How can I tackle the topic of "what is a person" being a nihilist: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » How can I tackle the topic of "what is a person" being a nihilist » How can I tackle the topic of "what is a person" being a nihilist

How can I tackle the topic of "what is a person" being a nihilist

Page: 1 2

How can I tackle the topic of "what is a person" being a nihilist

Nihilism
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 11, 2009

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 90

Posted 09/20/09 - 06:01 AM: Subject: How can I tackle the topic of "what is a person" being a nihilist	#1
In class we have these catergories for persons "diminished person" "ex person" non person" potential person" and i think this is ridiculous you can't catergorise all these different types of persons I reject them all standing by you are always a person.
To criticize is only to establish that a concept vanishes when it is thrust into a new milieu, losing some of its components, or acquiring others that transform it. But those who criticize without creating, those who are content to defend the vanished concept without being able to give it the forces it needs to return to life, are the plague of philosophy. All those debaters and communicators are inspired by resentment. They speak only for themselves when they set empty generalizations against one another. Philosophy has a horror of discussions. It always has something else to do.

Soylent
People Eater

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 20, 2004

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 90

Posted 09/20/09 - 06:17 AM:	#2
You're probably arguing past the person proposing the position of "diminished persons" etc. because it seems that your at odds with the account of personhood they're proposing and not specifically the categories of personhood. It would be useful, in order to help you in this regard, to know exactly what account the categories of personhood is based upon. It would also be useful to know what you take a being a "person" to entail.

Nihilism
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 11, 2009

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 90

Posted 09/20/09 - 06:23 AM:	#3
Soylent wrote: You're probably arguing past the person proposing the position of "diminished persons" etc. because it seems that your at odds with the account of personhood they're proposing and not specifically the categories of personhood. It would be useful, in order to help you in this regard, to know exactly what account the categories of personhood is based upon. It would also be useful to know what you take a being a "person" to entail. Well "person" is being isolated from human and to be a person is to have qualities. So far we have said these qualities are required for personhood, and if you don't have them you are a non-person, and ex-person being somebody with dementia, potential person being foetus etc, and I don't agree with all the categories. Edited by unenlightened on 09/20/09 - 05:07 PM. Reason: Capitals, punctuation, spelling.
To criticize is only to establish that a concept vanishes when it is thrust into a new milieu, losing some of its components, or acquiring others that transform it. But those who criticize without creating, those who are content to defend the vanished concept without being able to give it the forces it needs to return to life, are the plague of philosophy. All those debaters and communicators are inspired by resentment. They speak only for themselves when they set empty generalizations against one another. Philosophy has a horror of discussions. It always has something else to do.

Hamandcheese
Ham of state

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 05, 2007
Location: Canada

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 128

Posted 09/20/09 - 06:23 AM:	#4
The only one I find odd is 'diminished person' because it suggests that you can be less of a person but still be a person, when I see personhood as an either/or. The other three make sense to me though. An ex-person is dead, a non-person is everything other than a living person, and a potential person is perhaps an embryo or fetus.
theham88@gmail.com

Soylent
People Eater

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 20, 2004

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 90

Posted 09/20/09 - 06:39 AM:	#5
If the title of personhood is based upon some criteria, take rationality for example, the categories of personhood in that account would be in proportion with the criteria. A diminished person might be someone that has a limitation on the capacity to act rationally (for lack of a better example consider someone with schizophrenia who can be rational at times but completely irrational at other times). An ex-person is someone that could once act rationally but cannot anymore (for example a comatose individual or a corpse). A non-person would describe anything that is not rational, has not been rational, or never will be rational. Finally a potential person is someone that will develop the capacity for rationality. Of course these categories are framed in the context of rationality as the criteria for personhood. A different criteria would render different results. I'm not sure what your class is discussing and what the criteria for personhood is that you are learning about.

philosophytomorrow
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2009
Location: UNT

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 75

Posted 09/20/09 - 07:38 AM:	#6
Nihilism wrote: Well "person" is being isolated from human and to be a person is to have qualities, so far we have said these qualities are required for personhood and if you don't have them you are a non person, and ex person being somebody with demensia, potential person being foetus etc and i don't agree with all the catergories What is it about the categories that you don't agree with?
"In short, a land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it." - Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise." -- Ipid.

Nihilism
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 11, 2009

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 90

Posted 09/20/09 - 08:40 AM:	#7
philosophytomorrow wrote: Nihilism wrote: Well "person" is being isolated from human and to be a person is to have qualities, so far we have said these qualities are required for personhood and if you don't have them you are a non person, and ex person being somebody with demensia, potential person being foetus etc and i don't agree with all the catergories What is it about the categories that you don't agree with? You do not call somebody a dimished person (those having lost their personhood through demnsia etc) just because they are for example in a coma, you cannot lose your personhood.
To criticize is only to establish that a concept vanishes when it is thrust into a new milieu, losing some of its components, or acquiring others that transform it. But those who criticize without creating, those who are content to defend the vanished concept without being able to give it the forces it needs to return to life, are the plague of philosophy. All those debaters and communicators are inspired by resentment. They speak only for themselves when they set empty generalizations against one another. Philosophy has a horror of discussions. It always has something else to do.

ManiacJack
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 29, 2008
Location: Statosphere, Earth

Total Topics: 78
Total Posts: 1052

Posted 09/20/09 - 09:02 AM:	#8
Just admit that you are not a person, being nihilist and all.
Space Oil Peaked. Will Smuggle Priceless Astral Goods for Ultimate Price.

Nihilism
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 11, 2009

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 90

Posted 09/20/09 - 09:19 AM:	#9
ManiacJack wrote: Just admit that you are not a person, being nihilist and all. Well that was helpful...NOT, I am a moral nihilist.
To criticize is only to establish that a concept vanishes when it is thrust into a new milieu, losing some of its components, or acquiring others that transform it. But those who criticize without creating, those who are content to defend the vanished concept without being able to give it the forces it needs to return to life, are the plague of philosophy. All those debaters and communicators are inspired by resentment. They speak only for themselves when they set empty generalizations against one another. Philosophy has a horror of discussions. It always has something else to do.

jorndoe
Investigator

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 06, 2008
Location: Canada,Denmark

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 723

Posted 09/20/09 - 11:45 AM:	#10
Nihilism (#7) wrote: You do not call somebody a dimished person (those having lost their personhood through demnsia etc) just because they are for example in a coma, you cannot lose your personhood. So what exactly constitutes "personhood" anyway? Are you of the opinion that there is some kind of persistent "self", or are we talking biometrics, or..?
People are to themselves what they think; people are to others what they do. ∞ ∑ 1/i² = π²/6 i=1

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.