It is a factual reality that there is law. Just like it is a factual reality what our name is. But both of these are arbitrary creations of man. So while they are factual realities, they are not properties of nature, like the atomic weight of gold, say.
I don't believe law is factual reality but order is. Be it bacteria, humans or the solar system, the real world could not function without it. Law only defines what order is and legitimizes the elimination of that which tries to exist without it. Hence, survival of the fittest or natural selection.
You had better believe it. If you disagree, you will learn very quickly as they execute you for a murder you committed. Law is not just a factual reality, it can be a lethal reality, as well.
If that were absolutely true then we would have no need for judges or courts to interprate the written laws in deciding legal cases. Or a need for the Supreme Court to offer their opinions on written laws.
Answers & Comments
Law is a factual reality (legal realism). Do you agree?
~~~ Everything exists!
Reality is ALL inclusive!
Law exists!
Factual means fact. What is and is not a fact is open to debate. Reality as a concept is open to debate.
If you have two terms that are relative combining them only makes them more dubious.
Law is a part of the purported objective world. Beyond that, I don't see how you are really saying anything.
It is a factual reality that there is law. Just like it is a factual reality what our name is. But both of these are arbitrary creations of man. So while they are factual realities, they are not properties of nature, like the atomic weight of gold, say.
I don't believe law is factual reality but order is. Be it bacteria, humans or the solar system, the real world could not function without it. Law only defines what order is and legitimizes the elimination of that which tries to exist without it. Hence, survival of the fittest or natural selection.
"Our two minds .... One is an act of the emotional
mind, the other of the rational mind. In a very real
sense we have two minds, one that thinks and one that
feels" (Daniel Goleman, Emotional Intelligence,
Bloomsbury Publishing, London, 1996, page 8). This
rational mind is also called the faculty of logic and
reason.
In the 1930s, Austrian mathematician Godel proved a
theorem which became the "Godel theorem" in cognition
theory. It states that any formalized 'logical' system
in principle cannot be complete in itself. It means
that a statement can always be found that can be
neither disproved nor proved using the means of that
particular system. To discuss about such a statement,
one must go beyond that very logic system; otherwise
nothing but a vicious circle will result. Psychologist
say that any experience is contingent - it's opposite
is logically possible and hence should not be treated
as contradictory.
"Goedel's results are the crucial evidence that stable self-contained
systems of reasoning cannot be perfect (just because they are stable and
self-contained). Such systems are either very restricted in power (i.e.
they cannot express the notion of natural numbers with induction
principle), or they are powerful, yet then they lead inevitably either
to contradictions, or to undecidable propositions".
http://www.ltn.lv/~podnieks/gt.html
Kurt Goedel's Theorems prove that in any reasoned (axiomized) system of
even modest complexity, there are certain statements and conclusions
that are true but unprovable within that system. "Listening to reason"
within a system would then prejudice one's self to the truth that is not
proven, hence, "being lost" to the more complete truth.
http://www.search.com/search?q=godel+incompletenes...
The ancients explained mortality in this way. "A man is
a mortal god and a god is an immortal man."
You had better believe it. If you disagree, you will learn very quickly as they execute you for a murder you committed. Law is not just a factual reality, it can be a lethal reality, as well.
No.
I would say that law is an IDEALISTIC reality.
Many (if not most) laws are written by legislators because of their concepts of how things OUGHT TO BE.
If that were absolutely true then we would have no need for judges or courts to interprate the written laws in deciding legal cases. Or a need for the Supreme Court to offer their opinions on written laws.
somewhat