.

[Bosco1]

All you described that you saw today simply reinforces my contention that given law is not determinative of conduct. All the mass murder shows the same, i.e., law is not, cannot be, determinative
Causation is the very last notion I personally entertain in regard to the origin of a human act.
My ontological freedom is not, cannot, be causally moved to act, or not, by an existing external phenomenon.
Sartre never speaks of law. I am viewing the law through the lens of his view of how a human act arises, and, that view permits me to show that jurisprudence does not actually understand how human action and inaction originate.
I do not understand what you mean when you say I have causality reversed...

[Bosco1]

Oh, and Bosco1, please learn the quote function better.  Your response is supposed after the .  It makes it much easier to read your responses.

Yes, I am having extreme difficulty responding.

[JN01]

I'm happy to be a common dufus so I don't have to bother with breaking my brain trying to make sense of philosophical gibberish. 

[Bosco1]

I'm happy to be a common dufus so I don't have to bother with breaking my brain trying to make sense of philosophical gibberish. 

The language I use comes out of what is known world wide as the most difficult book in the world, i.e., "Being and Nothingness", by J.P. Sartre (1901-1980), Part Four: Freedom, translated from French into English in 1943.  Do not feel bad.  It takes decades of hard work to understand the concepts set forth in the book.  I was absolutely lost when I first encountered the book in a college Philosophy course many decades ago, so I know how you feel; but one does not quit just because something is radically difficult.

[JN01]

but one does not quit just because something is radically difficult.

This one does, especially when it serves no practical purpose.

[230RN]

It's possible that Sartre was making fun of abstruse writings.  That remark was made during one of those after-party discussions at 4 AM, so let it pass.  In like manner, at the same party, it was also posited that Jackson Pollock was probably making fun of "abstract art."  Sample:



I believe that's Pollock's "Number 4."  I was always impressed by the shape of the model's beautiful nose.

You mean you don't see it?  You hopeless clod, you.

I'm happy to be a common dufus so I don't have to bother with breaking my brain trying to make sense of philosophical gibberish. 

Yes, prolix writing does not equal communication.

This all reminds me of someone having fun baiting the "we have ten million dollars which we want to send to you but we need $500 up front to cover the costs" type of spammer.  Gotta keep the spammer on the hook as long as possible for the fun of it.

I'm surprised the agony was allowed to continue.



Terry, 230RN

[Bosco1]

This one does, especially when it serves no practical purpose.

The practical purpose that studying this stuff serves, is that one can become what is known as being reflectively free.  To be reflectively free is to plainly understand how one's acts actually come to be; which is via what is known as the "double nihilation", i.e., when one is intending to do something one is surpassing the present state of affairs toward a not yet done something which one intends to do.  That surpassing is a nihilation (i.e., to make nothing) of the present/given state toward the not yet, future, intended state of affairs; which intended future state of affairs is nihilated, i.e., is a nothing made by one's intentional consciousness.

[Hawkmoon]

The practical purpose that studying this stuff serves, is that one can become what is known as being reflectively free.  To be reflectively free is to plainly understand how one's acts actually come to be; which is via what is known as the "double nihilation", i.e., when one is intending to do something one is surpassing the present state of affairs toward a not yet done something which one intends to do.  That surpassing is a nihilation (i.e., to make nothing) of the present/given state toward the not yet, future, intended state of affairs; which intended future state of affairs is nihilated, i.e., is a nothing made by one's intentional consciousness.

As I said several posts above, "BS."

And, as JN01 said, "philosophical gibberish."



Good night, Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are.

[RoadKingLarry]

My call is that this bot has failed the Turing test.

[Bosco1]

As I said several posts above, "BS."

And, as JN01 said, "philosophical gibberish."



Good night, Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are.

Fine. Stay stuck on - - - - - -.

[Bogie]

The practical purpose of studying philosophy?
 
Keeping the professors who sell the studying of philosophy employed and able to afford the nice lodgings within an easy walk of the campus.
 
Keeping the professors who sell the studying of philosophy able to influence young students to share their beds.

