My BREEZES AD LAW AND ART, WITH MY OWN MUSIC ESPECIALLY
MM
ON LAW AND RIGHTS IN GENERAL AND AS REGARDS THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE
MEMBER STATES.
In view of the facts of confusion, ambiguity, and disputes regarding law, I decided to write and publish an article on the subject of law itself, its meaning, scope of validity, value, legality, briefly and synthetically, so as to generally but clearly state the basic, proper understanding of law, which, I think, may provide the possibility of significant progress in various issues, on various detailed topics regarding law formulated for both individual people and for the collective of people, as a hint to the correctness of thinking regarding the possibility of their organizing themselves to an optimal situational state, together with securing the rights due to them with appropriate, formulated legal safeguards.
In this article, I want to demonstrate that the only consistent, appropriate approach to the formulation of law and the condition for justifying its legality in states that can be considered consistent in implementing democracy equal to all citizens, is one basic condition, which is also a criterion for the legality of their law, namely the condition of the logicality of its formulations regarding truth.
So, fundamentally, people need laws to secure their existence and relationships in the world in which they live, in accordance with the characteristics of the human species (or genus) from abuses, errors or crimes. Law should therefore secure the basic conditions for people, human existence, together with their living and residence environment. The essence of the meaning, justification for the existence of formulated law is therefore legal regulation regarding the protection of conditions and relationships in which people live, and the condition, value is its general beneficialness regarding justified, legitimate regulations. These regulations cannot be incompetent. If they are based on logically, definitionally correctly formulated statements, only then do they have the features, statuses of criteria of compliance with truth in the rational-logical sense, having the status of rational, rational-critical formulations. Any going beyond the logical scope means not reaching the logical ranges in any formulation and leads to rational, mental inconsistencies, which in the case of supposedly legal formulations create in fact illegal, unjustified impositions in the context of critical-logical reason, because these do not have the characteristics of confirmation of compliance with the truth. Only the fact of rational-logical confirmation of compliance with the truth is/can be sanctioned, when the statement or conclusion is confirmed rationally and logically, as consistent with the truth.
Inconsistencies in/or regarding thinking, its formulations, have sometimes been tried to be somehow rationalized, e.g. creating images that the contents come from tradition or culture, or perhaps even – as colloquially – simply as if legitimate habit. Such a practice or phenomenon is the creation, creation of irrational statements, ranges, which have ranges inadequate to the logical-definitional results* for the correctness of thinking, its formulations regarding truth, and therefore also critical reason. These are, however, only practices, phenomena unconfirmed in terms of their conformity with the truth as to their content, but they cannot have, do not have the status of binding legality, since they do not contain the content of legality based on logical, logical-definitional* evidence of conformity with the truth. Here, one can sift the differences between something to which someone may have a right, and the fact that in itself this something is not yet the law itself.
In societies or states that are democratic and have laws established on the basis/principle of logical, logical-definitional* formulations, they should have the status of logical, and therefore only then correct in terms of critical-rational criteria regarding truth. The status of legality, legal sanctioning in the definitional, critical sense cannot allow or create rationally-logically unconfirmed contents, generalities or details, as if or supposedly in accordance with the truth, with reason. The basic sanctioning, confirmation of the legality of law, rights for the generality/generalities of people, as well as for individual people, is the agreement of the formulations, details and generalities of law, laws regarding the criterion of truth logically, i.e. correctly within the scope/scopes of the basic features of the human species (or kind), together with their possibilities.
In free countries, societies, there can be no legal pressure or supposedly legitimate pressure to force anything of an irrational, logically unproven nature, such as beliefs, customs from ancestors, fashions, etc., because they do not constitute, do not contain a condition or basic conditions proven logically-definitively, regarding the human species (or kind), as consistent with the truth. The clear unambiguity of logical law gives people a free basic space, a legally healthy environment, certainty of their rights, which are consistent with the nature of people as species. Only then can people feel unthreatened by irrationalism or authoritarianism in power, can they live without being subject to such forces.
Logical, logically definitional, correct thinking (regarding the topic, topics) is the only human feature, control function of people, capable of establishing, establishing, formulating laws formulated, established as general, common to people, humanity or the state, states – because only the results of correct, rationally critical logical-definitional thinking* have features and criteria that are unambiguous regarding compliance with truth or falsehood, i.e. with untruth. So only conducting logically, definitionally correct thinking, rationally, thanks to this ability, can confirm evidentially, appropriately and sufficiently, the content content, which can be regulatory and protective against lawlessness, abuse, harm, etc., if logical, definitionally correct thinking is directed at such topics.
