Krzysztof Bosak commented on Dr. Sopiński's article on the law. In his entry Dr. Sopiński writes about the law, whether Prosecutor Barski is simply a national prosecutor and that Increasingly, legal authorities believe that law can be bent. Krzysztof Bosak gave the entry further and added his comment to it:
Good educational entry. Unfortunately, there is frequently no 1 to educate in Poland, due to the fact that most people who support “rules of law” do not want to read and realize regulations! (Interesting paradox, isn't it?) It is dominant to think magically about the law, namely that knowing the law is impossible to grasp reason for a wise, smart adult man is only a peculiar gift, which 1 enters into being incorporated by cooptation (initiatives?) into the right part of the legal academic elite.
Good educational entry. Unfortunately, there is frequently no 1 to educate in Poland due to the fact that most people who support “rules of law” do not want to read and realize regulations! (Interesting paradox, isn't it?) Magical reasoning about the law is dominant, which means knowing the law is impossible to... https://t.co/XLzmmQEFKH
— Krzysztof Bosak (@krzysztofbosak) January 16, 2024This concept of law has nothing to do with the thought of the regulation of law and the regulation of law. Rather, it is simply a kind of intellectual sectarianism in which elected professors or judges make priests, and any citizens make believers. I am laughing at this approach, which is why I will proceed to quote laws, argue about constitutions and treaties, compose amendments to laws and show deficiency of cognition and reasoning to various wise guys, repeating the heard, and false myths about law or system.
And it will be my small brick to build authentic regulation of law in Poland, to advance the actual regulation of law, in opposition to the jurisprudence and relativism appropriate to the various progressive intellectuals and eurocrats — relativism, which I despise as a specified intellectual fraud, calculated to be people with no sense of self-esteem and to be working with texts of a more formal character, specified as law, IT code, the account of tasks in formal logic, the arrangement of equations and proof in mathematics or physics, etc.
And rejecting postmodern interpretative relativism doesn't mean I'm blind to interpretative disputes. On the contrary! But I think they have their limits. That possible interpretations of 1 regulation or strategy of regulations can be invented, counted, described and understood. That you can argue for them rationally. That they can be separated from politics — that is, distinguishing what is in law from what I think should be. That it is possible to find acceptable tolerance (in an engineering sense: tolerance=range of acceptable error) in the application of regulations. I believe that specified a reasonable approach to law, which is besides based on a belief in the ability to gain access to effective usage of a legal workshop by individual without legal education, but with general education and legal-systemic interests, is 1 of the distinctions of European culture — Latin civilization.
The magic approach to the law, based on initiation, cooptation, illumination and imitation, is not European. utilizing the language of discipline about civilizations, it is more appropriate to spiritual civilizations — those in which there is unity of theology, social-political thought and legal-moral rules resulting from it. Let us be rational and European. Let's not take what we're given the right to believe. Let's just check. In no another area is it simpler and more desirable to build a mature, unchangeable modern civic culture!