[230RN]

Aren't there Term Paper Generators that can do that?

[Bogie]

Term paper generators don't do blow jobs or make the payments for your Volvo.

[Hawkmoon]

Aren't there Term Paper Generators that can do that?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/chatgpt-chatbot-artificial-intelligence-job-replacement/

[Bosco1]

Bosco1, do you have practical experience with humans?  I ask because on my way into work today I saw more people breaking laws than perfectly following them. I saw speeding, failure to signal, expired registrations, homeless squatters, and having walked the streets I was driving I know them to be littered (a crime in and of itself) with needles used for illegal drugs. Having spent time with police both personally and professionally I can tell you that what I see is hardly even the tip of the iceberg.

Roadkinglarry provides a good illustration of the mindset that many people have. Law is given deference (or not) for a variety of reasons.

I still say that you and Sartre have the causality reversed when it comes to law.

All you described that you saw today simply reinforces my contention that given law is not determinative of conduct. All the mass murder shows the same, i.e., law is not, cannot be, determinative
Causation is the very last notion I personally entertain in regard to the origin of a human act.
My ontological freedom is not, cannot, be causally moved to act, or not, by an existing external phenomenon.
Sartre never speaks of law. I am viewing the law through the lens of his view of how a human act arises, and, that view permits me to show that jurisprudence does not actually understand how human action and inaction originate.
I do not understand what you mean when you say I have causality reversed...

[WLJ]

What is you name?

What is your quest?

What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

[Bosco1]

What is you name?

What is your quest?

What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

My name is Duane.
My quest is to glimpse a path to human civilization without suffocative law.
Unladen swallows are very slow.

[MechAg94]

My name is Duane.
My quest is to glimpse a path to human civilization without suffocative law.
Unladen swallows are very slow.

Next, someone will ask you your favorite color. 

You need to catch up on classic movies.      Not a law, just a recommendation. 

[MechAg94]

BS.

I don't know where you live, but I live in the real world. In the real world, if you break the law you can be arrested, tried, fined, and incarcerated. You can call laws "bogus" if you disagree with them, but what's your answer? In the real world, the answer is: you go to the legislature and petition to have a bad law removed. Been there, done that -- successfully.

  Yes, of course, all law ultimately has is violence and infliction of death, and there is a very dire sense wherein that is real.  However, law is the most irreal/artificial state of affairs extant. Pure man made systematical misleadingness.
What I am attempting is to inform others why law is essentially a lie, designed to eat out the substance of persons, all it wants is money, money, money...the lie is that law is determinative of human conduct. The law is quoted while your money is taken...

So what happens in a situation where there is no law?  That would only exist without humans (or life) so I don't see the point.   

[WLJ]

Failed the Monty Python test

Okay how about

What is best in life?

[Bosco1]

  So what happens in a situation where there is no law?  That would only exist without humans (or life) so I don't see the point.   

We are at this moment essentially in a situation without law, for law is not in fact determinative of human conduct, and, we are currently deluded in thinking that persons are and can be determined in their actions and inactions by law. I think a start to actually having civilization is first to render everyone reflectively free, which would be to increase the dignity/nobility of each person, and, thereby to calm human conduct.

[MechAg94]

We are at this moment essentially in a situation without law, for law is not in fact determinative of human conduct, and, we are currently deluded in thinking that persons are and can be determined in their actions and inactions by law. I think a start to actually having civilization is first to render everyone reflectively free, which would be to increase the dignity/nobility of each person, and, thereby to calm human conduct.

That makes some sense what you are saying even if I don't agree with it, but that could be said in much more plainly worded language.   

IMO, if you have as few as two people living in close proximity, there will be law of some type.  It may not be written down, but it will be there. 

[Bosco1]

That makes some sense, but that could be said in much more plainly worded language.   

Go ahead, write it the way you deem fit.  I write the way I write and, that was rapidly written on the spur of the moment, in response to your question...
But thanks for saying it made some sense.

[MechAg94]

I edited my statement after you replied.  I edit my post sometimes.