True Theory of Law
Amidst the tangled web of ideas upon which legal theorists rely as a science, it is necessary to affirm certain principles that none of them dare to question, upon which heuristic and mental frameworks are established.
Nor would we attempt a regression or digression into the schools of thought on legal theories and doctrines; it would be pointless, given that they are all ideological, idealistic, elitist, ethnocentric, self-sufficient, and none of them can absolutely prove their theorems, postulates, and principles, as in any of the social sciences. They are merely audacious presumptions born from the mind of an enlightened individual who intends to guide humanity with their holistic, tautological, solipsistic, and personalistic wisdom.
Legal theories as a social science attempt to explain and justify a kind of society with their idealistic vision of reality based on underlying conflicts, while acknowledging the imperfectibility of the human being.
We seek to exclude all theories of Law in favor of a single systematic vision that surpasses all principles and all theories and doctrines about Law from the perspective of considering Law as a technique.
Thus, Law is merely a technique that seeks to describe in its manuals and integrate imperfect and practical rules and procedures based on expectations of social and individual behavior.
The second assertion about the view of Law as a technique perceives the function of legal professionals, acknowledging their psychological limitations, that a single person alone cannot perceive or admit the weaknesses, flaws, and gaps in their understanding of a stage of life involving conflicts. For this reason, the practice of Law is divided into two halves, opposing defense and prosecution, based on the practical impossibility of conceiving of an individual who intends to solve a problem by making their own refutation in the interest of the true, real solution, even if they know it.
Therefore, we separate the thesis from the refutation and pretend to ignore the true and complementary efforts of both to simulate the search for the centralizing parameter of the real conflict.
As a technique and as a social practice, it needs to change all the time. If it were the result of a doctrine, theory, or concept, it would have more stability and temporal consistency. Principledly, it lacks permanent, universal, and fundamental bases, hence its ephemeral nature, transmutability, flexibility, and contingency. This necessitates malleable, temporal, and unstable jurisprudential interpretations through the higher courts, which reinterpret, extend, restrict, and resignify—merely a play on words, because Law is merely a technique applied to the manipulation of a set of assertions that describe a generic situation that must be adapted to a real situation through the magic of subsuming the text between the two sides, defense and prosecution separated, since both sides know each other's intellectual weaknesses and frauds and respect these divisions and boundaries based on the rule of dialectics, which composes the game of staging justice, which should be equality and proportionality. Instead of justice, it is a technique of judicial application of Law.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário