Thank You, My Scholar. . I have read Rand's Intro to
Objectivist Epistemology. . intrinsic means natural in
this sense, and humans have natural rights. -- j
.

The idea of rights does not "belong" to anything in reality. Ideas are in our minds as products of conceptualization in accordance with the nature of our consciousness. The facts on which they are based are in external reality, but not the ideas or principles.

Abstract principles in terms of which we think do not exist metaphysically and do not "belong" to external reality. Advanced concepts like "rights" require long chains of abstraction incorporating combinations of previous abstractions encompassing knowledge of many different kinds of facts.

The fallacious epistemological notion of intrinsic essences existing metaphysically goes back to the time of Plato and Aristotle. For the nature of knowledge as objective, not intrinsic or subjective see Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand and his lectures from the 1970s on the history of philosophy and on Objectivism, where he explains the 'objective-intrinsic-subjective' trichotomy and its role in the history of philosophy in detail.

intrinsic is defined as "belonging to a thing by its very nature"
and that is my point -- man's nature intrinsically involves
human rights. -- j
.

Proper principles are objective, not intrinsic or subjective.

From https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

"Or to put it more philosophically as a central principle: we are given the false alternative of the "intrinsic" versus the "subjective" with no regard for what Ayn Rand identified as the "objective-subjective-instrinsic trichotomy" -- in this case pertaining to abstract principles in our conceptual means of knowing based on the facts of reality. Knowledge, including abstract principles of moral values, is a relation between both reality and consciousness, as a grasp of reality by a conceptual consciousness. It is neither "intrinsic" apart from man's means of knowledge as in the Plato-Augustine axis, nor subjective apart from the facts of reality. Ayn Rand rejected both.

"Rights, like all knowledge, must be initiated, formulated and defended by man, based on the facts of reality, i.e., man's nature and requirements to live. There is no abstract knowledge or principles inherent in reality, only the facts themselves, which we observe through our senses and employ as a perceptual base for conceptual abstractions as our form of comprehending. "

if rights are not "intrinsic to a species" then
the natural rights of humans ... are not intrinsic? -- j
.

Animals do not have rights. The concept "rights" is a moral concept pertaining to humans as conceptual beings. A right is a moral sanction of freedom of action in a social context. Rights must be objectively identified and applied in a context of choice and are based on our nature as conceptual beings who have a need for ethics to make choices in order to live. The mystic notion of "soul" is irrelevant. Rights are neither intrinsic to a species nor subjective, and are the opposite of "might makes right". All other species use their environment, including other species, in order to live in accordance with their natures. That is not a matter of "might make right" either. Morality does not apply to them, they simply act by their nature to survive.

More and more I am of the opinion that the primary distinction between man and the other animals is that man keeps trying to make a distinction between himself and the other animals.

we people seem to be kinda headstrong, even to the point
that we're gullible enough to think that buying an SUV
can affect the planet's weather. . bothers me. . but we
definitely have taken charge of the aspects of the planet
which we can "control" -- to some extent. . and there is
a definite acceleration to our influence. . the biggie
is biological, IMHO -- we could all die in a year. -- j
.

john; My dog would certainly be in agreement with yours except he owns the back of the couch where he thinks he can survey his world.

There are a lot of people, particularly in the last few decades that have concerns similar to yours about animal's rights. My personal conviction is that animals have the 'rights' derived from their identity, attributes, and existence; realizing that those animals whose genetics have been managed by man in order to be of use to man, have had their identities and attributes altered and their existence is managed by man. I don't have a problem with that.

As to rhetoric, you're right--I see little reason to partake in it. I also don't waste much effort on tact.

me, too! -- j
.

Thanks, Allan! . Jan's explanation makes it even more
intriguing to me -- the process of interbreeding will probably
make us hardier -- or, I should say, it already has. . humans
are so radically advanced, compared with the other animals,
that the contrast is amazing!!! -- j
.

Interesting question, I gave you back the point that was taken from you.

Clarke's 2001 a Space Odyssey nailed it, I think (first few chapters) for secular humanists. Man, for whatever reason, suddenly developed the ability to remember and, because of that ability, began to learn and eventually how sate his own diverse self-interests (subsistence and security). This facet of its existence, unlike animal impulses, placed Man apart from the animals and began its domination.

All that said, the essence of human beings, in my view, is far more substantial than a bag of chemicals that happened to repeatedly hit the cosmic lottery many times over many millions of years. That said, yes I believe there is a soul.

