Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2019 3:25 pm
upsurgent wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2019 2:41 pm
Atla;
Unfortunately you are proceeding via pure assertion wholly absent reasoned argument against my position. My position is in fact indefeasible, and, certainly is not deposed via mere nonsensical assertion. Structure a reasoned argument against my position and thereby engage in polemic, for reasoned polemic is what philosophy centrally is; otherwise, you accomplish nothing via mere assertion that my writing is backward nonsense ! You clearly lack the toughmindedness, intellectual instrumentation, and ability to overthrow my position via reason. I tire of your immature accusations absent reasoned explanation of your assertions...
Duane
I don't know what your position is. What does this mean for example?
law, an identity A=A, cannot get out of itself in order to determine anyone to do or not do anything
Atla,
One of the three regions of Being is Being-In-Itself. Being-in-itself is defined as being identical with itself, being wholly and concretely only what it is. In philosophy identity is expressed as A=A. I am maintaining that language of law is a concrete identity which coincides wholly with itself as in A=A; whereas, Consciousness is a Being-For-Itself, and, does not coincide with itself, is always outside itself acting in pursuit of a non yet realized future; thus law, as an in-itself, cannot form projects to transcend itself/get out of itself in order to achieve action toward an end goal, which goal is a not yet or non-existent nothing.
I am saying that jurisprudentially oriented scholars are mistakenly presupposing language of law to be a determinative force in the world, upon which they predicate their putative determinations to punish persons by law, even to the point of capital death; thus killing others purely on the basis of what is fundamentally the mistaken presupposition that the being-in-itself that is law is a forceful efficacy among men. In philosophy the most powerful possible means of overthrowing the position of an opponent is to expose his mistaken presupposition(s). I am showing that the jurisprudential presupposition that language of law is a determinative force among men is a radically mistaken presupposition, thus destroying the most rudimentary basis of law. Jurisprudence has not ever thought to examine the fundamental presupposition which underlies the practice of law, and, thus expose their weltanschauung to destruction at the theoretical level, and, the destruction of the most fundamental presupposition entertained by jurisprudence is precisely what I have done. I defy you to find anything which rises to the status of radically new and powerful polemic than the theoretical overthrow of the very notion of law. Nothing could be more revolutionary my tender and callow young fellow...
Duane
