Application of the Law

I modestly hope that only two examples I have given in my posts, ‘Fundamental Issue’ and ‘Burden of Proof’, make one think how dangerous is the positive view that the application of the law consists in subsumpting a rule of law into fact. Positicism, as A.N. Whitehead and many other thinkers write, does not count with facts, it heals only with its own classifications.

Whitehead repeats in every 2 sentence: “Every classification is an omission of a truth.” If we look closely at the facts described in the above-above posts, we can see that the application of the law is rather something completely different from the alleged subsumption:

“It is about seeking rules for a fair settlement of a dispute using also, but not exclusively, legal provisions.”

Interestingly, this is the definition in Article 1 of the English Code of Civil Procedure. No consistent representative of legal positicism will agree to such a definition of the application of the law, since it is blatantly incompatible with a false but also positive definition of law. I have the irresistible impression that, within the KPC, the compatibility of false definitions within the procedural law system has become more important than its fairness. As if someone said:
– “Also, it’s a bit ridiculous.” – “But not cheerful.”