Anyone watch the Childhoods End mini-series on sy-fy channel or happen to have read the book. Good stuff. Much to think about.

first, we have a friend who likes downvoting me.

second, Thank You for the wonderful explanation!

third, the "don't have souls" premise was an attempt
to keep the interest of a larger portion of the gulch.
the real question is about rights. . what right do we have,
besides "might makes right," to exercise total dominance
over the other animals? . don't they have natural rights also? -- j
.

those natural rights strike me head-on daily, especially
when they are threatened by government. . my intrigue
is the extreme separation of humankind from the other
animals;;; we sure are different in capabilities, and
the differences result in "our" having a huge amount
of control over the other animals. . I wonder about
their rights, sometimes. . what rights do they have? -- j

p.s. you seem to have a problem understanding that
I might say something with a rhetorical bent, every
now and then. . I have a dog who owns our back deck,
for example. . just ask him, when you're out there!
.

Yes;;; you might spill some! -- j
.

What a fun thread. Why would anyone want to point it down? (I have pointed it back up, but only made it to 0.)

The answer is that 'value' does not have anything to do with comparing 'us' to 'not us'. Philosophically, one of the big changes that Ayn Rand worked in my personal life was that I could begin with a reasonable 'premise' that I was valuable to myself and that I did not need any external validation for that to be true.

Now - on to the fun stuff: The progression from 'ape-like critter' to 'our slightly dim cousins' to 'us' is a fascinating one. Many of the theories of the early 20th Century have been overturned. Chief among those theories is the image that there was a man-ape who had an ape-like body but an advanced brain. (You can still find illos of this hypothetical creature, looking like an upright chimp but gazing at the stars.)

We have discovered, however, that the body led the brain, not the other way around. That is to say, that dentition, fingers, and feet changed, showing that the hominid had started to eat more meat in his diet and was walking erect...then the brain started to grow (now that it had the additional energy source from protein). So, there was a time (~3M years ago) when hominids that looked a lot like us physically, but who had chimp-sized brains, were wandering around.

What is more, there is not ‘one’ human race. We think of ourselves as Homo sapiens, but there is genetic evidence that we interbred recently (~50K years ago) with three different sub-species. Even more interesting, about 700K years ago, we apparently interbred with some archaic hominins in Africa. So our ‘genetic tree looks a lot like a bush that has been grafted back onto itself multiple times.

There are over 500 paleoanthropological samples that show hominins in various stages of evolution into humans. (I say this to refute the ‘no intermediary forms’ BS, in case someone throws that at you at some point.) Ancestors with the genus “Homo” had physical traits that overlapped with previous genera; our cousin species overlap with modern man in every measured respect. It does not look as if there is a ‘point’ at which we ‘became human’. It seems to be a gradient, where physical and cranial morphology change in spurts (and sometimes go backwards) until we get to fairly recently...maybe as recent as 20,000 years ago.

Of course, by 20K years ago, we are dealing with tribal societies with extensive tool kits, including boats, atlatls, clothing...obviously human beings.

So, at what point in this process did we get soul? It is a lot easier if we dispense with such a need: Occam’s Razor answers that we do not have this hypothetical attribute for which there is no concrete evidence. A soul is not necessary.

Jan

Txs.

But john, that's the point; 'we' don't set ourselves apart. Our identities, attributes, and minds set us apart from other animal life. As to a chimp owning land, it's not that "we don't allow" the chimp to own land. That's not a concept that the chimp can have and the chimp doesn't have any idea of what to do with property if he had it, and he has no way to produce from the property.
These statements just emphasize that you lack a basic understanding of the natural rights of man.

Ha! Me too. I like to drink; I do not like getting drunk.

Jan

Beautiful poetic answer, Zenpharmy! Thank you for providing this.

Jan

It would appear that to answer this incredibly fundamental question, the very existence and therefore the properties of what is called a soul must be able to be identified, measured, and described. By some replicable means. Normally, in science and reason this is done by some hands-on or brains-on physical means - data produced by a potentiometer - or an equation that can be similarly and independently derived in writing.

The answer must be able to show how it is something that humans have and animals do not. Until and unless that is achieved, it can be argued that the the belief in a soul is relegated to the matter of faith. And therefore all the hope that is embodied in such faith - particularly that of life after death via eternal soul.

Heavy, heavy stuff, indeed.

or the occupy wall street folks? . there are lots of candidates! -- j
.