|
Post by joustos on Jul 1, 2022 21:13:09 GMT
Introduction I like to open this branch of philosophy, JURISPRUDENCE, which I hope will attract more people to this Community, as it is needed today more than ever. By Jurisprudence I mean what the word means, namely, from Latin, Juris Prudentia (= Wisdom/Knowledge/Scientia [in Justinian] of WHAT IS RIGHT). Jus (Right, What is Right) is not to be confused with Lex [Law or What is Legal], wherefore by Jurisprudence we shall not mean what is frequently meant in America, the philosophy of law. Jurisprudence, says Justinian, is the science of what is to be done or not to be done.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 1, 2022 21:59:11 GMT
For me Jurisprudence sounds like the highest law or the art of law, state, politics, etc. In general, the art how to govern or to rule, and in particular, which orders there has to be set.
I might be wrong, but I guess Europe lacks that limits US or Britain have – the Bible. A European considers himself as the ultimate power to order laws, while a US citizen holds what Bible should say.
On the other hand, Bible is not so clarify, so it has to be interpreted. While there may be one, two or more interpretators.
I don't know where's true. I think religion plays here an important role. A law is something quite same to playing a god. We may be right, or wrong.
Anyway, I agree this theme is important. Yes, it is. It is worth to think about it.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jul 2, 2022 14:09:33 GMT
For me Jurisprudence sounds like the highest law or the art of law, state, politics, etc. In general, the art how to govern or to rule, and in particular, which orders there has to be set. I might be wrong, but I guess Europe lacks that limits US or Britain have – the Bible. A European considers himself as the ultimate power to order laws, while a US citizen holds what Bible should say. On the other hand, Bible is not so clarify, so it has to be interpreted. While there may be one, two or more interpretators. I don't know where's true. I think religion plays here an important role. A law is something quite same to playing a god. We may be right, or wrong. Anyway, I agree this theme is important. Yes, it is. It is worth to think about it. Indeed, in the intellectual history of Europe [or the West], some people or countries have taken the Bible as the authority of what is right and what is wrong. As a consequence, even today, and often unwittingly, laws or some laws are made according to Biblical/Moral laws/norms of human behaviour. For instance, Jesus said that lusting after a woman [another man's wife -- in the Old Testament] is the same as having committed adultery. Given this type of thinking, in the U.S.A. or in some States like New York State, where adultery is already established as a crime, lusting after, e.g., a raped woman [and then generally, after any sexually abused person] is a crime. At the same time, some humans have felt that some Biblical or, generally speaking, some moral norms/injunctions are wrong and that some laws, whether based on religions or on the interests and will of rulers are wrong -- which prompts the question, What is WRONG? or/and What is RIGHT?I don't think that THAT is Right (or Wrong) which a person believes or feels to be Right (or Wrong). So, I look and philosophers look for what is objectively Right or Wrong. Belief is not a criterion of truth. What is RIGHTness or WRONGness? That's the present issue. ============= A linguistic note: The Latin word Jus or Ius had many meanings, including "law" and "right" as a correlative of "duty", which are irrelevant to our topic. Nevertheless, for the curious: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ius
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 3, 2022 9:33:49 GMT
You've got an impressive talent to interpret the very core of linguistics. This is what I cannot do due to my weak character and will. Such a work requires lots of book worming and so on. When I was in the middle classes in summer I helped a lot in library having chances to sit and read many different books, plus preparing/advancing myself better for next classes. However, sitting writing out the lines of thoughts got me boring, that's why my spending time there were to just listing as many interesting books as possible.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jul 4, 2022 15:34:57 GMT
Right and Wrong Terminology The English terms Right and Wrong are clearly understood when speaking or thinking of human acts, behavior, conduct. Their synonyms may be Proper/Improper, Good/Bad, etc., but not in the sense of Suitable/Unsuitable or Correct/Incorrect, as when we talk about a fork FOR scooping up a liquid. [This is instrumental Goodness, etc.] Furthermore, since we are not equating Right/Wrong with Legal/Illegal or with Moral/Immoral, in respect to what do we use those two terms? Perhaps in respect to a pure feeling or idea of rightness (straightness, Lat. Rectitudo) and wrongness (crookedness). These two parenthetical terms obviously refer to things perceived but are being used metaphorically. [Aristotle: The mind forms ideas out of the perceptual... or so it seems.] I liked a Latin phrase I read recently, "... si ita FAS est loqui" (... if it is RIGHT/PROPER to speak thus). The opposite of Fas is Nefas, from which we have Nefarious/Wrong/Wicked. I like to adopt Nefarious as an alternative to Criminal, which is associated with the world of Law. Our questions remain: What are Rightness and Nefariousness?
