Telos

[Fixed Cross]

The founding fathers pulled a trick. They made certain rights implicit in other rights, rights granted in the ground-law, and then went on about disregarding many of these rights, or at least, not encouraging people to stand up for their particular rights. Such as the right of a black man to possess his own destiny. Or the right of a woman to do the same. 
They - trolled them. They made sure that, in a century or two, people of ordinary class would wake up to their rights, and fight for them. The underlying philosophy of this, perhaps cynical, approach is: nature. Power cant be given, it must be taken. The philosopher-warlords only made sure that once an American fought well for his rights, these rights would grant him his destiny.

It is philosophy of war. It made war against an empire and won, and made war on the world and won, and in the present age it wages its greatest battle so far.

[phoneutria]

Except for those to whom it granted all rights from the get-go.

[Fixed Cross]

They waged war for it.

[phoneutria]

Fair enough.

[phoneutria]

It seems you are proposing that by disregarding the rights of those not equal to them, they were indirectly inciting them to go and claim them, when it seems to me that the idea of granting these rights to those humans unequal to them was so preposterous that it required no specificity.

This seems implied in the definition of 'men'.

[Fixed Cross]

No listen, its simply a matter of economy, of being only human.
People seem to not realize this much about the founding fathers. They were, for their supreme and unparalleled loftiness, only humans.

What they did was, take all the wealth they had and spend it on setting humanity free.
But they could only plant the seed of that liberty. They didn't have the power or even the will to immediately effect complete liberty for every being on the planet.

The did possibly the most lofty thing any human has ever done. But they weren't gods.

Im not proposing what you say I am proposing at all.
Im just stating that they brought into being the notion of liberty as a god/nature given right.
And then they had to pass the torch.

It went relatively well until quite recently, when Maoistic, anti-logical virtue-signalling culture took control of the western hive-mind and somehow conjured an extreme disdain for the notion of rights and liberty here out west, and frankly, as Ive been stressing, for the phenomenon of literacy.

Virtue-Signalling culture is liberty's greatest enemy so far.
And that includes passing around the unquestioned assumption that it is virtuous to be a woman. Its not. Women, too, have to actually do something to be regarded virtuous in my book.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Lol

[Pedro I Rengel]

It is the everlasting delusion of men... that women answer to them.

This is the big joke, the thing behind women' smiles.

Except of course we figured out long ago that if we beat the shit out of them, that carries over for the short term.

And then modernity. CONSEQUENCES.

Now, they would have me believe that a woman is

a) my boss
b) a thing
c) a brother

[Fixed Cross]

Uhhh okay I had to bore myself to death writing this out.
Okay here goes. How the rights are geometrically derived from the right of the person to exist. (on ...lets say, terms true to the fact of his existence)

***

An Euclidean right is derived from the single point. The.. Hyman.

One is the right to exist of he who exists. The axiom,

From this right, many rights are derived by noticing that there’s not one but many points, all of whom the axiom gives their rights.

Rights are derived by confronting the one with another one, and then two, and so on. Different rules come to the game, laws.

Lets see what happens. When we juxtapose one point with another point, we get a straight line.
This line, for whatever else it may mean, represents distance.

Therefore the right derived is, the right of every one who exists to have his distance from another person.

When a third point is inserted, we get a plane. There are two others to each one, and with each of these others, the one has a connection.
The right we can claim here is the right to connection

With four points, Euclidean geometry brings the three dimensional object. Matter;
to possess, oneself first of all. This is the fourth right.

Five gives the golden incision, which represents the mean universal measure of solid growth, the ration whereby things can grow in three dimensions while remaining stable in all directions.
One has the right to time, and development.

Six gives many things at once. It is the most stable cosmic form, carbon, the diamond, and living matter. The rights derived here have to do with society. Human organization comes into play here. Equilibrium; protection from having ones rights violated.

Seven gives ones own indefinable character inside of this society, the number seven can not be geometrically derived. Perhaps then, the Euclidean Rights end here.

So as we can see it all gets deeply complex with the sixth right. But, it does seem like there should be a method of thinking this out, which would mean to arrive at a meaningful justice system.

***

The mean of the law here is compromise, and absolute compromise. Beyond this compromise there is nothing except the law of one. What is birthed from absolute, equal compromise is a tapestry, a mandala. Depending on the time, state of technology, place of the nation in the world, number of citizen, conditions of the ground and atmosphere, etc, this mandala of life will appear differently and less or more exact. But it will not be disgusting, like what we have now.

All in all the right here defined is: the right to a self.
And this means, as they so keenly summarized; the right to the pursuit of happiness.
Not to happiness, not to satisfaction, but to a proper existence in time-space.

In no way was this expected to explain Parodites. I am sure he would frown heavily on such a literal take on his Euclidean reference. And Im not sure this is what anyone meant. But... hell.

[Fixed Cross]

It is the everlasting delusion of men... that women answer to them.

Well I have some standards and I would think pretty high ones. I do have some expectations of a fellow human if I am to associate with them, and this goes no less for women than for men.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Phaer enough.

[phoneutria]

Im not proposing what you say I am proposing at all.
Im just stating that they brought into being the notion of liberty as a god/nature given right.

A democratic republic which grants rights and representation at birth to male citizens was a novel idea in 500 B.C.

Women, too, have to actually do something to be regarded virtuous in my book.

I find that the highest call to virtue for a woman is to raise virtuous men and women into adulthood, upon which depends the perpetuation and expansion of culture and knowledge.
But you know, I am old fashioned.

[Pedro I Rengel]

I think they forgot what it means for death to be an ever-present companion of man.

[Fixed Cross]

Yes, I might disagree with Parodites about the US being the first nation erected on the principles of logic.
But it is the first to have a Constitution which explicitly claims to derive individual human rights from nature, and it achieved by far the most expansive materialization of such rights.
Abolition of slavery was performed by a stark believer in the logics of the Constitution (cynics are dogs), and in this the US went farther than Athens ever went.

I don't really understand how a rejection of the value of what these men designed will help any kind of thinking achieve any merit or dignity. I know it is a trillion times easier to spit on human achievement than to advance it, but must things always be the easy way? Are the intellectually comatose so very appealing that we must do all to impress them by attempts at imitation? Or could philosophy be warlike, and accomplish the perfection of human liberty...

[Fixed Cross]

I think they forgot what it means for death to be an ever-present companion of man.

You cant amend nature dude.

[phoneutria]

Yes, I might disagree with Parodites about the US being the first nation erected on the principles of logic.
But it is the first to have a Constitution which explicitly claims to derive individual human rights from nature, and it achieved by far the most expansive materialization of such rights.
Abolition of slavery was performed by a stark believer in the logics of the Constitution (cynics are dogs), and in this the US went farther than Athens ever went.

I don't really understand how a rejection of the value of what these men designed will help any kind of thinking achieve any merit or dignity. I know it is a trillion times easier to spit on human achievement than to advance it, but must things always be the easy way? Are the intellectually comatose so very appealing that we must do all to impress them by attempts at imitation? Or could philosophy be warlike, and accomplish the perfection of human liberty...

I don't think that anyone in their right mind would reject the value of what these men have designed. I'm addressing the subject of you OP, directly.

When did holding a system to logic become equivalent with spitting at it?

It is a contradiction for rights to be at the same time god-given|natural, and arbitrary.

Abolition of slavery was performed by a stark believer in the logics of the Constitution (cynics are dogs), and in this the US went farther than Athens ever went.

Can power be given, then? That is very gracious of him.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Well see, that's the problem.

Many of us used to think that. But a dispasaionate view of the situation would revela that, if that is the case, a considerable amount of people, very many of them in positions of power and influence, are not in their right minds.

That is what MAGA is about. That is ALL it is about.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Following up on that, because it is todays chosen flag for all enemies of American (the continent) liberty:

Do you see any space, in any realistic or pulled by the hairs way, space for liberrt in communism, or any of its synonims?

[iambiguous]

That is what MAGA is about. That is ALL it is about.

On the contrary, others presume it revolves around the assumption that what makes America great is whatever the Trumpsters say that this is. You either embrace their own judgments in regard to race, sexual preference, gender, the role of government, value voter issues etc., or you are "one of them". The accursed liberals.

And of course the liberals have their own rendition of this in turn in regard to Trumpworld.

And, as the OP seems to suggest, the "telos" here revolves as much around political prejudicies as it does so-called natural rights. Only these political prejudices are then said to be a reflection of nature itself.

Satyr's "thing" too, isn't it?

It all comes back to genes trumping [no pun intended] memes. But, most importantly of all, for the objectivists here among us, it comes down to understanding this historical and culture and experiential relationship only as they do.

Then [in their heads] around and around they go:

1] I am rational
2] I am rational because I have access to the objective truth
3] I have access to the objective truth because I grasp the one true nature of the objective world
4] I grasp the one true nature of the objective world because I am rational

Just ask them.

For example, up in the clouds of intellectual contraptions.

[phoneutria]

Following up on that, because it is todays chosen flag for all enemies of American (the continent) liberty:

Do you see any space, in any realistic or pulled by the hairs way, space for liberrt in communism, or any of its synonims?

In communism? LOL

[phoneutria]

MAGA is nothing but nostalgia.
Rekindling the glory of the 50s.
Thing is, things change.

[Fixed Cross]

Yes, I might disagree with Parodites about the US being the first nation erected on the principles of logic.
But it is the first to have a Constitution which explicitly claims to derive individual human rights from nature, and it achieved by far the most expansive materialization of such rights.
Abolition of slavery was performed by a stark believer in the logics of the Constitution (cynics are dogs), and in this the US went farther than Athens ever went.

I don't really understand how a rejection of the value of what these men designed will help any kind of thinking achieve any merit or dignity. I know it is a trillion times easier to spit on human achievement than to advance it, but must things always be the easy way? Are the intellectually comatose so very appealing that we must do all to impress them by attempts at imitation? Or could philosophy be warlike, and accomplish the perfection of human liberty...

I don't think that anyone in their right mind would reject the value of what these men have designed. I'm addressing the subject of you OP, directly.

When did holding a system to logic become equivalent with spitting at it?

Oh thats what you were doing?
The "lady" who uses filthy ad homs about someones family to protect herself from having to read, much less think, she is "holding a system up to logic"...

Thats beautiful Phoneutria. Just grand.

[phoneutria]

You're going to leave it at that?

It is a contradiction for rights to be at the same time god-given|natural, and arbitrary.

[Fixed Cross]

Oh no, you can blurt random quasi-statements all you like. And Ill keep very busy ignoring them.

[iambiguous]

MAGA is nothing but nostalgia.
Rekindling the glory of the 50s.
Thing is, things change.

Here I am in complete agreement.

But, for the moral and political objectivists among us, what doesn't change is their commitment to their own assumptions about what does make America great. It's always their own "telos" that, uh, trumps all the others.

Things change, sure, but they're on top of that. It's only a matter of what teleological font they prefer to back their own rendition of "greatness" up: God or No God.

If No God, then deontology, political ideology or nature.

Either way in regard to any particular instance of conflicting value judgements, heads they win, tails you lose.

You being, among other things, those fucking liberals!!

Right?