In this article, before referring to the legal matters of the European Union itself and its member states, the author captures and explains the topic of law, rights using two contexts, so that the content of understanding the whole is fuller in the sense of informational, associative breadth for understanding or presenting the topic.
Some content is repeated, but in different approaches, and the author does this for the purpose of a better description, easier for many potential readers to associate, because the topics of law are probably too vague or passed over in silence, unsaid for many people, but they are related to the entire quality of being, life and individual people and people as a collective. If people’s awareness is widespread, sharpened, awakened to important data, in people it can, should affect the ability for correct or better self-organization, organizing people, societies in democracy, in democracies, which by the number of people alone, without logical actions, solutions will not become good enough for building, living in optimized or optimized conditions. At the same time, it is easier to see, prevent or correct errors or frauds or corruptions, which in many cases are omitted, camouflaged, etc.
The first basic context here is the significance of the ranges of logic in formulations, reasoned findings, as justifications (sufficient justifications) regarding truth, the second context is to draw attention to the place, significance of the ranges of logical thinking regarding the nature of the human species, representatives of the human species.
It is important that logical thinking is the only feature of a human being, of people, which has the feature, function of critical and unambiguous recognition of truth, an appropriate, sufficient feature and function, because as the only one based on features common or basic to the entire human species, for every averagely educated person, it expresses, can express, inform, convey in accordance with consistent rational and logical thinking, including along with logical, grammatical correctness, properties that are verifiable for every basically adult person, citizen, suitable for proving with respect to the criterion of truth at least able to think logically (and therefore also the average) person, being a function, a cognitive feature, and also transferable to all people, communicative, informative.
This function of logical thinking, also referred to as the rational function, can, with respect to the formulated/formulated law, protect the species or human kind only in the scope of that which has confirmation of logical conformity with the truth, only then fulfilling the condition of having a status, relating in accordance with truth, logic, logically, to the nature, features of people as people (species). Here, the claim that this is a reference to every person is of course connected with the need for people to understand the importance, the meaning of what the legal status of a free person, a citizen, the legal status of equality before the law is, and this is the field of education, education, communication and information technology. The term citizen refers more to the legal context of being or participating in a state, society or country, and the term human more to the context of species or kind.
What is not proven or cannot be logically proven to be true cannot be legally binding, because it is something that does not have the status of confirming truth or logicality in relation to truth, and therefore in the context of logicality, it is not something that is confirmed as truth, that it is true. There is a context here that the law is/should be for everyone, so waiving the requirement/condition of the criterion of logical formulations or conceptual, thematic scopes, allowing unproven statements as if they were legal, is putting forward logically unproven contexts or precedents as if they were legitimate or legal, and they are not at all. They cannot be binding, because they lack the basic status of achieving the level of taking into account logical correctness in relation to the logical criterion confirming truth in terms of content, and therefore they do not express, do not reach the level of taking into account correctly, consistently legal features, legitimate in accordance with logical correctness, which is also correctness in relation to the basic features of the entire species or human kind. The fact that the logic of formulations containing content, content linguistically, in speech or in writing, unequivocally transferable for communication, information, both for oneself and for other people, as consistent or inconsistent with the truth, and therefore capable of distinguishing truth from falsehood, provides a person, people, with an objective criterion, going beyond the subjectivity of the sensory impressions, feelings or emotions themselves, and can become, and in functioning becomes a critical function, going beyond or beyond the sensory impressions themselves, constitutes an essentially coordinating context, a critical or additional orientation or decision-making, defining, specifying function to sensory impressions, which can become a formulated legal scope, authorized as a logical law collectively for people and individually, if/when it logically contains a justification for its compliance with the truth.
A person can and does not only follow their senses or impressions, but thinking is a feature that constitutes an additional function, constituting a connection with verbalization, defining something that is somehow superior, this objectifying control, thought-associative function, which in critical situations or when trying to assess the situation objectively, that is, more broadly, when focusing on using their analytical-synthetic thinking abilities, is able to logically, definitionally, rationally, consistently define phenomena and take them into account, with this critical thought function, feature of thinking, can make grammatically, logically formulated choices, from this thinking function that coordinates the functioning of the senses, associations, sensory perceptions, together with its possibilities of generalization to broader, further than just sensory ranges regarding recognizing reality, facts, factuality, which serves it to recognize, distinguish facts critically, including planning, predicting independently, self-directedly. Regarding the criterion of reality, of factuality, this natural function generally referred to as: logical reason or critical thinking, i.e. logically correct thinking, has within its scope the feature of the possibility of clear insight or differentiation confirming truth or falsehood, in accordance with the truth. Thus, reason, logical thinking, has the feature of the possibility of recognizing truth, the possibility of distinguishing truth from falsehood, which are consistent with the functions of recognizing phenomena based on the senses, their influence on associative coordination, up to the level of logically ordered thinking, which is a correctly formulated definition/definition, logical statement. This is a feature, a species ability of man, people, regarding their manifestation, being in reality, in the world or generally regarding phenomena in the manifestations of their existence, being
Justification, statement, verdict or legal judgment is related to the fact that it should, is to be, or more precisely, that it is (because only then is it legal) correct in the sense, the sense that it is logical, therefore also correct by definition regarding its compliance with the truth. Logicity in thinking, its formulations of course refer to all facts, details as topics and are in their nature communicable, transferable. The concept, definition of truth is/are related to the concept of factuality about factuality, and the function of thinking, where speech or writing counts as a form of fixed thoughts, also as communication, or information, communication, transfer, constitutes in an essential sense the content of logically coordinated perceptions, sensory impressions related both subjectively and objectively, with the subject or subjects and with the space of being, i.e. the surroundings, the closer or more distant environment.
