I am glad that you can see the yes and no, because it seems that many people seem to be all one or the other. — Jack Cummins

People, especially logicians (but many religious folks too), are very uncomfortable with a violation of the fundamental principles of logic, as if we can no longer function without them. But I function fine living without a foundation, floating, wondering, and the possibility that I live on air. And contrary to the intuition of those more grounded than I, living in such state does not stop one from continuing to search. I can accept their rules for the sake of argument just as easily as they do, then move forward on that basis. But I think I remember, in the back of my mind, that I don't know it.

“Everyness”might serve better haha :p — Benj96

That's a good one, but All is shorter and dovetails nicely with A, so . . . :wink:

It may be a choice of language more than anything else. — Jack Cummins

I agree. Every time I was inclined to say "everything" I found myself put off by the suffix "thing." It implies too much concrete. I looked for a word, like "universe", and found that too limiting because of the way some physicists interpret it. I didn't like the word "God" for obvious reasons. So, I settled on "All." And to distinguish "All" I felt compelled to define it as accounting for the absence of itself. I was inclined to say "included" the absence of itself, but I found that would subordinate the absence, as if it were not on par with, or was merely a part of All. So I chose "accounting for." Kind of like the distinction between pantheist and panentheist.

Long story short, I chose "All." I think it conveniently comports with the "A" which is often used as a shorthand in calculations. So, A = A and -A at the same time. That there is All as I see it. Everything else is simply individual, relative perspectives which are All perceiving itself. I wondered if it hadn't been around long enough to develop self awareness of it's All status, but I realized the answer did not matter because it is both yes and no and whatever else. Or not.

Sorry for the digression. Back to your regularly scheduled programming. Carry on.

I'm not expert on "debate" and I'm not even sure I really know what it means. I once saw a few seconds of a moderated high school debate on TV, using rules. I was flummoxed. I always thought debate was logical argument. Boy was I wrong.

So, insults may be legitimate debate tactics; I'm not sure. But insults are legitimate logical argument tactic in the the same way that shucking a gun and shooting your opponent in the face is a legitimate logical argument tactic.

mala prohibita — Hanover

Mala in se — Hanover

:up:

I don't speak Latin but that does bring back memories of school. I thought it was malum but again, I don't speak Latin and it's been a million years.

I suppose if you don't agree with it, then I have not understood your position. — Banno

I don't know if I agree with it or not. I did not know what a "hinge proposition" was so I looked it up and it seemed to describe simple law and not Natural Law and so I commented on that.

Ninth post up from bottom of page six, et seq.

A link might help, then. To what do you refer? — Banno

I'm new here, and apparently people don't talk to or respond to anyone not tagged. So I apologize. I just assumed you had been reading this thread. Maybe you are just doing drive-by sniping with no background in the discussion. That would explain the failure to understand. So, by way of justification, I will just refer you to the OP and then page six of this thread.

I'm going to go watch a movie and cede the carcass of this beaten horse.

Ah, excellent. Glad to hear it. — Banno

That would be the expected (demanded?) response to a value-free law. I, however, as a champion of Natural Law, have done the courtesy of justifying my response in a linear explanation in another post, demonstrating that I am not "trying to justify law with more law."

You're still trying to justify law with more law. — Banno

No, I'm not.

After all, values do not need to be rationally established, defended or challenged.. — Banno

It's a non-issue for law, if law is value-free. But I'm not sure where you get the idea that a value does not need to be rationally established, defended or challenged. It most certainly does if it's going to be persuasive. As already explained, that feeling that we find valuable cannot justifiably be reduced to a value until there is a reason for it. My liking ice cream is not a value, and even if we were to stretch a "like" to becoming a value, my "value" of ice cream, unlike the law, is not seeking to persuade anyone else to like it.

That ain't helpful — Banno

It ain't helpful because you're allegation of circularity is based on your failure to address the linear chronology. It's laid out in my previous post and I'll not keep repeating here. Suffice to say, Natural Law does not so much justify law, as law rides in on the coat tails of Natural Law.

