Within that abstruse opening assertion I said law is NOT determinative. All cannot be explained in a first sentence. Therein I merely mention, not explain, that there is an ontological rationality, which rationale I posit subsequently...
Police, judges, prosecutors, lawyers, all think that they are determined to act against persons by the law. Perhaps you have never been before a magistrate in court to hear how they speak about the law which determines their actions against you...
When I wrote an extensive explanation of Spinoza's dictum, I explained, via quoting Sartre's thinking regarding the dictum, the ontological rationale attendant upon action origination.

Of course my statements, founded in Sartreian existential ontology, are surely going to appear to be ridiculous and incoherent and nonsensical, which, really, they are not; they are just radically unfamiliar notions to positivist readers...and very difficult to understand for positivist materialist persons...

Thanks for your straightforward criticism. I amended paragraph two as a result of your responce.

"You don't need Sartre for this." you wrote, Appears you left a word out here. I don't need Sartre for what?
Excellent Thoreau !

I have a feeling what you are getting at (albeit in a round about manner) is that agreed rules set out by people have limited jurisdiction … meaning in smaller communities people can negotiate and trade effectively all under the umbrella of common ‘rules’/‘laws’ that are somewhat pliable, whereas once we begin to talk about greater numbers of people over greater distances and areas the ‘meaning’ of the ‘rules’/‘laws’ falls away into the distance for most.

The ‘ignorance’ of laws/rules makes people vulnerable to persecution. So ‘law,’ aimed at millions of peoples across thousands of miles, will inevitably result in chaos.

Note: Satre was a dickhead imo.

I sincerely appreciate your general acceptance of my reasoning, while so many others here are so absolutely unable to fathom the negative structure of human determination to action, that they sincerely deem me to be ignorant and ridiculous...

I guessed. If you were trying to say what I stated above you failed to get it across clearly. I just thought about what may or may not be the underlying thought/idea of what you were thinking/saying.

No, I was not trying to say what you guessed I was saying.

I was saying that human origination of an act is a wholly negative process, involving intention to surpass what is, for the sake of attaining what is not yet achieved. The stance that human acts arise via negation originally arose with Spinoza. Then, Sartre founded his existential ontology on Spinoza's dictum "determinatio negatio est"; and, I was opposing that negative/nihilative theory of the origin of human action, to the jurisprudential theory that published language of law is determinative of human action...

Plain English might help you out if you want a sensible response to whatever that is meant to mean.

This is a philosophy forum. Not all philosophy transpires in ordinary language. The ilk of philosophy I employ speaks its own idiosyncratic language, which cannot entirely be reduced to ordinary language, without losing the intension attendant upon the central language of the particular ilk's position. I continually work to enunciate existential ontological precepts in the plainest possible language. Nonetheless, it is the reader's responsibility to research and study whatever he cannot understand, until he does understand.

Nonetheless, it is the reader's responsibility to research and study whatever he cannot understand, until he does understand. — quintillus

Why would anyone have a responsibility to understand you?

No one at all has an a priori responsibility to understand my writing, but, if you engage that writing, and engage me here regarding that writing, it is simply your responsibility to work toward comprehension...The precepts I employ were established before all of us were born and, are understandable.

action...but the convicting judge thinks the law determines him, and, that it must necessarily determine, by its stolid requirement, the other fellow too... — quintillus

The only reason a judge might care what motivated the criminal to act is if the application of the law would change based upon the motivation. For example, hate crimes require a certain motivation, and perhaps if one were acting in the defense of others, that motivation might mitigate things.

But, to your point that the judge thinks the law must determine folks' behavior, I doubt the judge is so naive. He probably thinks people steal, for example, because they wanted something for free and didn't care about the law.

I continually work to enunciate existential ontological precepts in the plainest possible language. — quintillus

Despite your best efforts, you do a terrible job of it.

No one at all has an a priori responsibility to understand my writing, but, if you engage that writing, and engage me here regarding that writing, it is simply your responsibility to work toward comprehension — quintillus

My responsibility to work towards my comprehension, or towards your comprehension? For example the following seems to me a clearly delusional statement:

I do not see law as a cause or as capable of causing persons to act or not act; although everyone else does. — quintillus

Am I only allowed to engage your writing so as to grasp your delusional way of thinking, or am I allowed to engage your writing in hopes of your way of thinking becoming less delusional?

I think you’re right. The fallacy of appealing to law, and positive law in general, makes it clear to me that some believe law is determinative of behavior, despite the very notion being nonsensical.

The judge convicts the defendant for the reason that the judge deems the defendant to have been under a social obligation to determine his actions in accordance with the law; and, the defendant, from the judge's viewpoint, did not determine to negatively do a requisite inaction.

Personal existential ontological existence is a continual failure to coincide with one's aims. I have been working to cast existentialist constructs in plain language for decades, easier said than done. When I first encountered these radically unusual constructs, I was exceeding at sea; however, I buckled down and did alright. The texts required to be read were not watered down, they were the thinker's original, final, published concepts; so, I know it can be done. One can study one's self out of any fog...

