The Defects of the “Proof of Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt”

I do not know if the thing called “proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt” could ever be attained in all or in any criminal trial.

It becomes more of a legal rhetorics rather than being realistic. Lawyers and Judges must have been aware that all issues and matters within the language of ciminal laws could be reasonably doubted.

The “proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt” principle is so worthless because it only applies to the rendering of judgment and not on the filing stage of a criminal case and when this principle shall be strictly applied, indubitably, all accused shall be found NOT GUILTY because there is nothing in this world that cannot be reasonably doubted. Logic  can work in many ways, it can even be a great instrument in building a concrete structure of doubts.

In a life span of a criminal case, reasonable doubt maybe established from the very beginning til the end of the trial. Reasonable doubts may intervene all through out the process in this wise:

1. Doubts on the identity of the accused

2. Doubts on the dates, time, circumstances, climates,  places and jurisdictions

3. Doubts on the instruments used, how it was used, and at what scene had it been used, etc

4. Doubts on the identity, character, personality, and profile of the witnesses

5. Doubts on the evidence collected, who collected it, when was it collected, where was it transmitted after the collection, how many days in determining process, etc.

6. Doubts on the language used in the documents, word selections, affidavits, statements, accusation sheets, and offered testimonies, etc

7. Doubts on the credibility of the law enforcers, officers, investigators, the motives of the prosecuting police officers and lawyers; fees and unethical conduct, etc

8. Doubts on the motives of the complaining parties, conduct, character, personality, and any other causes of their complaint

9. Doubts on the appreciation of the judges, jury, court, and the wisdom of those who took part in the decision of the case.

10. Doubts on many aspects, like reasons presented by each lawyer of a particular criminal case.

Evidence are not at all times admissible in court considering that there are rules of evidence restricting some proofs from being presented. Granting, that an evidence is admissible, it shall first be debated [or objected by counsel] by the  lawyers of that case. It is because there are always two tables in every tribunal – one for the defense, and one for the prosecution.

Now, tell me who could really be convicted of a crime if we will apply the principle of “conviction of the accused based on the proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt”?

Business Lessons 5: Management Guides

Management in business textbooks signifies any operations which deal with the organization, functions of employees, systems of administration, and internal structures of a particular business.

Internal structures would mean any activity in the course of operation of a business. “Management” is different from “Business” because management refers to the administration while business refers to a transaction.

 

Management, most of the time, deals with problems in the arrangement of functions and employment systems.

 

By this virtue, the author suggested seven management guides in the proper treatment of management problems:

 

1. Allocate time to listen on suggestions.

    It is not necessary that you should follow anyone’s suggestion. The purpose of asking their suggestions is to discern how they perceive the management problems. You must not discriminate on who will give suggestion; there is a tendency that you can learn best things from the lowest ranked employee.

 

2. Be skeptical in all kinds of dealings.

    In management, a hasty decision is the most dangerous action. It is not necessary that you should believe in all myths of effective administrations or the most effective solutions to a particular problem.

 

3. Before making a decision, determine whether it is reasonable and practical.

    The conjunction “and” is important to note. It is not enough that it is only reasonable; there is a tendency that a decision may be practical but not reasonable or reasonable but not practical. The two must coexist. What is reasonable and what is practical are questions of facts determined only by situations and circumstances.

 

4. Before defining a problem, the cause must first be determined.

    I call this as PRIORITY OF THE CAUSE PRINCIPLE. Logic proves that a problem is only a result of a cause, solving a problem without knowing its cause is the same as aiming at an unknown target.

 

5. Apply this method in addressing a particular management problem:

    a.]     understand the cause of the problem

    b.]     define the problem and its complications

    c.]     gather relevant facts, informations and data

    d.]     conduct studies, research, observations and experiments

    e.]     eliminate undesirable suppositions

    f.]      formulate the most simple solution

 

6. If there are many solutions formulated, try the most efficient.

    I call this as EFFICIENCY PRINCIPLE. When there are many solutions, the confusing and complicated must be discarded. What is needed is only the most efficient.

 

7. If the problem is resistant to any solution, REORGANIZE the management system.

    I call this as CONTAMINATED MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLE. The only practical solution is restart the whole operation should there be a lethal virus in the management system.

DEATH OF A PERSON AFTER SEXUAL AFFAIRS: Questions

Hypothetical facts:

In June 15, 2000, Boniface Paraz, a 60 year-old gentleman of a sound mind, asked the services of young lady. The lady goes with Boniface to a particular place for a secret and temporary sexual affair. After the encounter with the lady in a secret place and on a secret sexual transaction, Boniface’s blood pressure went up which caused his untimely expiration. The widow and the children were seeking for a legal remedy on the shameful death of Boniface Paraz

Question 1: Will the young lady be liable on the death of Boniface Paraz?

Answer: NO. Except when a sexual act is previously designed to commit a murder. Boniface is not deceived and neither a minor. His discerning capability brings the entire event to a case of VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA.

Question 2: In the situation that Boniface is already on an advanced age and probably suffering from a heart failure, will the young lady be liable on this score?

Answer: NO. It is not the function and duty of the young lady to make assumptions on the age and health status of her partner. The negotiation is all about rendering some sexual services, nothing else beyond the agreement.

Question 3: Is the young lady not the PROXIMATE CAUSE of Boniface death such that would make her liable?

Answer: NO. Sexual encounter is not the proximate cause on this incident because death is not a necessary result of sexual affairs. Boniface’s death is a result of his own “excitement” and cannot be credited to anybody else’s contribution. Proof of certainty shall be provided on the event that an exterior contribution shall be brought out in the allegations.

Question 4: Supposing the young lady took the gold ring, gold neck lace and any other wearing apparels of Boniface, will the young lady be prosecuted for theft by the children and the widow of the deceased?

Answer: NO. All artificial materials found in the body of Boniface are considered to be objects purely personal to the owner. The prosecution for theft shall only be instituted by the owner of the property. Since those wearing apparels were personal, any other party are not authorized to bring action in behalf of the owner. Also. the owner cannot bring action by reason of impossibility.

Question 5: What about the heirs’ right to inherit the property of the deceased?

Answer: The righ to inherit is under successional right which is defined by civil law; meaning, the ownership by succession will not automatically grant the successor the right to institute criminal actions because the crime of theft is committed directly by a thief upon the taking of the property from its owner. Try to note that there is no such crime as an “indirect theft” which shall be instituted by the heirs of the stolen property.

 My other observation: When the property was taken from the deceased while he was still breathing [or alive], the right of the heirs to inherit is immaterial because there is no such right exists. The right to inheret may only be asserted when the heirs can prove the existence of such right, meaning, the heirs should prove that the property was taken during or after the death of Boniface; this is essential because only at the time of death may an heir obtain a right to inherit the property of his/her ascendant.

Question 6: If an heir cannot prosecute in behalf of the deceased for the stolen jewelries, can he/she substitute?

Answer: NO. Substitution can only be applied when there was already a case instituted by the deceased prior to his death.

The Salient Features of Niccolo Machiavelli’s “The Prince”

Niccolo Machiavelli

Born in Florence, Italy on May 3, 1469. He received a quality and classical education typical of the humanist traditions of Renaissance Italy. He became close friends with Cesare Borgia of the powerful Borgia family. Mac [the name used by barrister79 for Niccolo Machiavelli]  lived at a time of continuous political conflict.

Salient Features of “The Prince”

1. Moral principles must yield to every circumstance, especially in such cases where sordid [dirty] and inhuman actions may  be required.

2. It is imperative to do anything necessary to maintain and to hold power.

3. The “Prince” must not be hated, he must endeavor to avoid hatred. It is best for him to be feared and loved, however, if both cannot be possible it is better to be feared than loved.

4. War and ruthlessness are requirements for actual survival.

5. It is understood that apparent cruelties and hostilities may be essential to maintaining stability and power; the end justifies the means.

6. The wisdom to seek advice and counsel only when it is needed.

7. Ethics and politics has no connections, it is entirely different and distinct from each other.

8. The “Prince” should endeavor to be seen as compassionate, trustworthy, sympathetic, honest, and religious. Although in realities, his duties are rarely any of these.

9. The rule of law will yield to the rule of force; the rule of law can only move when it has a considerable amount of force.

10. The “Prince” should maintain a good relation with the people.

Annotation: The significance of propaganda becomes apparent. Its importance is to neutralize the unrealistic expectations of the people. The creation of myths is necessary, people always love to entertain folklores.

11. It is a sin to hamper the people’s laws and customs. If the “Prince” would change it, he may do it either indirectly or gradually. The aim is to allow men to live quietly.

12. A virtuous “Prince” must protect and ally his weaker neighbors and weaken the stronger.

13. He who causes another to become powerful ruins himself.

14. In all difficulties of governance, the only effective means of establishing rule is by force.

15. The “Prince” relying solely on fortune has little chance of survival.

16. The prophetic “Prince” should not rely only on his prophetic sermons. [This was a lesson taken by Mac from the situation of Girolamo Savonarola, a friar of Florence who relied too much with his oratory]

17. All armed prophets have succeeded and all unarmed ones have failed; people are by nature changeable.

18. A “Prince” must group nobles according to whether they support him or not. The ambitious and cunning nobles should be looked upon as enemies to be carefully watched.

19. Support from the subjects is easily accomplished by not doing them harm or by not placing them in threat.

20. In fortifying a city, during stress, a virtuous “Prince” must keep the morale of his subjects high, while removing all dissenters.

21. The “Prince” must know his people, the cultures, the language, the territory and the military.

22. Don’t rely on mercenary armies because they don’t have loyalties. Their motivation to fight is for money. [Observation: By common sense, there is an element of fear of a counter-offer]

23. Don’t rely on auxiliary armies because they are more dangerous than mercenaries. They are united and controlled by competent commandants [Observation: Auxiliaries are considered dangerous because they are borrowed from an ally which may have a military business with the enemies; its possibilities are anchored on the fact that they are controlled by leaders of which the ally has no control]

24. A “Prince” who strives after goodness in all his acts is sure to come to ruin, since there are so many men who are not good.

25. The only ethics that matters is one that is beneficial to the “Prince” in dealing with the concerns of his state.

26. If a “Prince” is overly generous to his subjects, appreciations will be lost because they will only greed for more. Besides, over-generous is not economical – it will only result in grief. Building up a reputation of generosity has a little importance.

27. To avoid hatred, do not interfere with the property of the subjects, their women, or the life of somebody without proper justification.

28. For a “Prince” who leads his own army, it is imperative for him to observe cruelty because that is the only way he can command his soldiers’ absolute respect. [Annotation: This is a lesson Mac learned from Roman history on the armies of Hannibal and Scipio]

29. Between two warring states, it is wiser to choose a side rather than be neutral.

      Reasons: a.] If your allies win, you benefit whether or not you have more power than they have;

                    b.] If you are more powerful, then your allies are under your command; if your allies are stronger, they will always feel a certain obligation to you for your help;

                    c.] If your side loses, you still have an ally [Observation: A loser ally is more advantegeous than having no ally]

30. It is wiser for a “Prince” not to ally with a stronger force unless compelled to do so. It is an important virtue to have the wisdom to discern what ventures will come with the most reward and then pursuing it courageously.

31. The selection of quality servants is reflected directly upon the “Prince”’s intelligence, so if they are loyal the “Prince” is considered wise. [Observation: An impaired servant does not mean lack of quality, what is important is loyalty. Dracula had a perfect servant  although Reinhardt is not so mentally fit]

32. There are three types of intelligence:

      a.] kind that understands things for itself  – which is excellent to have.

      b.] kind that understands what others can understand – which is good to have.

      c.] kind that does not understand for itself nor through others – which is useless to have.