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jul 4, 2022 17:17:11 GMT
July 4th, 2022 -- Independence Day in the U.S.A., the celebration of the declaration of independence from Great Britain, or of LIBERTY/Freedom from British royal submission. Topic of the day: LIBERTY [< LIBERTAS]. A struggle for liberty started in Rome when some citizens decided to get rid of Etruscan royal rule. Liberty means autonomy, self-rule. Their institution of self-rule was called Republic, whose primary rule was that of preserving Freedom, freedom from DOMINATION (lording) by others. In effect, each citizen, a free man, was autonomous and swore to preserve/defend autonomy. If a citizen in any way dominated (subjugated, submitted) another citizen, he was wrong; he was right who respected the freedom of the other citizens. So, the republic did not have a ruler, a Dominus (Lord), a governor; the propertied elders (henceforth called Senators) were in charge of the collective defense of freedom and of the common/public good (public works and administration of justice). Jurisprudence was an intrinsic part of the republic; the jurisprudents [prosecutors and defense attorneys] were citizens who had knowledge of what is right and wrong. Court was held in the temple of Jupiter. What did they understand rightness and wrongness to be? Did they have any criteria? Their decisions often became laws [statutes]; there were no elected or despotic legislators in a free society. One of the first Roman laws [enforceable duties], on a tablet posted in the Forum, was "Si vocat ito" : If a citizen summons you [to court], Go! Every citizen had the right to charge others of wrongdoings. "Civil right" = "citizen's right" -- when Roma was Roma. A wrong = in some form or other, an infringement on the freedom of another citizen.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jul 4, 2022 21:04:24 GMT
My position about Wrongness [of deeds or social conduct], that it consists in an infraction of civil freedom in some form or other, needs exemplification or elaboration. Meanwhile, readers who are not versed in this field of philosophy should at least read some articles such as the following: www.lawcolumn.in/concept-of-rights-and-duties-under-jurisprudenceen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law accountlearning.com/rights-duties-buyer-contract-sale You may infer that contractual [voluntarily assumed] rights and duties are not the rights and duties that pertain to an organized free society or the free citizens, that wrongdoing may be by either commission or omission [of an act], and that the recent [U.N.] theory of Human Rights is related to the ancient theory of Natural Rights or Natural Law.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jul 5, 2022 15:10:32 GMT
Sorry, Arktos staff and members: I just realized that the topic of this thread was already opened in the July 7, 2021, thread "ETHICS AND JURISPRUDENCE" or arktos.boards.net/thread/7407/ethics-jurisprudenceI am not going to review those posts of mine; I'll make only one clarification in my first post. I wrote something I should gave rephrased: Ethics deal with morality [with what is moral] and immorality; Jurisprudence deals with RIGHT and WRONG human actions in a given society/state, with legality and criminality. // I did not mean that jurisprudence deals with, or is a critique of, positive (instituted) laws. As a state like a republic makes laws AFTER jurisprudential adjudications, we can say, albeit awkwardly, that jurisprudence determines what is going to be considered lawful or criminal in the future.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jul 7, 2022 15:47:28 GMT
