Sense of Justice, as innocence and eternity


Our sense of justice does not depend,simply, on singularity of our speciation, it is justified by that fact: we are a mystery.
Skinner, Thrasymachus, Hobbes and others insisting on deterministic natural destiny of humans are wrong …because neither determinists nor evolutionism explains the unjustified openness of human beings to exploration of their environment (sure, we are a migratory specie, but…this does not explain everything) nor is explained the dramatic change of the same environment of which we are “starring” (we dominate the environment, we can change it, we can produce it, see the artificial reality of a metropolis, we can destroy it…see pollution and greenhouse effect). This cannot be explained by the theory and by a linear evolutionary history (and linear time) of our specie.



Chomsky and Cartesian linguistic are right when they point our that a man acts and talk as he is free, as he has a creative principle inside (res cogitans), anyhow opposed to his temporal body (res extensa).
Chomsky (on the same line of Herder, Romanticism, Humboldt, Rouseeau, etc.) made the conjecture of a generative grammar of language (implying a limited number of finite rules), capable to generate infinite linguistic acts, so helping to explain freedom, indefinite linguistic organization of human society, our resistance to injustice (due to our interior panorama of grammatical generative thoughts, which resist to constraints of external behaviour) and our exploration/domination of environment implied by creativity…but this is not enough…!

Anyway, Chomsky theory cannot explain why humans can challenge the fear of punishment (see opposition till death to dictatorial regimes a là Schmitt or see jurisprudential exceptions to Kelsen theory that law is a system of norms sustained by punishment), namely, it does not explain why humans act as they had no instincts, no external conditioning nor behaviouristic pressure from their body, from their counterparts, from their culture, …just as they had an interior (and infinite) environment, which I would simply call “memory”, a potential infinite source of memories, from which comes a indefinite number of stimulus.
So the same Chomsky linguistic generative grammar is non sufficient. To the Thesis that only humans have souls and an innate moral (generative grammatical) code, I would prefer the theory the idea that humans are creative creatures, having a (only potential) infinite memory and morality (ethics).



This romantic idea of mankind is never forgotten by real persons (notwithstanding behaviourism), and is due to a very different romantic concept of biological history of mankind, a different concept of Time: namely, different from diachronic and linear time of Darwinian evolution and from separation of eras.
Think to Goethe thesis of “Urform” of plants. Only as counter-example.
This is the counter-evolutionary idea that the specie of man would be a historical appearance (a morphological variance) of an “ahistorical” personal essence (soul) of life, a sort of ahistorical Urform of Time and of an amphioxus of Precambrian Era (541 millions of years ago), …and beyond, which (who) was open to environment.

I imagine that a romantic thinker like Goethe (owning actual knowledge of evolution) would say that, given that we are alive, so our body is self-animated (namely having a soul or “anima” will mean “to be animated”), so it is (using a modern term) “self-referential” and, according to this property (godelian, I would say), it would be incomplete, inconsistent per se and finally “open” to completeness coming from environment (inside and outside the body).
This would explain why we have a concept of eternity and of freedom: somehow, we are open to and receive stimulus from the “Urform” of a perpetual time (eternity) and a perpetual life (the urform of the first self-referential Ancestor).
Particularly, the openness of body to soul (soul in the meaning of a new type or meta-level of the body), and vice-versa, reveals that freedom is “freedom from” complete-consistent constraints (corporeal or mental).



Finally, this radical desire of eternity (which is innocence, namely complete openness or non-violence) would be what makes us “persons” capable of moral acts toward other persons (see Max Scheler thesis that persons and their conducts are ontology of ethics).

We cannot use ‘justice’ to destroy others through a legitimization of violence…