33. The “Prince” should avoid flatteries and flatterers.

34. A prudent “Prince” should have a select group of wise counselors to advise him truthfully on matters only that he inquires of. Any other opinions should be ignored.

35. The “Prince” should be wise enough to be firm and should avoid changing of the minds.

My Analysis on the Territorial Application of Criminal Law

The general practice of every country pertaining with the application of their penal [criminal] laws is always TERRITORIAL. As an international principle, the territorial application of penal laws is a standard which could be traced back to the ancient time in Rome, China, Babylon, Egypt, Persia, Greece, and other great civilizations.

The phrase “territorial application of penal law” means that the law of a state which defines crimes and punishments shall always be applied within its own territory. Meaning, a violation or infraction of the criminal law shall be punished in the territory where it was committed.

Illustration of the territorial application of criminal law:

              Joseph Smith [an American national] shot and killed Mao Tse-Tung [a Chinese citizen] while having a short speech in Tokyo, Japan.

              In this situation, the international standard on territorial application of criminal law requires that the culprit [Joseph Smith] should be criminally tried in the criminal tribunal of Tokyo, Japan  and not somewhere else because the felony [referring to the killing of Mao Tse-Tung] was committed in the place where the incident took place. This is the “Territorial Application of Criminal Law”; the criminal law of the territory will be applied when the crime is committed in the very same territory.

However, the international standard on territorial application of criminal law cannot always be applied in some peculiar instances. Indeed, there are situations in human events where a widely accepted principle does not apply.

Let us examine another illustrations:

ILLUSTRATION 1:          Vladimir Lenin [a Russian national] fired his automatic pistol in the boundary of Russia and Poland, Carol Wojtyla [a citizen of Poland] was hit by the slug that went off from Lenin’s pistol that caused Wojtyla’s instant death.

Can the territorial application of criminal law be applied in this case? If yes, where can Lenin be tried, in the place where he pulled the trigger[Russia]? or in the place where the death of the victim occur [Poland]?

This is a difficult situation of territorial application considering that Poland has no jurisdiction on the person who caused the death of their citizen; on the other hand, Russia could only charge the offender for violation of their fire-arms law [if there be any] and not for homicide considering that Russia does not have legal business on the death of a person located in Poland. The offender cannot also be tried for the crime of homicide both in Russia and Poland because it will result to a legal problem concerning with double jeopardy and absence of jurisdiction. I also do not consider it as a continuing crime because it is inherent in every bullet [slug] to travel from one place to another, and to note that one country has no jurisdiction to its neighboring country.  I believed that ”extradition” could not be applied  either because it is only applicable when a person escaped from the place where he committed a crime; in this incident, Lenin never escaped from Poland’s jurisdiction. We will leave it to wisdom of their courts. 

ILLUSTRATION 2:         Tony Blair [British] was on board of a private yatch owned by George Bush [American] with Fidel Castro [Cuban] bound for Australia from the Philippines. While in the ocean [high seas not under any territorial jurisdiction of any country], Blair and Castro had an argument over Clinton’s viagra. Thereby, due to his outrage, Castro stabbed Blair with his sharp dagger which caused his untimely death.

Under the international standard of territorial application of criminal law, a ship or an airship is considered as a territorial extension of the place where the ship or the airship was registered. In this hypothetical case, there is no mention of a registration of a private yatch owned by George Bush. When a private yatch is not registered [because its non-registration is not imposible], it can never be considered as an extension of a particular country. The place of departure cannot be said to have the jurisdiction of the case because the felony was committed outside its territorial boundary, neither could the place of destination assume jurisdiction because the act of stabbing and the death of Blair took place beyond its territorial limits. The host country only received the results of the crime [the dead body, the sharp dagger, the offender] and not a party to the crime itself, therefore, the receiving state cannot acquire sovereign jurisdiction between Blair and Castro. 