Thinking in essence refers, can refer to everything that a person, people, experience in their nature, and its scopes can refer to the entire reality, factuality that a person and people can experience, discover, detect or create, create, but only logical thinking is a carrier of a critical rational criterion regarding truth, that is, some important definition, valuation, about something (about anything) that it is, what its nature, property is.
Ad logical status, the basis of value, meaning of logic, logical thinking, is its ability to clearly distinguish truth from falsehood, to formulate statements or judgments on any topic according to the criteria of truth or falsehood. Ad legal status, it is important whether citizens are free and equal before the law, this protects the right to human dignity, people in the basic sense, regardless of secondary circumstances regarding the very fact of a person’s birth in the world/in the world. In order to be able to confirm that citizens are free and equal before or regarding the law, it is important whether this law functions, i.e. both the fact whether this law is formulated and the fact whether it is implemented, observed.
Law established for people, e.g. state, national, cannot (should not) be based on scopes, concepts or terms not defined logically, correctly with respect to truth, i.e. ad logica unproven with respect to the criterion of truth, because this would deprive them of their basic value, related to the actual confirmation of compliance with the truth, and this criterion applies to every person and all people, because general law is legal, i.e. objective, just only when it takes into account all species features common to both individual people and their entire or entire community
. General law or generally applicable to the entire or entire community, this law is in fact universal for people and with respect to their individuality and with respect to the entire or entire people, so the status of law, legal, cannot fit – as is probably clear from the above argument – into judgments or criteria with a lack or lacks of logic, evidence that is logically correct, and therefore proven in accordance with the truth, as consistent with the truth. In the scope of law, there is, there should be a concept of evidence sufficient logically, that is, any omitted important data can falsify the judgment, ruling, verdict in the case, therefore, judicial functions in complicated situations are certainly extremely difficult, also responsible, because the judge must be guided by the criterion of sufficient evidence about the nature of the facts being judged. In order for the judge not to be authoritarian or imprecise, there should undoubtedly be a right to appeal in the event of the appearance of some arguments about important details that were not taken into account, and may change the assessment of the event being judged. The author believes that there should be, however, some accompanying instance independent for/for checking court judgments, e.g. on behalf of the control of human rights, civil rights, competently selected, etc. Here, it can be added, noted that the feature or features of logical, logically critical thinking have the status of features of the species or human kind with the size of the potential to distinguish truth and falsehood for the entire species (or kind) of humans and this unambiguously, as well as the possibility of communicating, informing, transferring about it.
Law in its content cannot exceed, or fail to reach, logically, correctly formulated, proven scopes (terms or definitions), if it is to have the status of legally binding generalities or details. If law is limited to only proven scopes regarding its content, not exceeding proven, logical, definitional scopes (in short, the writer uses the term: logical-definitional* – which is consistent with the basic, universal, i.e. encompassing all people subject to a given law, features, recognition functions of the human species (or genus) – only then can we probably speak of just law regarding truth.
This right has as its basis and foundation the protection of people by definition from abuses and preventing them, including drawing, carrying out consequences regarding abuses or wrongs, without going beyond the basic order, consistent with the species or genus nature of people, in accordance with logically established principles, laws, etc. The result of logical thinking, taking into account the correct definitional and conceptual scopes, results in an answer to the topic posed, which, containing the correct consideration of phenomenal facts, determines, results in grasping, the concept of what is, what is, what truth, factuality contains in its content, what facts are, what given facts or content are.
An essential condition, basic goal, value, feature of law, logical, legal reservation is good, benefit, securing human rights, in accordance with logically proven criteria regarding truth, of course in accordance with the topics, scopes, taking into account details and generalities, maintaining its economical significance, i.e. essential content, without any additional to essential ones. In addition, there is both fundamental law and laws, detailed regulations regarding all diversity, which should be consistent with fundamental law.
