|
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 joustos on Jul 11, 2022 18:42:19 GMT
Eugene, I don't know either how an ideal City/Society could be realized, for there are too many contenders to be rulers. Neither a super-computer, nor a world government (or a globalist Director like Soros) can escape the possibility of being NUMB, DUMB, and DOMINEERING. What any country can do today, if any citizen is willing to risk his life, is to create a vigilant police corps to intercept and stop/obliterate CRIME in progress or about to be committed, as I suggested somewhere. Vandalism, arson, murdering, robbing, looting, raping, abducting, bombing the innocents, shooting children in school, selling or donating narcotics, creating or using means of mass-destruction, etc. etc., are to be prevented or stopped in the act, at the sole discretion of the law-learned and city-watching policemen, without the need of a trial or "due process of law", since criminals forfeit their rights and, as jurist Cicero would say, because of the gravity of their actions, their citizenship. A non-citizen is not endowed with any civil right [citizen-right]. The citizens of a country have the duty of stopping/obliterating any leader who engages in crime. //The first thing all citizen s need to know is what is criminal [WRONG] and what is righteous -- which we are trying to discuss. [What is right is, for an individual, a prerogative to do or not to do it. Certain actions that are right may be dutiful. What is wrong, or unjustifiable, must not be done.]
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 11, 2022 19:08:01 GMT
Eugene, I don't know either how an ideal City/Society could be realized, for there are too many contenders to be rulers. Neither a super-computer, nor a world government (or a globalist Director like Soros) can escape the possibility of being NUMB, DUMB, and DOMINEERING. What any country can do today, if any citizen is willing to risk his life, is to create a vigilant police corps to intercept and stop/obliterate CRIME in progress or about to be committed, as I suggested somewhere. Vandalism, arson, murdering, robbing, looting, raping, abducting, bombing the innocents, shooting children in school, selling or donating narcotics, creating or using means of mass-destruction, etc. etc., are to be prevented or stopped in the act, at the sole discretion of the law-learned and city-watching policemen, without the need of a trial or "due process of law", since criminals forfeit their rights and, as jurist Cicero would say, because of the gravity of their actions, their citizenship. A non-citizen is not endowed with any civil right [citizen-right]. The citizens of a country have the duty of stopping/obliterating any leader who engages in crime. //The first thing all citizen s need to know is what is criminal [WRONG] and what is righteous -- which we are trying to discuss. [What is right is, for an individual, a prerogative to do or not to do it. Certain actions that are right may be dutiful. What is wrong, or unjustifiable, must not be done.]I can say that in my life I didn't do much things, many work. I could be better, could work harder. But I'm disappointed at many things, especially about societies. I don't believe in any ideal states. Yes, a computer state is the same prison everyone of us is living now. No need to be so optimistic about the today, all of us are like rats within the cells of our own rage and hatred. People are not like our predecessors, they have changed completely. Cicero was the one who wasn't afraid of accusing that woman... oh, it's so shame for me, I forgot her name and the circumstances, the wife of one important man. He tried to wake some people up. I don't know how hard he did it, nor about his intentions. Maybe he just followed his own greed and profit as many did and do. Maybe he was like a saint, I don't know. But I don't like any leaders, I prefer heroes. Why do we remember any ciceros, instead of the other many people? Were they worse, than Cicero? I doubt it. There were too many people we have never even utter their names. Those people had feelings, passions, love, tears. Why on Earth those times are too narrowed around only one Cicero? This history repeats, one and the same, one and the same: the same "leader" faces, the same "deeds", the same "talents", and so on. No, it's not boring, and not only dumb – it's doomed. No transcendence, no evolution. And there are always people like me: who are only shouting silently. Maybe it's better to numb everyone, and to remove any rights to the computer, because among the people there are not many humans left. A piece of semiconductors would be better to get things straightened. The test, the main exam of the life hasn't been passed by the humanity.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jul 13, 2022 14:45:32 GMT
Eugene, it's not a question of remembering Cicero rather than others. I mentioned him because he is the author of the idea [loss of citizenship] I was presenting. See his work "In Verrem" -- he was the prosecutor of Verres, a public official who had committed a serious crime. As I did not know of others as authors of the same idea, I had nobody else I could mention. Cicero was a jurisprudent and a defender of the Republic, and I'd like to know others who match his qualities and ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 13, 2022 15:16:24 GMT
Eugene, it's not a question of remembering Cicero rather than others. I mentioned him because he is the author of the idea [loss of citizenship] I was presenting. See his work "In Verrem" -- he was the prosecutor of Verres, a public official who had committed a serious crime. As I did not know of others as authors of the same idea, I had nobody else I could mention. Cicero was a jurisprudent and a defender of the Republic, and I'd like to know others who match his qualities and ideas. I see. This works of him is unknown for me unlike "Of Old Age". Recently I saw Sextus Empiricus who criticized views similar to Cicero. What do you think of the academics which were skeptics in the ancient times about their political views? In the end Roman Empire died, so isn't it a sign the laws of them weren't good? I haven't read completely the monumental work of St. Augustine's "The City of God" where he put lots of curses to Rome's politics saying that Cristians were morally better, than Romanians, and that was one of reasons why Rome fell. Besides, such claims as St. Augustine's weren't only local, Jewish philosopher Tatianus and Tertullian (I don't remember his nationality) held the same. Honestly, I don't know what exactly is a point of your work about Jurisprudence, but in any case I wish you the best in it! This theme is indeed important, especially these days. I think if the courtesy is really worth to exist, many humans have chance for justice. And if the courtesy is just a dull house, then everyone is doomed.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 13, 2022 16:11:48 GMT
When the lawmakers get the laws wrong, the nation crumbles. Look around you, what do you see?
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Aug 5, 2022 15:52:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Aug 5, 2022 18:36:31 GMT
Eugene, I don't know either how an ideal City/Society could be realized, for there are too many contenders to be rulers. Neither a super-computer, nor a world government (or a globalist Director like Soros) can escape the possibility of being NUMB, DUMB, and DOMINEERING. What any country can do today, if any citizen is willing to risk his life, is to create a vigilant police corps to intercept and stop/obliterate CRIME in progress or about to be committed, as I suggested somewhere. Vandalism, arson, murdering, robbing, looting, raping, abducting, bombing the innocents, shooting children in school, selling or donating narcotics, creating or using means of mass-destruction, etc. etc., are to be prevented or stopped in the act, at the sole discretion of the law-learned and city-watching policemen, without the need of a trial or "due process of law", since criminals forfeit their rights and, as jurist Cicero would say, because of the gravity of their actions, their citizenship. A non-citizen is not endowed with any civil right [citizen-right]. The citizens of a country have the duty of stopping/obliterating any leader who engages in crime. //The first thing all citizen s need to know is what is criminal [WRONG] and what is righteous -- which we are trying to discuss. [What is right is, for an individual, a prerogative to do or not to do it. Certain actions that are right may be dutiful. What is wrong, or unjustifiable, must not be done.]I'm glad your not in power because your ideas would make one hell of a bad country to live in
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 6, 2022 7:41:12 GMT
@jousots
[it's a brief addition of mine to your next words from the commentary]:
"What any country can do today, if any citizen is willing to risk his life, is to create a vigilant police corps to intercept and stop/obliterate CRIME in progress or about to be committed, as I suggested somewhere"
Unfotrunately, I don't know politics and political philosophy very well. And I don't know as well as I wish to philosophy of the law, or any kinds of jurisprudence where knowledge of "which rights we must have" and "which responsibilities we must show", or "which country is better for citizens", etc are needed. For me all these questions are the upper floor of any others, because they require many additional info from the lowest points as epistemology, ethics, ontology, and so on.
However, my own opinion and my owh thought that I've been thinking some years is the one that can be said in this phrase: "Not leaders, but heroes". And this is my response to your words.
Briefly, the less role of leaders we've got, and the more role of heroes we've got - the better. But, we need in heroes. So, without heroes it is the same as to be without an army. Someone should have a role of guards, but it doesn't really mean that the guards are just to guard. Oh, no, the role of heroes are wider. They have to be ready for new experience and new challenges. Having real heroes it's like having the most outstanding citizens or the most talented youth as the forefront. But, at the same time, none of heroes must be our idolatry. The draw line between leaders and heroes are in what: leaders require in worshipping, while heroes do not need it. And, along with it, it doesn't mean that heroes are just some kind of cheap force or something. No, we have to organize society (from my point of view) in such a way that the heroes will have decent conditions. But, how to have them? It's easier to say, than to do. Besides, it's impossible to just create heroes just like creating Golem. No, I guess having heroes it's like having good traditions that will be supporting us to educate people good... At least, in what I'm sure, is trying to escape that nonsense worshipping to leaders. I am strongly against any leaders, because for me it's the same as to have a violation of the hero concept. Leaders are just for the weak ones. The society is alive, it is one unity, and leaders (even being able to play a good role) may spoil it, ruining their alive component in that new unity. I mean 'any unity' is as lethal for the society as lack of society at all. It's better to have things balanced.
|
|