Homicide, Murder, Manslaughter “Law” is Not Determinative of Conduct.

Status
Not open for further replies.

dcmc

New Member
Jurisdiction
Kentucky
Human action and inaction are, without question, deemed subject to being determined and originated by a given language known as "law"; while, since 1939, existential ontologist J.P. Sartre (1901-1980), realized and demonstrated that given states of affairs are not, cannot, possibly be determinative/originative of human action, or, inaction.

For example, the magistrate sentencing a person to death thinks he is "bound and determined by law" to do so; while all the while, the given language of law, whereby the magistrate deems himself to be acting is not, cannot, in fact, be determinative of the magistrate's conduct, for:

J.P. Sartre's: "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."

"Law" whereby the magistrate purports to originate his act of capital punishment, is an ontologically illegitimate/dishonest/dishonorable, and, defeasible theoretical construct.
 
Human action and inaction are, without question, deemed subject to being determined and originated by a given language known as "law"; while, since 1939, existential ontologist J.P. Sartre (1901-1980), realized and demonstrated that given states of affairs are not, cannot, possibly be determinative/originative of human action, or, inaction.

For example, the magistrate sentencing a person to death thinks he is "bound and determined by law" to do so; while all the while, the given language of law, whereby the magistrate deems himself to be acting is not, cannot, in fact, be determinative of the magistrate's conduct, for:

J.P. Sartre's: "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."

"Law" whereby the magistrate purports to originate his act of capital punishment, is an ontologically illegitimate/dishonest/dishonorable, and, defeasible theoretical construct.

Do you have a personal and REAL LIFE situation that you need legal guidance on? If so, post the situation and ask your question.
If not, this is not a debate site. You can google many such sites and go there to debate.
 
Do you have a personal and REAL LIFE situation that you need legal guidance on? If so, post the situation and ask your question.
If not, this is not a debate site. You can google many such sites and go there to debate.
I am not debating. I am merely laying down the law...
 
We are delusional in believing law to be determinative among human beings for whom all determination is actually negation.
 
And what gives Sarte's opinion more weight than the magistrates?
Spinoza's "...determinatio negatio est.."; and, Hegel's "All determination is negation." underlie Sartre's position, and, Sartre's position is ontologically in line with how a human act actually originates; whereas the magistrate is an unthinking positivist, wrongly thinking a human act arises on the basis of givens...
 
Spinoza's "...determinatio negatio est.."; and, Hegel's "All determination is negation." underlie Sartre's position, and, Sartre's position is ontologically in line with how a human act actually originates; whereas the magistrate is an unthinking positivist, wrongly thinking a human act arises on the basis of givens...
Again, this site is not appropriate for the type of debate/discussion you wish to engage in. Please google a more appropriate type of venue and post there.
 
Again, this site is not appropriate for the type of debate/discussion you wish to engage in. Please google a more appropriate type of venue and post there.
I have been searching such sites for many days, they are all dead; this is the only law-oriented site actually alive. This is the US of A, are you, another member, attempting to abridge my freedom of speech?! Mind your own business Mr. Prohibitive.
 
I have been searching such sites for many days, they are all dead; this is the only law-oriented site actually alive. This is the US of A, are you, another member, attempting to abridge my freedom of speech?! Mind your own business Mr. Prohibitive.
sigh...

No, I was politely trying to encourage you to respect the purpose of this site but as you wish to disregard said purpose I'll leave it to the Mod's to handle.

Have a lovely day.



Ms. Blue.
 
Mod here:

This is not a debate site. I would like to politely request that you either ask a legal question, or move on.

Thank you.
 
Mod here:

This is not a debate site. I would like to politely request that you either ask a legal question, or move on.

Thank you.
I am not debating; rather, am confronting jurisprudentially oriented persons with their error; and, this site is inside a free country, with freedom proceeding just fine without your much too prohibitive perspectival view!
I am indeed positing precisely a real life situation for which I am seeking counsel.
 
Last edited:
I am not debating; rather, am confronting jurisprudentially oriented persons with their error; and, this site is inside a free country, with freedom proceeding just fine without your much too prohibitive perspectival view!
I am indeed positing precisely a real life situation for which I am seeking counsel.

Please understand what freedom of speech means before spouting off about it. This site is perfectly free to control/limit what is posted here. The OWNER, and those he appoints, my LEGALLY control what is posted on this site.
 
Please understand what freedom of speech means before spouting off about it. This site is perfectly free to control/limit what is posted here. The OWNER, and those he appoints, my LEGALLY control what is posted on this site.
Fine, let us contact the owner to see if he, like you, wishes to hide his head in the sand too, regarding my ascriptions...
 
The owner has provided the mods with the authority to act for him.

Another thing this forum is not, is a soapbox for you to spout your views.

Move along, folks, nothing to see here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top