If judges decree which laws are to be enforced based upon the justice, wisdom, efficiency, or prudence of the law and those pronouncements are recognized by law as authoritative, then are we within a positivist or natural law system? — Hanover

Legal positivism isn't a kind of legal system. Legal systems aren't positivist or not positivist. I suppose it's at least possible for a legal system to be made up of just, wise, efficient and prudent laws, in which case depending on what natural law is supposed to be it may conform with it. Legal systems don't have to conform with it.

If the local sheriff wouldn't enforce the law, the prosecutor wouldn't prosecute the law, the juries wouldn't convict under the law, the judge wouldn't sentence under the law, and the warden wouldn't incarcerate under the law, then it was not the law, correct? — Hanover

Of course it was the law. it was a law that the sheriff, the prosecutor, the juries and the judge believed shouldn't be the law, based on an "assumed standard." These are the dangers we face when we believe the law must conform to an assumed standard.

On the other hand, with natural law, some natural or divine force is posited to justify the existence of the law, but with positivism, it seems (and explain if I have this wrong) the law is a rule laid down that gains acceptance and the nuance of what the law actually is will vary depending upon how the people at the time accept it to be. — Hanover

I'm going to be lazy, and will quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, because I think it does a good job of summarizing a complex point of view:

The positivist thesis does not say that law’s merits are unintelligible, unimportant, or peripheral to the philosophy of law. It says that they do not determine whether laws or legal systems exist. Whether a society has a legal system depends on the presence of certain structures of governance, not on the extent to which it satisfies ideals of justice, democracy, or the rule of law. What laws are in force in that system depends on what social standards its officials recognize as authoritative; for example, legislative enactments, judicial decisions, or social customs. The fact that a policy would be just, wise, efficient, or prudent is never sufficient reason for thinking that it is actually the law, and the fact that it is unjust, unwise, inefficient or imprudent is never sufficient reason for doubting it.

I think this is fairly clear. Legal positivism/realism states that whether the law or a law is just or moral or unwise has nothing to do with whether they exist.

Law, by which I do not mean a law, or the law, but law in itself, does conform to a standard, it isn’t law if it doesn’t, and it explains what law is, hence is not the ignoring of it even while ignoring its instances. — Mww

Sorry, but I don't know what you mean by "the law", if you don't mean "a law, or the law, but law in itself."

What does "the Law" here refer to, other than an assumed standard? — Metaphysician Undercover

If by an "assumed standard" you mean something that is adopted by a state or sovereign to regulate conduct, is codified, is enforceable by the state or others through an established system of processing and adjudicating violations or claims and making judgments, then I suppose an "assumed standard" may include laws. But I doubt that is what Austin intended by it.

The law can change, and then there is the old law and the new law. — unenlightened

The law can and often should change. Once it is the law, though, it is the law regardless of its wisdom or morality.

To speak of law without mention of the power of enforcement seems to me to miss something essential. — unenlightened

I agree.

These are judgments about the propriety of a law, made for rhetorical purposes. To say that a bad law is not a law is merely to say it shouldn't be a law, not that it isn't one. It remains a law, and enforceable by the state if violated.

No, we can neither expect nor demand respect for the law just because it has been promulgated, regardless of its content. What matters is not respect for this or that (often accidental) decision of the majority in a parliament or of a judge. Rather, what matters is respect for the moral law, which may or may not coincide with the positive law and which involves the legally irrelevant distinction between good and evil. — javi2541997

Notice the distinction being made the (positive) law and "the moral law." The moral law involves the "illegally irrelevant" distinction between good and evil. Just what a positivist would maintain.

Men do not make laws. They do but discover them. — javi2541997

I'm reminded of an old SNL skit regarding Justice Kennedy, after it became known that he had smoked marijuana. In the skit, he was smoking weed with some of his law students. One asked the then professor (I paraphrase): "So you mean Madison didn't really write the Constitution, he just sort of discovered it!" To which Kennedy, exhaling, replied "Right, right."

I think we have to ask ourselves just what an "undiscovered law" could be. I have no idea.

isn't that obvious? — Banno

It is to learned, intelligent, wise and reasonable people, yes. But there are distressingly few of us.

What about something like environmental law? It is always a reflection of an "assumed standard" or set of models that gets hashed out by scientific peer review. Beyond the particular acts of regulation and remediation, the "assumed standard" is a social contract to be a steward of the environment rather than merely living as a rapacious generation with no thought of any life afterwards. — Valentinus

It may astound you to learn that in the decades I've practiced, I've been involved in several matters where environmental laws were at issue, and not once has anyone referred to a "social contract." Instead, what's normally of significance are the nature and limits of the police power of the state to protect the health, welfare and safety of its citizens and its conflict with property rights (I mean here in our Great Republic). But a positivist would say that a law a law isn't its consistency with a fictional social contract.

Keep in mind, though, that legal positivism/realism distinguish the law and justice. As Holmes once said to a lawyer appearing before him: "This is a court of law, young man, not justice."