In this case, I believed that the problem on territorial application of criminal law could only be resolved under diplomatic resolution.

ILLUSTRATION 3:         Jacinto Alforque, a Spanish Ambassador to Pakistan, slapped Pervez Musharraf over an argument concerning with the question on whether a blind could run faster than a cripple. This is apparently a criminal case for injury, but Jacinto Alforque cannot be tried for any case in Pakistan court because of diplomatic immunity. Under the international law, territorial application of criminal law cannot be applied to those who represent a sovereign state. Meaning, ambassadors are immune from suit and there shall not be any case to be filed against him in the place where they commited the offense.

Under the international law, diplomatic officials could only be disciplined by the state who sent them to their diplmatic mission.  Since the municipal law requires that criminal offenders could only be tried in the place where the crime is committed, the ambassadors could not also be tried in the sending state for the crime he committed in the receiving state. The sending state cannot acquire jurisdiction over the criminal case of their ambassadors because of jurisdictional issues although it can administratively discipline their diplomatic officials, administrative liability may be determined from the degree of the diplomatic official’s misconduct while serving on a mission but it could never be treated as his criminal liability. The sending state cannot also impose criminal sanctions on the reason of territorial application of criminal law.

There are more than a thousand controversies affecting the territorial application of penal laws; all of these will just prove that the laws are not flawless after all.

Why do we have a “right to remain silent” in criminal cases?

In all of the cases known in every legal principle, only the criminal cases affects the life and liberty of a person. It means that when a person is charged with a criminal offense, the accused person is exposing himself to the danger of losing his liberty or the worst – his life.

In civil cases, a person liable shall only be obliged to pay [in legal term - indemnify] or to restore the object at issue. In administrative cases, only the employment, rights and privileges may be threatened.

Today, it has become an international standard to afford every person arrested for a possible crime [crime is any violation of a law; while civil case is any violation against personal right] to inform him of his right to remain silent. We have the widely accepted “Miranda Rule” in American Jurisprudence to inform the apprehended subject of his rights to remain silent, to counsel, and others.

The right to remain silent is a right granted by the state to any person charged or indicted for a crime. However, this right is only indispensable when a state or when a sovereign authority presumed the innocence of the arrested or accused person. Meaning, the right to remain silent is worthless when the sovereign authority presumed the guilt of a person. In my professional opinion, a person’s silence shall have no meaning when he is presumed guilty.

Let us to see, what constitutes the right to remain silent? Well, this right could only be invoked when a person is charged or arrested for a crime, the accused cannot also be compelled to testify in the court during the trial because the right to remain silent extends up to the proceedings of his case. The right to remain silent composed of NOT answering any question, NOT to give any comment or statement to any officer or any ordinary person, and NOT to convey anything related or unrelated to the charge.

Now, go back to my question  -”why do we have a right to remain silent in criminal cases?”

This requires some logical thinking rather than pure legal thought.

Answers:    1. It is the duty of the complainant or the government to establish their allegation against the person. The burden of proof is on them who alleged and not on the defense. There is no necessity for the defense to make an advance statement. All the defense will do is to wait on what the prosecution or the government will allege in their complaint.

                  2. It is an intelligent move of the accused to read all allegations first before making any comment or statement. In the absence of knowledge regarding with the complaint, the best way is to say nothing. Besides, the substance of having the right to remain silent is to know the nature of all allegations before answering anything. By your silence, you give yourself a greater advantage of answering only the allegations made against you.

                  3. The logical reason to exercise the right to remain silent is to prevent inconsistencies in the complaint and some other charge sheets. In cases like conspiracy, adultery, bigamy, and others, the accused must know the other testimony of the co-accused before making any frivolous testimony. For example, in case like adultery, the unfaithful wife and the paramour shall be charged together for the crime of adultery; If the wife denies having knowledge of the man [paramour], while the paramour told the police officer that they’re just friends and have no sexual relationship whatsoever, concrete suspicion will strengthened the case against the two persons due to patent inconsistencies.