Such an order allows for pluralism, i.e. natural in nature, in fact, diversity in diversity, diversity in diversity, and this in the contexts of diversity as such in existence, in its manifestations, because such is the nature, the feature of diversity in its diversity – as such – in existence, without imposing or forcing to patterns standing outside fundamental law or fundamental rights, which as a result gives basic, full legal freedom to every citizen, every person. Only such a correct law is fully valid, being consistent with the nature of the species or human kind, not violating its rational tools, logically consistent with the species characteristics of people. That is, only then do people individually and entire societies achieve the legal status of freedom and legal equality of people in accordance with their species or genus characteristics.
There is also the concept of legal status and its meaning with regard to both the European Union and the states co-participating in it. Confirmation of the legal freedom of EU citizens and each of the EU Member States and all the benefits that flow from it, is the logical basis for the legal constitution, securing a large area of many countries for freedom, legal security of a huge number of people, including as neighboring countries and as further, in a legally established, established on the basis of international agreements of co-participating countries, as part of the European Union.
There is also the concept of legal status and its significance in relation to the European Union and the countries participating in it. Confirmation of the legal freedom of EU citizens and each of the EU member states and all the benefits resulting from it (e.g. free movement, safety, with the facilities for cooperation and many others, also sharing people from many participating countries, societies, a huge number of people), is the logical basis for the legal constitution, securing a large area of many countries for freedom, legal security for a huge number of people, including as neighboring countries and as further, in a legally established, established on the basis of international agreements of the participating countries, as part of the European Union.
If the principles of the EU and the Constitution of the Republic of Poland are not contradictory (in substance), then it is absurd to speak (assert) in a democracy about the (substantive) superiority of EU or Polish law. Each EU country may have some legal points of its distinctiveness (even in the context of territory), protecting it from being absorbed or dominated by other countries or nationalities on its territory). EU law should be logical (logically and by definition*), and the law (constitution) of each country (state) cannot be contradictory to EU law, which means that they should also be (analogously) logical (logically and by definition*).
In a free, democratic Union with its free participants, each participant, i.e. each participating country and its citizens should have the right, rights equal to and in relation to themselves and other countries. Just like other countries and the entire EU. Together with democratic laws logically, logical-definitionally*, without going beyond the logical scope of their formulations of law, rights, concepts common to all, i.e. for every person, citizen. This is the only protection against falsehood and compliance with logical-definitional reason*, with truth in relation to communicative for all, and also relating to all, consistent with cognitive, recognitive, distinguishing, communicable, i.e. transferable, informative (etc.) logical-definitionally* functions, in accordance with the nature of the species or human kind, and at the same time the only such sufficiently competent tools for people in terms of recognizing truth, as well as for drawing conclusions, etc., in accordance with reason, analytical-synthetic reasoning or so-called critical, i.e. logical-definitional* reasoning. If there are any deficiencies in the laws somewhere, they should be corrected accordingly, intelligently, competently.
In fact, the European Union has a huge civilizational and evolutionary value for people, because it promotes a large area for securing European democratic rights for people and conditions for cooperation, also sharing people from participating many countries, societies, a huge mass of people who have the right, the right to – and should have it – a basic secured from the side of the right of people to freedom, equality before the law, and also to derive various other possible benefits that emerge or should be revealed in such an ideal, at least potentially basic legal system. With such logical legal protection, people do not have to and do not need to be guided or bothered by any non-definitional issues, irrational or populist attitudes become irrelevant, harmless in the essence of their content. With the clarity of the law and its implementation or simple observance, a lot of problems of an irrational nature disappear in essence, and with their healthy, simple functioning, natural forces, positive potentials for life in accordance with legally and species-logical conditions for people appear.
Designation; * – This article refers to the fact that the author of the text used the designated term with the intention of correcting the previously used term, in Marxism or simply in the times of the Polish People’s Republic, as a concept, expression: false logic, which (in Marxism) was supposed to be the opposite of true logic, which was supposed to be understood at that time as logically consistent with the truth, its sentences, judgments were either true or false, but the writer takes into account here that ultimately logic cannot be false, i.e. inconsistent with the truth, just as the stated factuality as truth cannot be false with respect to logic. A logical sentence is always about something, has a topic and the sentence is either based on facts or is drawn from beyond the facts, but in such contexts the writer prefers to use the term or distinction regarding the nature of such a logically constructed sentence, i.e. distinguishing whether the sentence concerns real facts or is poetry, prose, fraud or belongs to another category with respect to the facts it indicates.
. Mariusz Milewski