Three words, applicable to human character, have been going around my head while thinking of the nature of de facto criminals (wrongdoers): NUMB, DUMB, and DOMINEERING in deeds rather than merely in words or attitude: insensitive, stupid, and beastly [aggressive, lordly: forcing others to yield to his will]. A recent case exemplies all three qualities of wrongdoers. A 15 year old boy, who was assisting a 90 year old lady, raped her. Incredible, but true. Thirdly: If he were aware that some humans are free beings, he would have known that, as Morelly said, There shall be no lord [whether human or divine] before me, that freedom including the freedom to have or not to have sex, is to be respected, that raping is a wrongful act. Secondly, if he were intelligent enough to consider the consequences of social actions, he would have been deterred by the fact that raping, in his country, is an illegal act and that he would be sought by the police and incarcerated (deprived of some of his freedoms -- which he actually forfeited by his doing of a crime). Firstly, if he were an esthete, he would not have sex with the old lady. In addition to being esthetically insensitive, he was morally (or conscience-wise) insensitive about his abuse.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jul 7, 2022 21:28:45 GMT
Who is this Morelly? A French 18th century social philosopher, whom I have admired for his strong stance on freedom. However, now that I have learned more about him, as in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etienne-Gabriel-Morelly [acute accent on E], I find that he was not very rational. For example, because of its possible bad consequences, property should be abolished and forbidden in society. This means that there should be a goverment that outlaws property, that forces the citizens not to have (accumulate, etc.) property and that, as he holds and Marx will hold, forbids the commerce of goods. My only comment here: People are free [or have the right] to have or not to have property/possessions. [[As Roman jurisprudence and Vico's philosophy explain, the original ownership of something is established 'objectively" by its having being MADE, created, by a human and is independent of "legal ownership".]] Morelly does not grant that humans are free to have or not have property.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jul 8, 2022 15:36:55 GMT
According to the aforementioned Wiki article, which may or may not be correct, in Morelly's utopian society there is no private property, no commerce, no marriage, no state, no church, no police -- which for him are the sources of social evils. I wander what are the socially good things, or possibly institutions, for him. A wild guess in my own terms, si ita fas est loqui: Whatever is not restraining, whatever does not abridge the natural FREEDOM of others; hence, a universal anarchy. [Let's reflect on the thinking that takes place in this hypothetical doctrine. If we were adjudicating killing, I would say, as in Roman jurisprudence, that unprovoked killing is wrong, criminal; killing in self-defense is right and legitimate. Now, about restraining or the use of force, if it is unprovoked, it is wrong; if it is provoked, as by a deed which involves the disrespect of a person's freedom (and is thereby criminal), it is right (by virtue of the right to self-defense, direct or by proxy, etc.) So, the elimination of the police from a society, such as also Leftist Americans want, is unjustified.] Juristically wrong and unjustifiable deeds are social evils.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jul 9, 2022 20:38:57 GMT
Actually, my first discussion on jurisprudence in this forum (in 2020) was the thread on utopian societies of the future, which may be more interesting than my other posts on that topic: arktos.boards.net/thread/6229/utopian-political-societies-for-colonised-MarsAnyway, as I said there, this utopian doctrine can be implemended here and now by people who are aware of the protection of criminality in their countries.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 9, 2022 22:39:40 GMT
Actually, my first discussion on jurisprudence in this forum (in 2020) was the thread on utopian societies of the future, which may be more interesting than my other posts on that topic: arktos.boards.net/thread/6229/utopian-political-societies-for-colonised-MarsAnyway, as I said there, this utopian doctrine can be implemended here and now by people who are aware of the protection of criminality in their countries. May I ask you, please? If you don't want you're free not to answer. Do you have any channels on yt or elsewhere about your ideas? Are you a lecturer or somebody similar?
