About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 40

Sunday, October 5, 2008 - 1:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Why couldn't Rand's definition refer to a normal human being who has reached a certain level of development? One could say, for example, that man is bipedal rather than quadrupedal, a statement that would not be falsified by a person with only one leg. One could say that man has stereo-optic vision without being contradicted by someone who is blind in one eye, etc. What's wrong with placing that kind of construction on her definition?

- Bill

Post 41

Sunday, October 5, 2008 - 1:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill,

Way back in post #1 I said, "Rights arise out of the human characteristics of rationality and volition. But these characteristics are not derived on a person by person basis. The characteristics are properties of human nature and human nature is a concept that subsumes all humans, past, present and future." But it didn't seem to take.

I'm sanctioning your post - unlike many others, you understand the fallacy of pulling attributes out of an individual when they should be pulled from the concept of human nature (normal).

Post 42

Monday, October 6, 2008 - 6:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

Well,... after all it is your scenario. I felt the dialog ascribed to Dude #3 was natural flowing and sufficient enough to warrant the question.

jt

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2


User ID Password or create a free account.