franco
@francos.eth
I agree with @typeof.eth both in the general point and the logical soundness of it. Correct me if im misunderstanding any side. The way I see this discussion unfolding: @ryanfmason argues: - The U.S. founders invented the idea of universal human rights (or something like it). - When countered that they got it from Locke, he replies: even if they were influenced by Locke, they still invented something new. - He uses the idea that “influence doesn’t cancel invention” to defend calling the U.S. the “inventor” of universal rights. @typeof.eth replies: - exactly—you’re demonstrating that no one “invented” universal human rights out of thin air. It was a cumulative intellectual evolution, not an American invention. - “You’re making my point for me” implies: the existence of influence undermines the notion of a single, original inventor—especially when the influence goes all the way back to antiquity and through multiple thinkers.
4 replies
0 recast
9 reactions
franco
@francos.eth
@typeof.eth logic is sound: Ryan says: “Just because the Founders were influenced doesn’t mean they didn’t invent something new.” But typeof.eth is saying: “If everyone borrows from everyone else, claiming the U.S. ‘invented’ universal human rights becomes arbitrary and ahistorical. That logic could make any moment or thinker the ‘true’ inventor.” The underlying truth: human rights are not a discrete invention, like a lightbulb or iPhone. They’re more like a river fed by many tributaries—Greek philosophy, Roman law, Jewish and Christian theology, Enlightenment thought, English common law, and so on. (Btw Dominion by Tom Holland is a great read on exactly this).
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction