The argument for Papal Infallbility is based on the idea that Jesus said that Simon Peter would be the rock upon which the new Christian Church would be built. However, the problem with this is that Simon Peter, very soon after became an apostate first pope, by denying that he, Simon Peter, even knew Jesus Christ. Also, Simon Peter, at a later date, was teaching that non-jewish christians had to be required to follow the jewish law of kosher regarding food or diet, and also had to follow the jewish law which required the circumcision of males, even if adult. An early Church Council, led by the Apostle Paul, overruled Simon Peter, and held the oppostite, thus proving that papal infallibility is a false doctrine. If Simon Peter was not infallible, then none of the later popes, holding of his chair, were infallible either. Thus, the current pope is not infallible either.
(C)Copyright 2011 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Friday, January 21, 2011
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Fejfar on Nuisance Law
FEJFAR ON NUISANCE LAW
Nuisance Law is a hybrid of Property Law and Tort Law. The general idea of nuisance law is that a neighboring landowner can bring an action in tort for nuisance against an adjoining landowner who is using his or property in a way which unreasonably harms the person, financial interests, or property of the harmed adjoining landowner. Thus, there is the Latin phrase, "Sic Utere Tuo ut Alienum non Laedas," which means, "You cannot unreasonably use your property in such a way that it unreasonably harms another." In this sense, we can see that Private Property rights are not absolute, and instead, any property interest must be interpreted in light of The Rule of Reason. (See Grotius, Natural Rights and Natural Law 1625 A.D.) Thus, it is not an Unconstitutional Taking of Property for Purposes of the 5th or 14 Amendments, when property or a business is subject to reasonable business regulation. See generally, Justice Holmes' Judicial Opinion, in the case of Pennsylvania Coal Co. vs. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922) (Any governmental regulation of business and or property is valid if it is reasonable and is rationally related to a legitimate state interest, however, if a regulation goes too far by being unreasonable, then this constitutes an unconstitutional taking of property for purposes of the Takings and Substantive Due Process Clauses of the 5th and 14 Amendments to the United States Constitution. And, Reason is defined, using cognitive of faculty psychology as a composite of love, logic, and intuition, where "love' is defined as a positive feeling flowing outward, and where "logic" is defined as a statement, proof, or argument which does not involve a logical contradiction such as (A and not A), in the same time and in the same place, and, where, "intuition" is defined as that cognitive faculty which involves the use or high speed preconscious or unconscious analogical thought processes.
Nuisance Law is a hybrid of Property Law and Tort Law. The general idea of nuisance law is that a neighboring landowner can bring an action in tort for nuisance against an adjoining landowner who is using his or property in a way which unreasonably harms the person, financial interests, or property of the harmed adjoining landowner. Thus, there is the Latin phrase, "Sic Utere Tuo ut Alienum non Laedas," which means, "You cannot unreasonably use your property in such a way that it unreasonably harms another." In this sense, we can see that Private Property rights are not absolute, and instead, any property interest must be interpreted in light of The Rule of Reason. (See Grotius, Natural Rights and Natural Law 1625 A.D.) Thus, it is not an Unconstitutional Taking of Property for Purposes of the 5th or 14 Amendments, when property or a business is subject to reasonable business regulation. See generally, Justice Holmes' Judicial Opinion, in the case of Pennsylvania Coal Co. vs. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922) (Any governmental regulation of business and or property is valid if it is reasonable and is rationally related to a legitimate state interest, however, if a regulation goes too far by being unreasonable, then this constitutes an unconstitutional taking of property for purposes of the Takings and Substantive Due Process Clauses of the 5th and 14 Amendments to the United States Constitution. And, Reason is defined, using cognitive of faculty psychology as a composite of love, logic, and intuition, where "love' is defined as a positive feeling flowing outward, and where "logic" is defined as a statement, proof, or argument which does not involve a logical contradiction such as (A and not A), in the same time and in the same place, and, where, "intuition" is defined as that cognitive faculty which involves the use or high speed preconscious or unconscious analogical thought processes.
Using Lonergan and Logic to Avoid the Hermeneutic Circle
Philosopher, Hans Georg Gadamer has pointed out that a person can only know reality through the use of sense experience, mediated by meaning. Thus, what we know is both limited, and made possible through the cognitive use of meaning categories. Gadamer points out, however, that if it were not for certain, "forestructures of knowing," that we would be caught in a type of "analytic spin" (Spann), were we can not really know anything objectively because there is no objective way of grounding our meaning categories, other than other meaning categories, which of course would involve an invalid, logically circular way of knowing.
I have found two diferrent ways of using "forestructures of knowing" which provide a way out of the analytic spin of the hermeneutic circle of logic circularity. First, you can use sense experience and concrete logic to ground logic itself, and then use logic as a way of critiquing meaning categories. Thus, any meaning framework that is used must not involve a logical contradiction. Additionally, a modified form of the Lonerganian Cogntional Structure can be used as well. Thus, the following cognitive approach can be used: Experience, Analytical Logic Understanding, and then Analogical Logic Understanding or Reflection. Ordinarily, a person might find that analytic logic at Level 2 of Understanding might involve some logical circularity or analytic spin. However, since a person can take the ideas of analytic logic and then use them with analogical logic (intuition), analytic spin is avoided, and a form of authentic subjectivity or objectivity is achieved. With analytic logic, one might assert that A is not B, or that the Apple is not a Banana, however, with analogical logic, one might assert that A is not like B, or that an Apple is not like a Banana. However, one migh also say that an Apple is like a Banana, since they are both pieces or fruit. In any event, the foregoing meets the requirements of Logical Positivism, since analytic logic and analogical logic, while different, are analogous, and are equally valid.
(C)Copyright 2011 by Anthony J. Fejfar
I have found two diferrent ways of using "forestructures of knowing" which provide a way out of the analytic spin of the hermeneutic circle of logic circularity. First, you can use sense experience and concrete logic to ground logic itself, and then use logic as a way of critiquing meaning categories. Thus, any meaning framework that is used must not involve a logical contradiction. Additionally, a modified form of the Lonerganian Cogntional Structure can be used as well. Thus, the following cognitive approach can be used: Experience, Analytical Logic Understanding, and then Analogical Logic Understanding or Reflection. Ordinarily, a person might find that analytic logic at Level 2 of Understanding might involve some logical circularity or analytic spin. However, since a person can take the ideas of analytic logic and then use them with analogical logic (intuition), analytic spin is avoided, and a form of authentic subjectivity or objectivity is achieved. With analytic logic, one might assert that A is not B, or that the Apple is not a Banana, however, with analogical logic, one might assert that A is not like B, or that an Apple is not like a Banana. However, one migh also say that an Apple is like a Banana, since they are both pieces or fruit. In any event, the foregoing meets the requirements of Logical Positivism, since analytic logic and analogical logic, while different, are analogous, and are equally valid.
(C)Copyright 2011 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Monday, January 10, 2011
The Story of Er in Plato's Republic
The Story of Er, in Plato's Republic, involves a factual account by Plato, on the lips of Socrates, about Er, a Warrior who had apparently had a Near Death Experience, and described the afterlife, which involved Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory, and, reincarnational planning for a person's next life. This is historically significant because it is the first Near Death Experience account that has been recorded, and, it precedes the birth of Christ by thousands of years. Thus, the Story of Er affirms life after death, Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory, the existence of the immortal soul, and the validity of reincarnation. Heaven and Hell are specifically referred to in the account, and the place being observed by Er is clearly Purgatory.
The above text is the Story of Er, found in an out of print translantion of Plato's Republic, which is told on the lips of Socrates.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Anthony Fejfar philosophy, law, theology, busines, and jurisprudence.: The Gospel According to Saint Jude the Apostle
Anthony Fejfar philosophy, law, theology, busines, and jurisprudence.: The Gospel According to Saint Jude the Apostle: "You can find the Gospel According to Saint Jude the Apostle at the website below: www.scribd.com/doc/42016062/41412472-the-Gospel-Accor..."
The Gospel According to Saint Jude the Apostle
You can find the Gospel According to Saint Jude the Apostle at the website below:
www.scribd.com/doc/42016062/41412472-the-Gospel-According-to-Saint-Jude-the-Apostle
Thanks, Tony Fejfar
www.scribd.com/doc/42016062/41412472-the-Gospel-According-to-Saint-Jude-the-Apostle
Thanks, Tony Fejfar
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)