Philosophy – “The Danger of Interpreting Justice” – 4/22/2021

“We interpret what we mean to divide, in the departure of its original meaning. Where meaning has its place, is in origin. Origin is the finding of what means itself, even currently. To interpret it, means to spark continual change in the current time, so that it is the meaning that is randomized in how it is altered.”

– Modern Romanticism

Change is a course of division. Repetition, by way of this word, known as change, is a separation from origin. Justice is a word to reference itself upon the term “order”. To the comprehension of order is not to interpret what has been judged. One accepts. One deals with consequence.

Though, even by way of the accuser, their interpretation of what it means to bring about Justice, can be divided from origin. Despite them wanting to breed consequence atop the accused’s shoulders, their reference to order might be interpreted enough, by the prosecutor, to make it personal. Neutrality is the governing aspect of Justice. Its dealings should involve not the opinion of outside displays of wrath. Justice is blind to the sins of the public, ever only comprehensive of what occurs in the specific, unfolding space.

To free the objective understanding of a word, such as Justice, is not so much different from freeing the sentenced convict. It is to make manifold occasions of the crime to the perpetrator, when it is understood of the criminal that their eyes are always open. Escapism is the way for crime. Their many more occasions will be dealt, by the continual interpretations of Justice, when life opens its doors for the crime-doer. As life is the place of competition, interpretation is the same with its battle and debate.

Justice is blind, and not emotional. A debate is emotional, and much too personal. Interpretation is a deathly strain for Justice, in how to make such personal, is to breed its opposite form. Vengeance.

Vengeance is the place of the personal. If Justice is blind, then it is loving. If its opposite form is not so much, then we were ignorant. Ignorance is not a blindness, whereas it is more-so a simple absence of what is, from awareness. Love has no quarrel with absence, pertaining to ignorance, though will in fact fill the void with itself, that presence will be in its stead.

Do we interpret what should not separate itself, referencing order, as Justice? If to interpret means to separate of different opinions to the subject, as Justice holds its definition upon order and togetherness, then is to divide such viewpoints at all a necessity? And, if Justice is by way of responsibility unto the dealer of crime upon the innocent, then is to interpret such a term the error that breeds more criminals?