One can examine their life without being pensive over its necessity, but refraining from any contemplation in that regard is antithetical to all philosophy - isn't it? Why assess the structural or metaphysical underpinnings of your life, if you aren't trying to decipher or extract a meaning from it? — Aryamoy Mitra

I like to think that philosophy has something to do with being reasonable, and I think being reasonable leads me, and should lead others, to consider the assumption being made. That assumption is that our existence must be necessary in some way, for some reason, and so must in turn have some special meaning, some special purpose. That's quite an assumption given that we're each one of several billion creatures living on a speck in an unimaginably vast universe. It would seem more reasonable to think that we merely are, and haven't come into being to meet a particular need of the universe or achieve a particular goal preset for us by fate.

That said, we may examine ourselves and the world around us and make intelligent judgments regarding what it is we should do and how we should live, as a part of living. We need not have come into existence for a particular reason to do that.

If not, you're no longer examining your life. — Aryamoy Mitra

Don't know what you mean by "rationalizing." If you refer to seeking an explanation or justification of your existence, I don't think you examine your life by doing so. Your life is what you do and what happens to you as a living part of the universe, and it's quite possible to examine that without pondering why you exist.

I wonder how applying this "law" allow us to understand what is being told to us, let alone be necessary for us to understand it? Perhaps it would be useful in allowing us to understand something about the person telling us something (e.g., he's an idiot, under the influence) but not the statement being made.

Ignorance? It's the illusion of knowledge that's getting L O U D E R thanks to social media and 24/7 non-stop cable / satellite / streaming "bread & circuses" infotainment. People are still just people – (ten) millennia of syphillisation notwithstanding. — 180 Proof

Yes. The resulting ubiquity of misinformation and the encouragement and availability of immediate, emotional and thoughtless response to it has the result that the ignorance that's always there is rendered invincible, to use Catholic terminology.

You know, I think "oompah oompah" must be German as well. I thought of linking to "Der Fuhrer's Face" but reconsidered.

https://photovault.com/226756

The conflating what we imagine with what actually exists seems a problem, to me.

I referred to Sheehan because of his useful summary of the conduct of Heidegger as a Nazi during and after the rectorate, and because of his analysis of the excuses made by Heidegger in his efforts to rehabilitate himself after the war. Jasper, of course, had his concerns about Heidegger as well, as did others who knew him.

You guys are saying we should throw out the entire philosophy of a great writer because of possible poor judgments of his in terms of politics. — Gregory

"Poor judgments" forsooth. "The Fuhrer alone is the present and future German reality and its law." Also sprach Heidegger. Something more than poor judgment is involved in that kind of thinking.

Regardless, though, I don't think his philosophy should be thrown out, but I'm in any case personally unimpressed by what I've read of Heidegger, as I tend to agree with Carnap that his prose is obscure (and for me often portentous), his views mystical and romantic, and to the extent I can understand what he's said to have written, prefer the views of Dewey regarding technology, art, education and what we are and do as parts of the world. So, my disregard for his work isn't merely based on the fact that he was a Nazi, though I think his romantic and mystical bent inclined him towards fascism and authoritarianism. I find him loathsome as a person, and can't entirely separate the person from his philosophy as others seem able to do.

Of course it makes a difference if he supported geonocide. My number one problem with the three major religions on the West are their endorsement of mass murder at "God-Allah-Yawweh's" commands — Gregory

It seems you judge past ages after all, then. Is mass murder the only exception to your inclination not to judge those who lived in the past?

Well, we must in any case acknowledge that Heidegger was, unquestionably, a member of the Nazi party, from 1932 to 1945. I'm sure we can do that, at least. Those who are content to think that he nevertheless knew nothing of the reprehensible actions of the Nazi regime during that time, or that it makes no difference if he did, will continue to do so come what may.

He did not openly support Nazism after they started murdering people. — Gregory

He remained a member of the party until the end of the war in 1945, but perhaps you don't think being a member of the Nazi party constitutes support.

I confess I was being ironic.

Who cares? — Constance

Who indeed? Nazi, schmazi, eh? But you might want to read some of what Thomas Sheehan wrote about Heidi and his devotion to National Socialism sometime.

But Heidegger wasn't nearly as bad as you suggest. — Constance

He was one of those good Nazis. Sort of like Sergeant Schultz from Hogan's Heroes. Even looked like him. He didn't see anything, either.

https://images.app.goo.gl/sxyhxbeamfbx7tux7

What would you contend he meant by referring to "the Jews"? So-and-so who lived a few blocks away? In what way do you find that pertinent? No doubt some of his best friends were Jewish.

Sorry, this is fun but I must sign off for now.

Why do you assume I've done no research? Because I poke fun at the fellow? Not all of us follow in his goosesteps, you know. His infatuation with Hitler, the fact he was a party member even to the end of the war, his contempt for the Jews, are all well known. His acolytes just don't care about such things. I do. Have you read those charming speeches he gave as rector in Freiburg? Pertinent parts of his Black Notebooks and letters to brother Fritz? If not, I'm ahead of you when it comes to research. But it may be you find them endearing, or at least tolerable. So be it, but don't get peeved when others point out what he said and wrote.

Sacred cows are allowed to wander where they will. after all. Perhaps especially where Heildegger--sorry, Heidegger--is concerned.

Hannah Arendt — Joshs

His student that he seduced, yes.

How do you feel about Wittgenstein? — Joshs

Differently.

I could care less what he said and thought — Gregory

Funny thing. I feel the same way about the craven, miserable, pretentious, obscure, mystical, romantic, jackboot-licking, Hitler-loving, Jew-hating Nazi bastard.

Heidegger was a very sheltered man, but since he never ordered the murder of any person whatsoever, I don't consider him a Nazi. He was simply swept up in a cultural revolution — Gregory

One must order a murder to be a Nazi? Well, that lets those who were ordered to murder and did so off the hook. Swept up by a cultural revolution too, poor fellows, who as we know always said they were just following orders. As much victims of the real Nazis as those murdered at the camps, no doubt. I suspect Heidegger would agree with you.

Interesting, but unpersuasive.

Polytheism and anthropomorphic gods remained quite popular in the West at least until Christianity began stamping the gods out so relentlessly commencing in the 4th century C.E., and may be said to have survived for quite some time after that in the cult of the saints. Also, the belief in the divinity of Jesus requires an anthropomorphic view of God, which theologians have strived to cover over, unsuccessfully I would say, for centuries by attempting to incorporate into Christianity the "god of the philosophers."

Perhaps our ancestors in Sumer and elsewhere were too busy with other things to ponder human consciousness. For good or ill, its seems that we have more (too much?) time on our hands

Possibly. But for me, such exhibitionism (so to speak) is an aspect of artifice, or a sign of a deeper psychological problem.

Might as well have said ‘only a miracle’. — Wayfarer

Or "only a Fuhrer." But for him, it seems that "god" and "Fuhrer" were much the same.

But in particular, the argument from character is a very weak one. The guy was fat, ignore everything he says. — unenlightened

You mention his girth. I haven't. But you're right, of course--it was impressive, like that of his hero, Thomas Aquinas. George Bernard Shaw used to mention it as well, with some frequency. So I suppose that you're in good company.

I, on the other hand, have only addressed his tendencies in argument and in coming to conclusions. And I've even said he would have made a good lawyer. What higher compliment could I pay him, or anyone?

Masculine identity is probably the key to the rise in assault weapon ownership and mass shootings.

I think researchers are sleeping on the plunge in young males' sexual activity in recent years, and the effects of the dynamics of internet dating. Inability to find mates is identified as a major factor in the radicalization of Islamist terrorists. Far-Right sites are awash in references to their poor prospects and the fear of "cuckolding," whilst "incel" is a common insult. — Count Timothy von Icarus

So the totemic regard for assault weapons, and even their use, is associated with the sexual fears/disappointments of unfortunate males? Well, I only own shotguns, and so am pleased I must then be less unfortunate.

Yet he agrees with Hume, a philosopher so unapologetic he is still seemingly ahead of the times. — unenlightened

Yes, when it suited his purpose. I doubt he would have agreed with this statement by Hume, though:

“If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”

Hume sounds like one of Chesterton's madmen, here.

And this is no off-hand remark of Chesterton's, but the direction of much of his writing. — unenlightened

Which would make it an off-hand conclusion on his part, absent any thoughtful consideration and evidence. He was an unabashed apologist.

Note his statement that "The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason." He delighted in this kind of rhetorical device, and used it frequently. And, it may be expected that as an apologist for Christianity, (Pope Pius XI, Pontifex Maximus, made him a Knight of the Order St. Gregory), Chesterton would take such a position--reason simply could not be tolerated if it somehow conflicted with doctrine. He wrote in defense of belief in miracles, as well. He have been a good lawyer, poor fellow, and represented his client and its doctrine very ably.

Well, being glib, he provides no definitions, no explanations and no evidence. Neither does he make an argument. He proclaims, declares. It's not clear what he means by "reason" or, for that matter, "imagination." Why would reason, by ordinary definition the power to think, understand and form judgments rationally, lead to insanity? Why would imagination do so?

He seems to mistake "reason" for "logic." The "logic" he refers to seems to be merely the process of selecting a premise, however unreasonable, and inferring the unreasonable from it. We can only guess from his dismissive and conclusory claims that he has fabricated a parody of reason.

I know of no basis on which to maintain reason leads to insanity, and he provides no basis.

Augustine was a very odd person. There's something strange about his eagerness to confess his sins and misdeeds. He seems to revel in them in a bizarre way, rather like Rousseau does. But like Rousseau he appears to think he's better and wiser than others for having been a sinner and proclaiming his sins to the world.