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jul 10, 2022 19:38:07 GMT
Actually, my first discussion on jurisprudence in this forum (in 2020) was the thread on utopian societies of the future, which may be more interesting than my other posts on that topic: arktos.boards.net/thread/6229/utopian-political-societies-for-colonised-MarsAnyway, as I said there, this utopian doctrine can be implemended here and now by people who are aware of the protection of criminality in their countries. May I ask you, please? If you don't want you're free not to answer. Do you have any channels on yt or elsewhere about your ideas? Are you a lecturer or somebody similar? I just wrote a long reply but somehow I lost it before sending it. In brief: I am a thinker, and usually I develop (elaborate etc.) ideas while reflecting on topics I read about. In my old age, much older than yours, I still have an addiction to learning and wanting to understand -- anything. // Eugene, I wish the best to you and yours. Many years ago, for myself I started writing about jurisprudence after my own studies of Roman culture, especially the Justinan collection of the laws of the Republic. [The motto of the American Republic was written on the earliest silver dollars issued by the U.S.A.:Libertas et Justitia: Liberty and Justice.] Now I figured out that actually the freedom of the citizens is the criterion for Right and Wrong which the jurisprudents employed.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 11, 2022 4:13:36 GMT
May I ask you, please? If you don't want you're free not to answer. Do you have any channels on yt or elsewhere about your ideas? Are you a lecturer or somebody similar? I just wrote a long reply but somehow I lost it before sending it. In brief: I am a thinker, and usually I develop (elaborate etc.) ideas while reflecting on topics I read about. In my old age, much older than yours, I still have an addiction to learning and wanting to understand -- anything. // Eugene, I wish the best to you and yours. Many years ago, for myself I started writing about jurisprudence after my own studies of Roman culture, especially the Justinan collection of the laws of the Republic. [The motto of the American Republic was written on the earliest silver dollars issued by the U.S.A.:Libertas et Justitia: Liberty and Justice.] Now I figured out that actually the freedom of the citizens is the criterion for Right and Wrong which the jurisprudents employed. Thank you very much! I also wish you, your relatives, friends all the best! Just was curious, because many of you all here are indeed talented. No, I mean it, because watching how deeply most of you are working on some projects it makes me wondering are you some kind of free researchers or something? Oh, yeah, that very famous Roman Justice (or I don't know how to rightly name it; I know that each jurist teaches this subject). Seems like Jurisprudence is connected to as Politics, as Ethics, so Rhetoric (according parially to Aristotle, who said that Rhetoric includes dialectic, ethics (!), and analytics... I don't remember exactly). I like to try to do things very formally, or else - I don't get them. For example. I know that in certain politics people are performing or following the laws. Which rule/law to establish or to choose - is one art. How to control the laws - is another art, and how to decide new or incommon situations - is another one. So, there are legislative, executive, and juridical powers. Actually, those ones are just people. I think it's possible for one person to be as a lawmaker, so a punisher, and a judge, but in such a case we'd have some kind of tyranny, or a rude archaic form of governing. Anyway, how this is organized socially, or about a number of people, or groups of people - is also another task. I think we may inlude even a question how oftern laws have to be reviewed, or should women be allowed to the govt? - All of that is also political, but also, ethical, and social. We can limit laws to the most stable and never changing as such written in the constitution, we also can pick a part of laws for the government itself, and so on. And a law about who are allowed to govt, and so on. If there's a serious differentiation in this, I think this is a bad point, but on the other hand, any of criminal ones should not be allowed to that since their sould are rotten. However, if the words like a rotten soul are presented in a law, then the other people may not trust to them, because metaphysics isn't a trustful statement. And so on. My personal thought - why don't to pur all the known and relevant info into some kind of a computer, and let it to calculate all this? All such debates can hold forever. So, to organize the ideal country or to make the world be as one big country with the same laws, rules, etc some other options have to be added here. I mean if such a powerful computer had been created, then we could have a perfect world. And all the people would be controlled by such a computer. All we should have to do was to control each person. And I think it would be possible to do if each person had a microchip or something. And such a life turn into heaven... ... But that thought is completely insane, because such a "state" would be not better, than any totalitarian prison. I think that the best state of affairs we might have is just anarchy. In such a case all what each person has to do is to be a warrior, and to have enought skills to fight. It would be like back to the primitives, to the animal life form, or kinda... Seems like we don't have much options to create a perfect state. One possible way is to establish unseen or false slavehood. Where some countries were like slaves, while the others would soak their resources and power. It seems exactly the same we have got now. As for me there are none of good or perfect forms, only false and dangerous forms. My personal wish is to have a better society, than we've got now. I don't believe today's society is better, than we've got it yesterday. People don't get smarter, or don't become more culture. The humanity isn't following a good way. And what can change people - I do not know. All I see that people usually don't change, or they have got not enought power to change oneselves. They're repeating the same faults, they're sharing the same broken ideas... As Hegel said: History teaches us that History doesn't teach us anything.
|
|