                 4. The silence of the accused is important because it is not him who proves himself guilty; it is the government’s duty. Neither it is the accused’s assignment to prove his innocence, his innocence is presumed. When you are not required to speak, then why speak? It has been said in a famous musical composition – “you say it best when you say nothing at all”.

                 5. When the accused chose to speak or to offer something though he is given the right to remain silent, the burden of proof will be shifted or transferred to him. Meaning, he will then be required to justify his mistakes in the courts of law, which I think augmented the problems of the accused. The lines which said “anything you said will be used as evidence against you in the courts of law” means the burden shall be transferred from the government to the accused.

                6. Ultimately, I strongly believed that SILENCE IS POWER. The “knowledge is Power” of Francis Bacon will be replaced by my “Silence is Power” as far as criminal procedures is concerned. Silence is really a form of a great power because it can HIDE everything, even the biggest events of human affairs.

 One thing I want all readers to remember is this, silence is a good defense. Let them prove, let them allege, and let me be silent.

MY ANALYSIS ON THE TERM “HEROISM”: The Interrogation

University panel interrogation.

Barrister79: The honorable panelists of this prestigious institution, today I am going to present my analysis on the term “heroism” – a term which was oftentimes used and abused all through out the affairs of human civilizations. This indicates how powerful is a concept such that it could manipulate human feelings and reasoning…[interrupted]

Panelist1: For a while, what are you trying to establish in your presentation?

Barrister79: I am trying to establish four different interpretations pertaining with the term “heroism”, sir.

Panelist1: And what are those four different interpretations you said?

Barrister79: I am referring to “heroism” as

                   1. a term with manipulative concept;

                   2. a term which is tainted with subjectivity and biases;

                   3. a term which is totally biased in favor to those who benefited from the “heroic” act;

                   4. an act of hypocrisy.

Panelist1: Thank you!

Panelist2: How do you define “heroism”?

Barrister79: I defined “heroism” as an act or a practice of being or becoming a “sacrificial lamb” for the benefit of others, which I considered as an act of hypocrisy.

Panelist2: Haaaaa? Heroism is an act of hypocrisy?

Barrister79: Yes, ma’am. It is an act of hypocrisy because a person exposed himself to a risk which is not his business at all while the real party concerned has the capability of exposing themselves to any danger for their own benefit.

Panelist2: Do you have a child sir?

Barrister79: I may have, I may have none.  [smiling] I have a niece, Tahlia; and nephews, Connor and Kobe

[the spectators clapped their hands for the impertinent answer]

Panelist2: My point sir, when you see your child drowning or at risk, will you save him?

Barrister79: My answer is YES, ma’am. But I do not consider my act as  “heroic” because it is my NATURAL OBLIGATION to save them. The components which composed their bodies are the same substance which composed mine.

Panelist2: When you save them, are you not considered as their “hero”?

Barrister79: No. It is my natural obligation to rescue them; It means that I’m compelled with a necessity and not by the concept on “heroism”.  “Heroism” has something to do with pure sacrifice for the benefit of someone you hardly know. However, if they consider you a hero, it is because this term is so manipulative.

Panelist2: Thank you!

Panelist3: Sir, I think I got your point, somehow. Supposing you see me drowning, won’t you save me because “heroism” is an act of hypocrisy?

Barrister79: If I see you drowning after giving me a failing rate, I think I am justified if I’ll just close my eyes. [applause from the students]   Just kidding sir, your question requires prudent evaluation I guess.  I may still save you sir, as an act of mercy and not as a heroic act.  Heroic act, I suspect, suggests recognition from the person saved and recognition for the person who save.

THE FIRST CONSPIRACY: Hermeneutic Analysis

Paul Whelmer Alforque, Departamento de Filosofia, 1997, Camara de Pensador.

The Honorable Magistrates, before this dignified institution, I submit the structure of my thesis anchored on the third chapter in the book of Genesis, focused on the Fall of Man, which says:

Genesis 3

The Fall of Man

 1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’ “

 4 “You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

 6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

 8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, “Where are you?”

