Logical Positivism Critical Thomism And Law

Logical Positivism, Critical Thomism and Law By Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq., Coif © Copyright 2009 by Anthony J. Fejfar Some might argue that Logical Positivism can be used as the basis for Law. Recall, that Logical Positivism is defined as “rigorous logical inferences from sense experience.” While Logical Positivism is a good cognitive tool for Gradeschool Science, in fact, the Critical Thomist Epistemology must be used for Law. The Critical Thomist Cognitional Structure is defined as the threefold use of: 1. Experience (including sense experience) 2. Understanding (including logic and meaning) 3. Judgment and Reflecition Now, as I have argued previously, not only is Property Law Metaphysical, if fact, all Law is Metaphysical. First of all, Natural Law is structured by the Immutable Platonic Forms (see Rupert Sheldrakes work in Evolutionary Biology). Secondly, it is clear that Law is Meaning, primary, not really sense experience. Law is a Meaning Based System. In other words, Law is Metaphysical in the sense that Meaning is Real (Lonergan). While Critical Legal Studies (CLS) argued that Law must be concrete or material to be real, in fact such a position is absurd. The reification concept of CLS is incoherent logically. Recall, that reification is defined as: “it is false consciousness to treat an abstract idea as if it is concrete.”

In fact, reification itself is an abstract concept

and therefore invalid as a “reified concept” itself. CLS is DOA (Dead on Arrival). Law is primary Meaning and Law is Metaphysical.