|
>Some people claim that laws exist as human
intellectual constructs, which are abstractions
- to the extent that some consider abstractions
to exist. But ephemeral human intellectual constructs no more exist than laws do. What exist (as far as humans
are concerned) are human abstractors and
ideators, human law-makers and the humans
who either abide by - or reject those man-made
laws.
The way the cosmos exists is not governed by any collection of rules imposed by some metaphysical authority (either
God-given or discovered by human scientists.) Insensate
material (call it what you will) exists in the only
manner in which it is possible for it to
exist and what scienctists think of and describe
as laws, are not laws per se in the sense of human or deistic laws - but brilliant discoveries of how certain
aspects of the cosmos exist.
The problem (as with all idealists imprinted in infancy) is the transcendentalist's innate
inability to analyse abstractions logically
as being no more than unspecified generalisations
unassociated with any particular instance
- rather than universal truisms. Examine
and note the interminable Socratic casuistries
of the dialogues, based on the time-wasting
and ultimately frustrating elenctic method of Socratic debate (usually with a compliantly
nodding yes-man stooge planted as the dopey
interlocutor.) The obsessive - reifier Plato
who emphasised the intuitive and spiritual
above the empirical and material believed
that such a form of inquiry and debate concerning
abstractions between individuals with opposing
viewpoints would lead to a general truth
about various reifications or thingifications.
In fact the so-called abstractives so beloved
of primitive philosophical truths are no more than thinly disguised individuate
opinions. One man's idea of beauty is another man's idea of repulsive ugliness.
The women of the Khoisan ethnic group, the
native people of southwestern Africa, who
are closely related to the Bushmen have evolved
a condition called steatopygia, which is characterised by large buttocks (possibly for a survivalist reason) which protrude like horizontal camel-humps and manifest elongated dangling labia, which most western visitors are reported
to find them singularly unattractive, yet such features are viewed by the
Khoisan males as being beautiful and desirable.
To quote historian of science Stephen Jay
Gould,
|
"The labia minora, or inner lips, of
the ordinary female genitalia are greatly
enlarged in Khoi-San women, and may hang
down three or four inches below the vulva
when women stand, thus giving the impression
of a separate and enveloping curtain of skin".
|
>
But it is not only the abstraction beauty that is in the eye of the beholder, not
all laws are universally respected as beneficial
either, and freedom, loyalty, love, rights, absolutes,
sets, judgement, relations, piety to name but a few are equally prone to a wide number of different individual interpretations.
The term Law is a type of human abstraction which (having
been imprinted with a Ten Commandments type mentality) the ontologically-challenged automatically extrapolate (extend) to the
physical world as workable generalisations
that describe recurring facts or events in
nature - where no such principles actually
exist.
Why? How come?
The manner in which material is affected
by the impingement of other objects is the
way that entities react to the
tension between change and permanence of form. (connatus.) The cosmos consists of dynamical,
constantly-changing elements. No object in
the cosmos could ever come into being as
an entity if it were incapable of change
- for coming into being as an object entails a modus of mutability
in the first place.
The so-called
Laws of Nature are better explained by using this simple
extended metaphor
|
Would there be any need for laws if because
of their genetic make-up at birth, all humans
existed with an automatic, respect for other
members of society and were nurtured with
an innate predisposition to invariably act
in ways that harmonised with society?
In such a situation no laws would be required
- for if our imaginary world population never
broke such rules - no framework of rules
would be needed to constrain them. The behaviour
of such humans would not even be referred
to as being law abiding, because there would be no laws for humans
to break - people would simply be seen to
exist that way, and the terms law and law-abiding would therefore be unnecessary, meaningless
semantic redundancies.
|
Such is the way the insentient,
non-feeling, non-conscious, non-law-conformable
cosmos naturally exists.
What humans perceive as The Physical Laws of Nature are no more than simply the way objects naturally
exist. |