Okay, son. You win. "And if it wadn't for this glass eye of mine why I'd shed a happy tear
To think of all that you gonna get by bein' a winner." Bobby Bare.

I was thinking more of hinge proposition as a foundation. — Banno

I'm no expert on hinge propositions, but when I looked it up, they were said to be not rationally established, defended or challenged. That would be value-free law, not Natural Law. Natural Law is the opposite, as I addressed before in describing feelings, justice, values, justification and reason, etc.

Nor am I misusing the term "law." As demonstrated in the same post, Natural Law (justified) is not misusing the term "law." It's not addressing "law" at all. Law falls in line behind it; either that or it lacks reason. Who is going to say we have no reason for our law? Apparently the positivist. LOL! Good luck with that. If a law has no reason (no justification) then it can't be just and then there is no reason to obey it (other than the threat of violence). And who is going to say might makes right? Apparently the positivist. LOL!

One can and always should ask of a law "is it morally good." Doing so is not replacing morality with circularity. It's begging for reason, for foundation, for justification, for an answer as to why a law should be obeyed.

If a philosopher contributes nothing whatsoever to humanity -- if he "need not have a contribution," then yes I consider that an utter waste of life, whether he "enjoys" it or not. — Xtrix

I guess you answered your own question, then, when you asked: "shouldn't getting your life in order come before more philosophizing/reading/writing/lecturing?"

You might take your own advice, get your life in order and stop with all the philosophizing/reading/writing/lecturing. Get out in the field and save us from ourselves.

I could be wrong here, but what I perceive is you're looking for an argument. You've gone tit-for-tat with most people here who have tried to address your question. What a waste of a life when you could be out doing something.

I can never know what it is like to be a bat. — Aoife Jones

I had to separate this out from the "objective world" stuff because I don't think it applies, as described before. I just wanted to comment on the ability to know what it is like to be another. I am not an empath, although I do have some limited ability to feel empathy. But beyond that, there is one thing I have noticed in hunting: The most successful predator seems to be the one who "becomes" the prey. And likewise, the most successful prey is the one who "becomes" the predator. I see this dance with the stalk, each party to the dance trying to think like and anticipate the next move of the other, or catch the other in mid move. The deer sticks his head in the grass to eat but sometimes he's faking (I can tell) and pops his head up fast, trying to catch the cougar mid-stride. The cougar is trying to only step when the deer's head is down and actually eating, and then freezing, mid stride if she's caught moving when the deer's head pops up. I've watched this, studied it, and applied it in my own hunt. I really do leave off of myself and feel the edge, the almost-fear, the "head on a swivel" feeling that I had in the Corps. When I "become" the elk, or the deer, I get touching distance. Anyway, I don't know much about bats, but I suspect that whatever it is that interacts most closely with them might have an idea of what it is like to be one. It will never be a perfect cross-over, but you said "like". Anyway, there's my five cents.

Do you agree with the argument? — Aoife Jones

I think so. And I focus here on #2. I think that in order to know what it is like to be a bat you would not turn to the objective world. Rather, you would turn to the subjective world of being a bat.

As to #3, though, I'm not so sure. To the extent reality includes subjective perception, it may not be outside of the objective world but, rather, in it.

To the extent a hinge proposition is presupposition that cannot itself be rationally established, defended, or challenged, that would be the value-free law. Natural law is justification, rationale, and reason behind the law. We used to actually argue that in court, especially in equity. Maybe that has become passé, I don't know.

Justice isn't the law. — Ciceronianus the White

I don't think anyone is arguing that the law is not a fraud, not a chimera, not a mere pretender to justice. It's just disconcerting to have the law actually come out and admit it, ala Holmes.

We used to have a standard attack on administrative action under the APA: it was "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and otherwise not in accordance with law." LOL! Then we'd get to the law, the implementation of which was itself arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and otherwise not in accordance with justice. And that is why the law now operates largely by the stick and not by persuasion of reason. The law doesn't even pretend to reason any more. Insert multiple dollar signs here. Just STFU and do what you're told.

