For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
well...okay
roydop wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 5:59 pm Personhood is the convoluted collection of thoughts that project the illusion of a separately existing object.
The "particular & peculiar sumthin' present in, and inseparable from, certain kinds of living things (like man) that sets these living things apart from all the other living things" is Self-Awareness. This is the realization/experience that Self is not the body/mind complex. For almost all humans this awareness is buried deep under the distraction of thoughts and sensations.
There aren't individual souls popping in and out of existence. There is a singular consciousness/Awareness and worlds arise and pass within that Singularity. It's like a bunch of audience members watching a single movie on a screen, except in converse: There is a single consciousness watching many movies. Each first person perspective is itself a distinct world. So when Enlightenment/liberation is realized, that world line can end without the others being much affected.
Personhood is likely going to prove impossible to accurately define. The only single criteria that counts seems to be acceptance by other persons as one-of-us in some sense, but that's on a sliding and alterable scale. Think of it like a checklist with 100 boxes for stuff indicative of internal mental activities and external behavioural ones and all that boring crap. Maybe some people get 100 ticks in those boxes, but any 70 ticks is an arbitrary but sufficent quantity.
Personhood is likely going to prove impossible to accurately define.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 6:54 pmPersonhood is likely going to prove impossible to accurately define. The only single criteria that counts seems to be acceptance by other persons as one-of-us in some sense, but that's on a sliding and alterable scale. Think of it like a checklist with 100 boxes for stuff indicative of internal mental activities and external behavioural ones and all that boring crap. Maybe some people get 100 ticks in those boxes, but any 70 ticks is an arbitrary but sufficent quantity.
If you beleive in incoporeal souls then your personal choice of checklist really only needs one box to tick. That's convenient if you want to include coma patients with neither mental activity nor much by way of external behaviour, and 12 week zygotes, all while excluding 'non-human persons'.
But personhood is still a self elected category, created by persons to describe themselves as a group containing individuals, and the criteria are always at risk of alteration.
I gave you my definition along with an explanation of why it isn't more concrete. A person is that which existing persons choose to recognise as similar themselves in some respect of personhood. The persons who get to do the recognising of said personhood are a self elected set of existing persons, and the criteria for recognition are are whatever they choose at the time.henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 8:47 pmPersonhood is likely going to prove impossible to accurately define.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 6:54 pmPersonhood is likely going to prove impossible to accurately define. The only single criteria that counts seems to be acceptance by other persons as one-of-us in some sense, but that's on a sliding and alterable scale. Think of it like a checklist with 100 boxes for stuff indicative of internal mental activities and external behavioural ones and all that boring crap. Maybe some people get 100 ticks in those boxes, but any 70 ticks is an arbitrary but sufficent quantity.
If you beleive in incoporeal souls then your personal choice of checklist really only needs one box to tick. That's convenient if you want to include coma patients with neither mental activity nor much by way of external behaviour, and 12 week zygotes, all while excluding 'non-human persons'.
But personhood is still a self elected category, created by persons to describe themselves as a group containing individuals, and the criteria are always at risk of alteration.
so what?
it's the journey, not the destination
I know.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 9:28 pmI gave you my definition along with an explanation of why it isn't more concrete. A person is that which existing persons choose to recognise as similar themselves in some respect of personhood. The persons who get to do the recognising of said personhood are a self elected set of existing persons, and the criteria for recognition are are whatever they choose at the time.henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 8:47 pmPersonhood is likely going to prove impossible to accurately define.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 6:54 pm
Personhood is likely going to prove impossible to accurately define. The only single criteria that counts seems to be acceptance by other persons as one-of-us in some sense, but that's on a sliding and alterable scale. Think of it like a checklist with 100 boxes for stuff indicative of internal mental activities and external behavioural ones and all that boring crap. Maybe some people get 100 ticks in those boxes, but any 70 ticks is an arbitrary but sufficent quantity.
If you beleive in incoporeal souls then your personal choice of checklist really only needs one box to tick. That's convenient if you want to include coma patients with neither mental activity nor much by way of external behaviour, and 12 week zygotes, all while excluding 'non-human persons'.
But personhood is still a self elected category, created by persons to describe themselves as a group containing individuals, and the criteria are always at risk of alteration.
so what?
it's the journey, not the destination
Well said. The concept of personhood may have begun elsewhere, but it has become a legal matter, a question of rights and entitlements.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 9:28 pmI gave you my definition along with an explanation of why it isn't more concrete. A person is that which existing persons choose to recognise as similar themselves in some respect of personhood. The persons who get to do the recognising of said personhood are a self elected set of existing persons, and the criteria for recognition are are whatever they choose at the time.henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 8:47 pmPersonhood is likely going to prove impossible to accurately define.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 6:54 pm
Personhood is likely going to prove impossible to accurately define. The only single criteria that counts seems to be acceptance by other persons as one-of-us in some sense, but that's on a sliding and alterable scale. Think of it like a checklist with 100 boxes for stuff indicative of internal mental activities and external behavioural ones and all that boring crap. Maybe some people get 100 ticks in those boxes, but any 70 ticks is an arbitrary but sufficent quantity.
If you beleive in incoporeal souls then your personal choice of checklist really only needs one box to tick. That's convenient if you want to include coma patients with neither mental activity nor much by way of external behaviour, and 12 week zygotes, all while excluding 'non-human persons'.
But personhood is still a self elected category, created by persons to describe themselves as a group containing individuals, and the criteria are always at risk of alteration.
so what?
it's the journey, not the destination
but is that all it is? is a legal definition the sum of personhood or does it go deeper?commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 10:57 pmWell said. The concept of personhood may have begun elsewhere, but it has become a legal matter, a question of rights and entitlements.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 9:28 pmI gave you my definition along with an explanation of why it isn't more concrete. A person is that which existing persons choose to recognise as similar themselves in some respect of personhood. The persons who get to do the recognising of said personhood are a self elected set of existing persons, and the criteria for recognition are are whatever they choose at the time.henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 8:47 pm
Personhood is likely going to prove impossible to accurately define.
so what?
it's the journey, not the destination
I see what you’re saying. I just think that persons who have already established their personhood must decide who else is a person, and this consensus is in effect a de facto law and therefore pretty much legal.henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 11:43 pmbut is that all it is? is a legal definition the sum of personhood or does it go deeper?commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 10:57 pmWell said. The concept of personhood may have begun elsewhere, but it has become a legal matter, a question of rights and entitlements.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 9:28 pm
I gave you my definition along with an explanation of why it isn't more concrete. A person is that which existing persons choose to recognise as similar themselves in some respect of personhood. The persons who get to do the recognising of said personhood are a self elected set of existing persons, and the criteria for recognition are are whatever they choose at the time.
that's what I wanna get into some back & forth about...once more folks come to supper
again: is this legalistic, bestowed, personhood the sum of it?commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:28 amI see what you’re saying. I just think that persons who have already established their personhood must decide who else is a person, and this consensus is in effect a de facto law and therefore pretty much legal.henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 11:43 pmbut is that all it is? is a legal definition the sum of personhood or does it go deeper?commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 10:57 pm
Well said. The concept of personhood may have begun elsewhere, but it has become a legal matter, a question of rights and entitlements.
that's what I wanna get into some back & forth about...once more folks come to supper