 10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”

 11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”

 12 The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”

 13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”
      The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

It is my stand, as could be inferred from the text, that the first great conspiracy took place in the Garden of Eden. I based this perspective on the following circumstances:

One, it is in the book of Genesis wherein Adam and Eve committed the first sin that engraved in human soul.

Two, the Garden of Eden was supposed to be a safe place designed by God for the prime pure human beings and their offsprings.

Three, the Garden of Eden is a paradise for Adam and Eve where God communicate directly to man.

Four, that God being the supreme being has absolute control over the paradise which is designed for the sinless being such as Adam and Eve.

Five, that Adam and Eve were totally innocent before they ate the fruit, having no knowledge of any foolishness nor of any sin of any kind.

Six, that the fruit of the tree of knowledge, when taken, shall give them the malice which capacitates them to discern what is right and what is wrong.

Seven, that prior to the taking of the fruit, Adam and Eve is essentially ignorant on the concept of good and evil, because their minds are supposed to be opened at the time they will be tempted to eat the fruit.

Based on these premises, Honorable Magistrates, I come to an honest yet logical perspectives, that:

One, God is not intending man to exercise their freedom because they have no freedom of choice between right and wrong considering their lack of knowledge on what is right and what is wrong. Adam and Eve were really destined to FALL because they cannot use their good judgment on the pretext of their innocence.

Two, the unfortunate fate of Adam and Eve was really God’s plan. God being the supreme being has an absolute control over the entire paradise, it is within his power to drive off and disperse the Serpent who made the temptation.

Three, with the preordained knowledge that the minds of Adam and Eve were NO MATCH to the shrewdness of the Serpent, yet God allowed the Serpent to occupy a particular place in the paradise and authorized it to communicate with Adam and Eve.

Four, by these virtue, it is my contention that the First Great Conspiracy in human history may have been taken place in the Garden of Eden; Adam and Eve being the victims of the whims and caprices of God and the Serpent, and God and the Serpent being the conspirators and partners of their game out of their own boredom.

Existentialism of Jean Paul Sartre: The Salient Features

Submitted by Paul Whelmer Alforque to the Thinkers Guild

1. Existence always precedes essence. Existence as an infinite situation [not as a precondition] prevails over the concepts of meanings.

2. Man, first has to exist and defines himself afterwards. The meaning of his existence is only a result produced by his consciousness, consciousness comes after he attained existence.

3. The search for meaning presupposed nothingness. Searching for meaning suggests that there is no meaning at all, it is only through the searching that meaning comes out – there is no innate meaning.

4. The “meaning” being a result of existence and acquired human consciousness. It is the conscious mind that has the capability to create “essence” and not the unconscious.

5. There is no human nature, man made it. There is no god, we made them in the process of our quest for essence.

6. The conscious mind is the sole manufacturer of meanings, interpretations, essence and perceptions.

7. The will to  interpret for himself is the main denominator of one’s capability to fabricate essence.

8. There is neither determinism nor destiny – man is free. Man’s freedom includes the freedom to create his destiny.

9. Man is condemned to be free. Condemned because he did not create himself; existence obtained by competition of billion sperms running towards a fertile egg. Together with his existence is his responsibility for everything he does.

10. It is in man’s existence whereby man is inventing himself.

11. EXISTENTIAL HUMANISM. There is no other universe except the human universe – the universe of human subjectivity.

12. HUMANISM in the sense that there is  no legislator but himself. 

HERMENEUTICS: The Salient Features

Formulated by Paul Whelmer Alforque

 

Definition

I defined hermeneutics as a philosophical instrument for interpretation, appreciation and evaluation of a literary intent, linguistic compositions and any written or verbal manifestations.

Applications

I maintained that there is no impediment in applying hermeneutics to both written and oral presentations. Meaning, hermeneutic analysis is not only applicable to a writing piece but also to a verbal discourse.