:100:

I first used it the context of a distinction between living in grace with what I eat, as opposed to the Christian habit of saying grace before they eat it. Grace would be a humble receipt, without accounting for whether it was taken or given. Where there is a knife and a stone, grace is a respect for the stropping itself, the honing, and the contribution of each, beyond the two participants alone. It's a thank you to the participant (whether they volunteered or not) and not some invisible man in the sky.

I guess I should spend more time with the definition, to refine it better. That's just stream of consciousness. I suppose the use of the word by a Christian like Richard Rohr might be more palatable, but since I don't recall his actually addressing it, I don't want to buy in yet. It just sounds like my take might be more like his than most Christians in general.

Edited to add: I've got no truck with these simple definitions: "simple elegance or refinement of movement" and "courteous goodwill" and "do honor or credit to (someone or something) by one's presence."

:100: Not that you read my posts, but if you ever see me use the word "grace", which I absolutely love, I hope you do not attach to my meaning all that religious clap trap, and will instead try to parse my use. Religion has tried to abscond with words like a Republican tries to abscond with Old Glory. If it goes on too long with inadequate defense, it will become true and they will own it.

"The liar's punishment is, not in the least that he is not believed, but that he cannot believe anyone else." - George Bernard Shaw — maytham naei

If that were true (and maybe it is) then it hardly seems a punishment. The fact that I might not believe anyone does not render me immobile. I can still act. I can still live. I can still love. I just have to roll the dice more often. I don't know shit about Covid and I don't trust anyone because journalism, science, the law, etc. have, through lies, all squandered their credibility in my eyes. Yet I mask up, distance, got the vaccine, etc. I make unscientific, subjective calculations of odds versus inconvenience and then roll.

I don't have clean hands. I've lied. And I've done so for varied reasons. But I lie less as I get older because the truth does not offend me any more, I am more secure in my beast. But there is a quote on the subject that I absolutely love, and I remember it when ever I am confronted with some sanctimonious champion of truth who is a closed-minded bigot, patriot, and general asshole:

"In some western states this technique of elaboration to the point where it merges into untruth, is called “stuffing dudes.” Every native born westerner numbers among his inalienable rights the license to use this technique upon occasion, and considers it a gross breach of hospitality if a visitor leaves without having had a few whoppers thrown in with the usual descriptions of the country and it’s customs. Several subjects are rarely discussed under such circumstances without stretching the truth, and in telling the Colter legend, by tradition, it has become almost compulsory to exaggerate. And since no one can study Colter’s accomplishments without being affected to some degree by the contagious desire to improve on truth, I have thought it wise to work off my touch of the disease in Chapter One. Stern searchers after fact are hereby directed to begin reading at Chapter Two.
. . .
The men of the frontier believed that if a yarn told with punctilious respect for the truth fell on unbelieving ears, it was proper to elaborate on the story and make it a good one.
. . .
Therefore, it is obvious that the traditional ridicule of the stories about Colter’s Hell did not originate with his contemporaries, but rather with those who preferred to rely upon the writings of cloistered, learned men and scoffed at the reports of those who told of what they had actually seen."

John Colter, His Years in the Rockies, By Burton Harris, Bison Books, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln and London, 1993. Emphasis added

Maybe this just feels right because I was born and raised in the Rocky Mountain West.

"This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice." — Ciceronianus the White

And that is where the law ceases to be the law. It becomes a mere court. If there is a conflict between Natural Law (one’s feelings about good, bad, right, wrong, justice) and the law, then the law does not exist because it has no valuable justification or reason. Bob’s clan can say Sam’s clan has laws, but they aren’t Bob’s clan’s laws. They don’t exist for Bob’s clan.

Just for clarification, Ollie accepted legal positivism's value-free approach to law. — Ciceronianus the White

That is a good clarification, knowing the positivists think the law is value-free. One can read his words "legal positivism in its rejection of natural law theory and its value-free approach to law” as meaning Natural Law is value-free. It all depends on what is referred to by the second "its". Personally, I think both are steeped in value.

