Learn the Law. Question the Law

In the whole process of human history, people had advanced technology and well educated ideas, but it was impossible once. From cave paintings to TVs, bows to machine guns, human beings have improved their living standards for many years. We now have all sorts of things, but people can dream a thousand years ago, but we still live in caves like people in many ways. One way is that we despise serious injustice at various levels of society.

In this subject, I will understand Newton's law and the result of harmonic oscillation. Newton's law can be divided into three types: First, Second and Third. It teaches us the behavior of real life. Therefore, harmonic oscillation can be classified into three types of pendulum oscillation, damped oscillation and mechanical oscillation. All of these vibrations are useful in our lives, especially in various kinds of dynamics. As with playing tennis in a racket, force is thought to push or pull a particular object. (See Figure 1.0) We can hit the ball at various speeds and direct it to various parts of the opponent, the court. This means that you can control the magnitude and direction of applied forces. Therefore, force is a vector like speed and acceleration.

For example, let's consider the law of law - the law of physics. Common philosophical issues concerning law are as follows. What is natural law? More specifically, is the law of nature regular or is it generalization of regularity? Or what else? Another philosophical question, how and how do we understand the laws of nature? I am interested in Kant's answer to these questions and their position in the first to third wider theoretical philosophy.

In a nutshell: Natural law theory (nature) requires both the factuality of the law and the question essential for understanding the law. As Green 2003 lists ("Legal philosophers can only be legal positivists"), these further questions ("I do not want to answer legal positivism" ) Are as follows. What are the advantages of the law? What role should laws play in judgment? What is the law we obey? What kind of laws do you have? Should we have the law? All of these problems are slightly different, but we are considering it in this entry.

However, it can be said that epistemological and metaphysical fundamentalism is common to legal positivism, natural law theory, and law interpretationism. For legal positivists, the answer to the question of what the law is and what the law means can be found in the rules (Hart 1958). Moral (Fuller 1958). Likewise, for legal interpreters, the answer to both questions lies in the legal principle. In other words, for legal interpreters, the law derives its legitimacy and authority from the principles resulting from legal practices. Although the law is inherently interpretive, according to this view, the interpretation process is based on what the law means, preferably when it is necessary for a person familiar with the relevant legal tradition to judge Stop. If you make a decision, you will get an answer. The meaning is decided