Interpretation – It refers to the method of understanding the contextual meaning of a written or verbal language.

Translation – It refers to the transportation of an intention from one language to another.

I.       The precedence of Interpretation over Translation.

         Error always follow from a direct translation. This means that one should first interpret before attempting to translate it. Interpretation comes before translation.

II.      The two aspects of Interpretation

          1. External Construction – Interpretation on the circumstances before and of the time of the writing.

          2. Internal Construction – Interpretation based on the letters and substance in the language of the writing.

III.    The properties of External Construction [interpretation on the outside factors]:

          1. Time and place of creation. [ex. the inquisition period, civil war, renaissance, etc]

          2. Social circumstances of the time and place of creation. [ex. views on gender, race, etc.]

          3. Participation of the creator on the events of circumstances.

          4. Mental and physical condition of the creator at the time of creation. [ex. depression, frustration, senility, insanity, etc.]

          5. Influences that affects the creator. [ex. political affiliations, religious stands, etc.]

          6. Purpose and intent of the creator.

          7. The peculiarities and level of intelligence of the creator.

For an efficient understanding of a literary piece, it is necessary to go back to the emotions, sensation of the time of the writing, social framework and other events that may have influenced the work. External construction should be made prior to or concurrent with the reading of the subject literature.

IV.    The properties of Internal Construction [interpretation based on the language used]

          1. Discernment on the kind of language used [ex. Old English, Latin, Greek, etc.]

          2. Usage of words, terms and language.

          3. Grammatical intent of the language.

          4. Equivalent meaning of a word or language in accordance with time and place.

          5. Ordinary and special interpretation of language.

          6. Etymology of a borrowed term.

          7. Substance and the logic of the language.

Internal construction is the interpretation according to the letters and linguistic usage of the subject literature. This stage does not anymore encroach other sources but the language as used in the subject literature.

V.      Three kinds of conflict:

          1. Conflict in concept

          2. Conflict in language

          3. Conflict in logic

The study of conflicts in hermeneutics is essential because it allows the scholar interpreter to examine the changes and variations of the mind of the writer/author of the subject literature. The study of conflicts may also suggest that some portions of the writing may have been made in some other time where the learnings of the writer improved, progressed or regressed. Conflicts may be caused by ignorance, negligence, or intellectual improvement.

VI.    Three branches of conflict in language

          1. Conflict per se [the same statement carries the conflict]

          2. Interior conflict [conflict with reference to the series of statements]

          3. Exterior conflict [conflict with reference to the other sources]

VII.   Two branches of conflict in logic

           1. Plain logical conflict

           2. Experimental logical conflict

VIII.  Two branches of conflict in concept

           1. Material-Conceptual conflict

           2. Rhetorical-Conceptual conflict

IX.     Basic rules and treatments of reconciliation of conflicts:

           1. Ordinary elimination of irrelevant matters

           2. Multiple comparison of conflicts for the consideration of the most pertinent matters

           3. Substitution of the nearest meaning and substance when conflict appeared to be irreconcilable

           4. Convention when substitution seems inappropriate

X.        Suggested guideline for interpretation

           1.  Ordinary usage must be interpreted ordinarily

           2. Usage is the best interpreter of language

           3. The context of the language may suggest its meaning

           4. The HERMENEUTIC OF ORIGIN may be resorted to when there is a literal or metaphorical ambiguity

           5. The HERMENEUTIC OF USAGE may only be employed when the entire literature speaks in clarity or when the literature is widely accepted.

XI. Two approaches of interpretation

           1. A Priori Interpretation – This refers to the interpretation before or during the time a literature is written.

           2. A Posteriori Interpretation – This refers to the interpretation at the time the text is read.

XII. Method of Comprehension of Written Text:

           1. Conceptual – The concept behind the term used

           2. Propositional – The meaning as to what the writer desired it to be understood

           3. Contextual – The meaning as could be gathered from its entire context.

           4. Pragmatic – The meaning as could be determined from its rational and practical sphere.