Rather, what is so attractive in seeing other people as being mere numbers? — baker

Snap! :100:

In regard to the pandemic, and in a context of God and humanity, a lady in this ranching country recently asked "Whoever came up with the term 'herd immunity'?"

I did not respond because it was not an open forum, but I wanted to say "Probably the same people who came up with 'Human Resources'."

I went back to your OP to see if I could find where the problem is. I think the “positivists” have set up a straw man with their “Value-free” and “assumed standard” for Natural Law, with the latter thought to be some objective, omnipotent, universal truth. It’s not and no one ever said it was. And the essence of Natural Law is Values.

In the beginning, man had lots of feelings. Five of those were feelings of what is good, what is bad, what is right, what is wrong, and what is just. He found these feelings to be valuable to his daily life.
However, his feeling of what is just compelled him to justify his feelings before reducing that which was valuable to values. So, he used reason to justify his feelings. In the end, he had a reason. All of this, and I mean all of it, preceded and provided the reason for his Johnny-come-lately written law.

There was not universal agreement on feelings. Bob’s clan over here felt that FGM was good, and right, and just, and valuable. FGM became a value, it was justified and this formed the reason for law.

There was Sam’s clan over there who felt that FGM was bad, and wrong, and unjust and not valuable. It was not a part of their values so they did not reduce it to law. In fact, after they saw or heard about Bob’s clan, they drafted a law against FGM.

Where one man might say that a failure to recognize his law does not mean his law does not exist, so too, a failure to recognize Natural Law does not mean Natural Law does not exist. And neither Natural Law or the law are inviolate. Both are disagreed with and violated all the time. One might say the only distinction is that one is not written down, while the other is. However, that is not the case. Because the law is the Natural Law written down.

Feelings are Natural Law. In fact, at a group level, Natural Law can be defined as “feelings agreed upon.” Simple law does not exist without reason. In fact, its compelling justification is its reason. People voluntarily abide it because it has a reason. Without reason, its only compelling case is coercion. Coercion can occur with or without a writing.

So, where it is stipulated that law exists, it can be stipulated that it only exists for those who recognize it and agree with the reasons that are used to justify its value. If there is a conflict between Natural Law (one’s feelings about good, bad, right, wrong, justice) and the law, then the law does not exist because it has no valuable justification or reason. Bob’s clan can say Sam’s clan has laws, but they aren’t Bob’s clan’s laws. They don’t exist for Bob’s clan.

I think a fundamental mistake in reasoning comes from a misunderstanding of what Natural Law is. I glean this from your OP: “O.W. Holmes, Jr. is considered to be one of the proponents of what's been called American Legal Realism, which is similar to legal positivism in its rejection of natural law theory and its value-free approach to law.” [ Emphasis added ]. Natural Law most definitely is not value-free. I don’t know where anyone got that idea, but they damn sure didn’t get it from the Founding Fathers or the Enlightenment. Nor is Natural Law objectively true or omnipotent or universally agree upon. To say it is, is to create a straw man, based upon an interpretation of Natural Law that is not correct.

Our Founding Fathers found a feeling they could not justify, so they called it a self-evident truth. Not only is their truth not true, physiologically or otherwise, but they then parsed the definition of “man” so they could get around slavery. Nevertheless, it is our feeling that all men are created equal and it formed the justification, the reason, for all that followed. But all that followed was mere law.

The law does not provide the reason. Reason provides the law.

And reason is an effort to justify feelings about what is good, bad, right, wrong and just. These feelings spring from within. They don’t come from law. Feelings agreed upon are Natural Law, as far as the state is concerned.

Finally, there need not be any agreement for an individual man. The feelings are the “assumed standard” for those who feel them, and they are replete with value.

Do you believe the intel about bounties was good? — NOS4A2

I honestly don't know. But I do know people who used to play the game and they told me it was par for the course. On the other hand, as I said, politicians spin intel all the time. But since I was not a BTDT on this issue, I won't take sides. I'm assuming you don't know any more than I, but perhaps you were on the ground over there and know the truth of the matter.

I never said that. But spin all you like. I don’t expect anything else. — NOS4A2

The first intel about bounties was bad. The second intel walking it back was good. Sounds like spin to me.

