Okay I grant you that. She's splitting the word so it means a very specific thing, but what do you want to do with that? We agree on the terms now. So what are we using Ayn Rand's definition for?

If we look back on the original topic of "do rights exist if they aren't regulated" then I don't see how this does anything

I forgot what the original topic was and why I brought it up

Well the concept thing was a random thought you had about concepts only existing if you're rational. Idk what THAT had to do with rights either

Oh

Well its a line between us and animals as a man can find a cave based on percepts but to build any form of shelter he must think

To apply this concrete with this concrete which is integration

Again, that's fantastic. But we aren't discussing whether animals give each other animal rights. We're discussing highly cerebral concepts of human rights.

This also ties into the right of thought or mans ability to conceptualize

Which speech is a extension of thought

Also mans property rights come from man owning what he creates and himself which is part of rationality

Yes, rights are the extension of this thought into the material world. But there's no right to free speech if no one enforces your right to free speech. It would be an idea that you hold, not a thought that is extended into the material world. And his ownership is only recognized if he enforces his own ownership. (Or the government enforces his ownership for him)

You don't own land if you can't stop people from living and building on it.

You still own yourselves and your thoughts

Thoughts aren't inherently material

But the rights themselves are still there just force is imposed that restrict practice of these rights

They don't exist outside of conceptualization unless they are cast into the material world

The IDEA is still there

But ideas don't exist in the same way that rocks do

We need to define exist

Cause we're getting caught up on that

These are not dank memes

🕵

Will you fight? Or will you die like a dog?

😂 👌

Existence exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.

Solipsism ayy

If you define existence like that then unicorns exist. You can perceive the thought of unicorns.

That's why that definition of existence is useless. Everything under that definition of existence "exists"

Even a socialist society that doesn't lead to starvation and genocide.

It exists only in the consciousness but ignores the material things around it

Which is a contradiction

So if unicorns are a contradiction, then how do you see that definition of "existence" to be valid?

Reality is that which exists; the unreal does not exist; the unreal is merely that negation of existence which is the content of a human consciousness when it attempts to abandon reason.

@DrWittMDPhD Its a negation of existence

Okay so if unicorns don't exist because they are only a product of the mind and are not in reality, then rights don't exist unless they are enforced. If a right is ignored, it is simply an idea because it has no means to affect reality.

Yes

Okay so we agree that rights don't materially exist without enforcement, but they do conceptually exist no matter what, because everything exists conceptually

Mans nature to think brought rights which can be observed and traced back in his actions

Yes