Unicorns exist in a lesser capacity than a horse, or an enforced human right.

They only exist metaphysically, where a right is rooted in metaphysics, but extends to the real world through enforcement

Everything extends through metaphysics

Yeah which is my point

That's a lesser form of existence than something measurable in objective reality

They exist as a concept

Every idea exists metaphysically, but they exist in a lesser sense than the material

Literally nothing "doesn't exist" if you define existence to be only dependent on being an idea

That's why things existing metaphysically only shouldn't be considered to exist purely based on the idea of them being able to be thought.

True but the way they are written and talked about in mythology is based on it being material

Yes, so that's a better definition of existence.

But for a concept to exist one must be rationall

No not really. The concept of rage or lust can be felt, they don't need to be rationalized.

Those are percepts

Rage is still a concept

Define rage

Violent, uncontrollable anger.

According to google

Thats a percept id say it doesnt combine two or more concretes

It is both

Everything is a concept

I meant percept not precept sorry

Okay so it's all 3 of these

The fact that it's a feeling doesn't mean it's not a concept

My understanding of concepts is its 2 or more intigrated percepts

That's some highly specialized definition that I have never seen used

Where are you getting that?

From Ayn Rand

Okay, well if you want to adjust the definition of concept to fit in Ayn Rand's shit then go ahead. There's no reason to completely change the meaning of concept

I dont know where she derived the definitions or if she changed it

Well just compare it to the standard definition of "concept". According to the general definition, everything is a concept

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/concepts.html

Here

@DrWittMDPhD

Okay if you want to use this rando definition of concept, we can. What do you hope to achieve with this redefinition?

@DrWittMDPhD Its more broken down and fits her philosophy more and its how she broke down a man thinking and how the fundamentals

Plus its more clearly defined

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