So, when it suits your bias, they are gold. When they don't, they are suspect. Got it.

I remember Scott Ritter et al, walking it back, and it was not the intel community that spun up the war: it was politicians who spun the intel. Intel is usually okay and straight up. It's the pols that spin it. You know, guys like you.

:up:

When they start rattling their sabres it should be doubted on principle. — NOS4A2

So we should not trust the recent intel showing that maybe Russia did not put bounties on American heads?

"Socialism for the rich, rugged-individualism for everyone else." ~MLK, Jr — 180 Proof

:100: Good 'ol MLK, Jr. I always thought "bootstrapping" was appropriate metaphor (impossible) and a self-own, I mean, considering physics and all.

If I recall from my school days, the two-valued orientation (either/or) was a logical fallacy. Richard Rohr calls it "dualistic thinking". When someone gives you two choices, pick the third. That's the American way.

And it's hard to talk about either, without talking about capitalism. Capitalism is not inherently democratic. See China. And, if costs are socialized, is that socialism?

Likewise, if you spend all your time reading philosophy books, or contemplating the universe, or in prayer with God, and in other aspects of life (other areas of "doing") you're immature, impolite, cheap, inconsiderate, etc., perhaps that says something as well. — Xtrix

That reminds me of the old saw about the next unborn being a potential Hitler or Einstein. You don't know if the cloistered monk might not be worse for your desires or better, if he were to engage in the field. Either way, you are bringing your subjective idea of what people should be doing (betterment of mankind?) to a table that might be deemed better set with an absence of man.

So then you want to go on living for philosophy, in which case you agree that you want to go on living. So we agree.

Whether or not we agree that humanity survives is related: we're part of humanity. So we agree there too.

Easy. — Xtrix

I'm sorry, but maybe I confused you with someone who said: "Then that's an utter waste of life, if you ask me. This individualist kind of thinking, exemplified in the stories where a person isolates themselves from the rest of humanity, seems to be missing a very important piece of a good life, at least the kind that Aristotle talks about. Completely out of whack."

It is I that postulated there might be worth in such a life.

So like I said, if you truly don't agree with that -- why not go kill yourself? — Xtrix

Maybe I enjoy philosophy.

Getting out where? This was the belief (which you left out): — Xtrix

Out doing. You know, helping humanity, or whatever. It seems your waxing on here is equivalent to sitting on a hill top. And even if your participation here were one step better than being cloistered (like you might convince someone to join you in the field) or your engagement here somehow constituted work for humanity, really, you could do much more out in the field.

Again, what field? — Xtrix

The one you want to help.

I don't care to waste time debating that. If you don't share it, that's fine -- no hard feelings. But I operate on the basis of that belief. — Xtrix

I know you don't seek my counsel, but if that is your belief, you might consider getting out there in the field instead of talking a good game here on a philosophy board. Just saying.

I'm not too interested in that line of reasoning. — Xtrix

Some more unsolicited counsel: If there is a lack of interest in something, don't engage.

I'm making that leap of faith. If you're not with me on that fairly basic belief, then there's really no point in going on I'm afraid. — Xtrix

If I were with you on that, I wouldn't be here talking. I'd be out in the field. The fact that I am here, engaging you, proves I'm not with you on that.

Astonishing. — Banno

Indeed!

Again, as you define what you perceive to be the ills of Natural Law, you fail entirely to show how the law does not suffer from those same ills, and then some. The best and only thing you have done to distinguish them is to point to pen and paper. But again, that is a distinction without a difference, and it actually serves to prove out Natural Law when pen and paper are following it. When we perceive injustice, we try to correct it with pen and paper. But the perception of injustice is Natural Law. It is the appeal to reason that makes the law more than a stick, and reason is found in Natural Law. It reminds me of the old (paraphrasing here) "I don't know what it is, but I know it when I see it." LOL! That's the law running head first in Natural Law. It then continues apace in efforts to reduce the feeling to writing. And it is that writing which suffers all of the ills you mistakenly attribute to Natural Law, and then some.