[eastsider]

Person, nature -- Soul, body -- See the connection?

The Aristotelian primary/secondary substance distinction was not synonymous with the Aristotelian soul/body distinction. For Aristotle, a primary substance could exist by nature, like an individual person, or it could exist by art, like a statue. And the secondary substances -- species and genus (as in man (species) is a rational animal (genus)) -- did not have bodies.

[thinktwice]

From my post 61 ...
"Truth is the product of the recognition (i.e., identification) of the facts of reality. Man identifies and integrates the facts of reality by means of concepts. He retains concepts in his mind by means of definitions. He organizes concepts into propositions -- and the truth or falsehood of his propositions rests, not only on their relation to the facts he asserts, but also on the truth or falsehood of the definitions of the concepts he uses to assert them, which rests on the truth or falsehood of his designations of essential characteristics." -- Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (1979, page 63)

From your post 164 ...
The Aristotelian primary/secondary substance distinction was not synonymous with the Aristotelian soul/body distinction. For Aristotle, a primary substance could exist by nature, like an individual person, or it could exist by art, like a statue. And the secondary substances -- species and genus (as in man (species) is a rational animal (genus)) -- did not have bodies.

Compare Rand's words to your explanation about Aristotle's primary/secondary substance distinctions, and you can see how Rand improved on Aristotle's epistemology. Rand's work reflects 2000+ additional years in knowledge and technology advances, and she presents her epistemology in a clear and concise manner.

Meanwhile, the context of your final words ... (as in man (species) is a rational animal (genus)) -- did not have bodies ... seems to contradict what you're saying.