| View Blog
|
|
|
|
Radiation poisoning is one kind of phenomenon; rights are another kind of phenomenon.
Radiation poisoning existed before modern-day radiation theory was formulated. The
harmful effects of radiation existed before knowledge of the cause of the harmful effects
was discovered/uncovered. The harmful effects of radiation contamination existed before
the existence of a postulated explanation for the harmful effects was indicated by the
scientific-physical-material-theoretical formulations conceptualized by modern physics.
Something existed. The effect existed. The effect was recognized; although the cause
was not yet cognized. The effect served to anticipate the knowledge we now possess.
The knowledge of the cause was predicted by a knowledge of the effect. The effect
existed; and, the theory of radiation was, and is, predicated by the fact of the effect, by the
existence of the effect. We can say that an explanation does not precede the existence of
an explanation.
We can say that an unknown planet exists when we see the effects of a planet's presence.
We can say that an unknown elementary particle exists, even before we actually detect the
particle's existence. Awareness of an effect antedates an awareness of the cause. When
we become aware of the cause of an effect, then is when we can say that the cause exists,
because the cause "stands out" to our observation, our experience, our examination. What
exists is what we notice. If we can study it, if we can view it, if we can perceive it, then it exists.
Nothing exists if we do not discern it, if we do not know it.
Can a right that is not recognized, or that is not cognized, be said to exist? Rights are a
creation of the human intellect, rights are a construct of the human mind. Rights are
invented; rights are not discovered. The rights we recognize were invented, not discovered.
A right that has been conceived, constituted, evolved, and recognized can be said to
exist. And, a right that exists can be denied by any who dispute or refute it, A right that
is claimed exists as a claimed right, even if some disclaim that right. An affirmed right
can be disaffirmed, but an affirmed right exists as an idea that is affirmed by some.
"Every man is valued in this world as he shows by his conduct he wishes to be valued."
-- Jean de la Bruyère
|
|
Posted by rallen2 on 2008-03-21 20:07:16 | Rating: | Views: 72
|
|
| |
|
|
| Blog Comments
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps one could say that, in the past, before certain rights were recognized their effects could still be detected. Where a society allowed freedom of action to its members then, for the sake of argument, let us say that the effect was that its members were happier, more productive, etc. The freedom of action was not recognized as a right at first but its effect, happiness and productivity, was noted and, working backwards, people concluded it was due to liberty and, over time, they decided that this was a right.
|
|
Posted by hairytoad2005
on 2008-03-22 05:13:10
|
|
|
|
Hello hairytoad2005:
What you seem to be saying is that
there can be liberty without rights,
that there can be simple, informal
freedom without formal, constitutional
rights. I agree. I believe that the
language and rhetoric of rights exists
because of the specific reality of a
social framework called capitalism,
with its competitive economy and its
adversarial politics. Without a
competitive economy and an adversarial
politcs, there would be elementary
liberty, natural freedom, but there
would be no institutional rights.
Thank you for your comment.
Sincerely,
Ron Allen
Atlanta, Georgia
|
|
Posted by rallen2
on 2008-03-22 20:18:50
|
|
|
|
|
|
Email This to a Friend 