You partly think I have done a terrible job because you, at this point, lack the determination to put in the work requisite to understand ontology; I gave reference to the beautiful original texts for the reader to peruse...it is radically modern stuff.

You are going off half cocked, when you rush to inhumanely name me delusional, for knowing that law does not, cannot, act causally upon human beings. Law is a given factual state of affairs. Human action only originates on the basis of intended expectations which one has not yet brought to pass; no given state of the world determines human action...that is the existential ontological view, so, you see, you are rather a dummy to deem me delusional for understanding an existentialism which was constructed in 1943 and, has been published worldwide, winning a Nobel prize, which was refused by Sartre, for authoring the reasoning which I parrot here...

The judge convicts the defendant for the reason that the judge deems the defendant to have been under a social obligation to determine his actions in accordance with the law; and, the defendant, from the judge's viewpoint, did not determine to negatively do a requisite inaction. — quintillus

What the judge did was that he listened to the evidence, did his best to figure our what happened, then looked to see if the facts as he believed them to be violated the law, and then entered his ruling.

If that's what you meant, then I agree. If not, I don't.

But let's say we had a jury and not a judge in your example. If the jury were instructed by reading them what you just said, who knows what they'd do. They'd probably send back a question asking for an actual instruction of what they were supposed to do.

When I first encountered these radically unusual constructs, I was exceeding at sea; — quintillus

This is a good example of a meaningless metaphor about an ocean. Try this instead, "when I first came across this idea that I've convinced myself is too complex for the common man, I was in over my head. Fortunately, I came up with an obscure language to describe it. That way, people won't really know what I'm talking about, and I can hide behind the confusion I create. And, if they call me on it, I'll just tell them to work harder like I had to before it all came together."

My guess is you'll get a lot of folks not to play along.

You are going off half cocked, when you rush to inhumanely name me delusional, for knowing that law does not, cannot, act causally upon human beings. — quintillus

Actually, it is you who is going off half cocked, by failing to notice the portion of your quote that I bolded.

What is delusional, is your belief that you have a good understanding of the thinking of everyone else.

Thank you.
It is what is known as the materialist illusion when persons name given, existing states of affairs as the reason/cause for their actions.
The actual, authentic, true mode of origination of human action is consciousness; which proceeds via the double nihilation, wherein consciousness, on the one hand, makes the nothing that is an imagined future state which it wants to be; and, on the other hand, makes the present state nothing by transcending that state toward the not yet existing future which it wants.

Excuse me for existing. You are pinning too much bull on me. I should actually transplant your brain into my cranium, then, everything will be just swell, I''ll be precisely just as ignorant and as mean as you...
Yes, everyone mistakenly thinks law is determinative...
Get hosed.

Yes, everyone mistakenly thinks law is determinative...
Get hosed. — quintillus

There's the narcissistic rage that I was expecting to see.

I’m as materialist as they come but I don’t believe in determinism.

You accuse me of a total crock and I can't be outraged!? You are a piece of ignorant treacherous garbage with no place here.

Excellent.

I continually work to enunciate existential ontological precepts in the plainest possible language. — quintillus

Is this sarcasm or stupidity?

↪wonderer1 ↪HanoverYou accuse me of a total crock and I can't be outraged!? You are a piece of ignorant treacherous garbage with no place here. — quintillus

Sure you can be outraged. As I said, I expected you to be 'outraged'. I'm not providing the sort of narcissistic supply you are looking for.

In any case, this latest comment of yours exhibits the black and white thinking characteristic of narcissists.

Pearls have been thrown before your swine ignoramus idiot ass and all you can do is argumentum ad hominem. Defeat the OP, not me, fool.

Now you're turning unkind. What the hell?!
I posit something radically avant guarde here and, simply get shit on in return by limited intellects?

The actual, authentic, true mode of origination of human action is consciousness; which proceeds via the double nihilation, wherein consciousness, on the one hand, makes the nothing that is an imagined future state which it wants to be; and, on the other hand, makes the present state nothing by transcending that state toward the not yet existing future which it wants. — quintillus

Surely the future cannot be nothing in any absolute sense, because the future is what forces the human being to act. If a human being did not act, it would be crushed by the force of passing time, (the future becoming the past). Accordingly that human being would be forced into the past, by the future, annihilated. So the future must be something very real, therefore not nothing.

Surely the future cannot be nothing in any absolute sense, because the future is what forces the human being to act. If a human being did not act, it would be crushed by the force of passing time, (the future becoming the past). Accordingly that human being would be forced into the past, by the future, annihilated. So the future must be something very real, therefore not nothing. — Metaphysician Undercover

Here we are speaking of freedom, which, ultimately, is consciousness.

Consciousness imagines a future state of affairs which it desires to usher into the world. That future is absent; lacking; non-existent; and, hence, as non-existent the intended future is nothing.

The absent future does not, cannot, force free consciousness to do anything, for it is free consciousness which prefigures, imagines, makes the not-yet that is its future existence. Time originates via this nihilative capacity to conceive the absent future, whereby, the present is transcended and made past...
Nothing, nothingness, is consciousness' milieu, wherein consciousness continually makes the not that is the future, is real.