Definition of a Person/Human Being?

[PRmerger]

What is a Person?

What is a Human Being?

What makes someone a member of society?

What makes someone a member of the human race?

---

Thoughts:
Is a Person someone who has human DNA? If so, would that make tumors “persons”?

Is a Human Being someone who can think rationally? If so, would that make newborn babies not Human Beings?

Is someone a member of society someone who is born? Isn’t that arbitrary?

 

[sugarmouse]

A person is a member of a rational species. This means that humans are persons, as are angels. Fictional creatures like Vulcans, Hobbits, would also be classed as persons. A person is a specifically a member of a rational species, not necessarily someone who’s able to exercise rationality - for example, baby hobbits, hobbits with severe learning difficulties, and comatose hobbits are nonetheless persons.

A human being is a member of the human species - anyone who is a living, distinct and whole human being (so corpses, tumours and severed limbs don’t count - they’re not living, or they’re not whole and complete, just parts of a larger creature). Being a human being is the same as being a member of the human race.

Human beings are societal creatures, since we live and work together in communities. Certainly all born humans would be classed as members of society, since from the time you’re born, you begin to interact with other people and other people interact with you. Does an unborn child “count” as a member of society? It seems to me that it’s kind of subjective and you could argue both ways - unborn children aren’t yet interacting with anyone (you can’t even see them yet), but at the same time, they’re still “in” society since their mother is part of a society, and therefore whatever she does is “interacting” with her unborn child.

My :twocents:

 

[PRmerger]

A person is a member of a rational species. This means that humans are persons, as are angels. Fictional creatures like Vulcans, Hobbits, would also be classed as persons. A person is a specifically a member of a rational species, not necessarily someone who’s able to exercise rationality - for example, baby hobbits, hobbits with severe learning difficulties, and comatose hobbits are nonetheless persons.

A human being is a member of the human species - anyone who is a living, distinct and whole human being (so corpses, tumours and severed limbs don’t count - they’re not living, or they’re not whole and complete, just parts of a larger creature). Being a human being is the same as being a member of the human race.

Human beings are societal creatures, since we live and work together in communities. Certainly all born humans would be classed as members of society, since from the time you’re born, you begin to interact with other people and other people interact with you. Does an unborn child “count” as a member of society? It seems to me that it’s kind of subjective and you could argue both ways - unborn children aren’t yet interacting with anyone (you can’t even see them yet), but at the same time, they’re still “in” society since their mother is part of a society, and therefore whatever she does is “interacting” with her unborn child.

My :twocents:

 

[GEddie]

Not sure why this was repeated.

But here’s my entry from the other thread:

1). A being whose repertoire of actions includes intellect and volitional interaction with others.

2). A biologically living being, in complete (or at least functional) embodiment, whose life originated from the human generational cycle.

3). Someone who is received into the society and has, at least up to a point, interacted acceptably with others therein. A foreign attacker is not a member of the society, but someone who has an established place within it is.

4). Same as “human being.”

ICXC NIKA

 

[atassina]

The classic definition is that given by Boethius in “De persona et duabus naturis”, c. ii: Naturæ rationalis individua substantia (an individual substance of a rational nature).

For the extrapolated explanation see:

newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm

Stay calm. Have some Italian roast with your slice of cake. Cake and coffee. Life’s simple pleasures.

 

[John_Martin]

We must, therefore, distinguish living from lifeless things, by comparing them to that by reason of which animals are said to live: and this it is in which life is manifested first and remains last.
We say then that an animal begins to live when it begins to move of itself: and as long as such movement appears in it, so long as it is considered to be alive.
When it no longer has any movement of itself, but is only moved by another power, then its life is said to fail, and the animal to be dead.
Whereby it is clear that those things are properly called living that move themselves by some kind of movement, whether it be movement properly so called, as the act of an imperfect being, i.e. of a thing in potentiality, is called movement; or movement in a more general sense, as when said of the act of a perfect thing, as understanding and feeling are called movement.
Accordingly all things are said to be alive that determine themselves to movement or operation of any kind: whereas those things that cannot by their nature do so, cannot be called living, unless by a similitude.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica - ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP_Q18_A1.html

Living being, then, is anything that moves its own being, such as through its own nourishment of its own cells, growth, physical positioning of itself, operation of its faculties or powers (such as thinking, etc.)"

Thus an acorn in the ground, pushing out its shoots for roots and stem is an oak tree, even before it breaks through its acorn shell, because it is by its own dna moving its own formation (from its potentiality to have height above ground with leaves and its own acorn production, which would finally be its perfected operation).

And conceived embryo in the womb is moving its own formation into “you” as you are today, by its own dna direction. It is moving itself to the perfection you are today. The mother’s womb is not placing all the parts of the embryo together into a more fully developed fetus until birth happens, but the uterus (the mother) is a source of nourishment and socially responsible guardian for the unborn yet fully human fetus to successfully move itself from embryo into fetus into baby ready to come away from that first protected environment of developing itself, of manifesting itself by its own self-movement. It is the fetus that is deciding how to make use of the blood supply from the mother - the blood supply is not the formation director in the fetus, but is simply food. In the embryo itself, in the DNA, and in its own movement to use the nourishment found in its environment, is self directed movement to make actual materially what is its potential.

So, the embryo is a distinct and individual living thing, developing itself into what will be its mature self of operation.

Then there is the question of whether this self-moving and self-developing living being (the embryo) is human (yet), or becomes human at some later moment. That answer, also, can be found in Aquinas, and directly by sound human reason. But I have to go to work now.

 

[Nyx]

I would say a human being is a member of our own species. Being Homo Sapiens Sapiens makes you a human being.

A person on the other hand is more of a philosophical/ psychological concept. It refers to a human being in relation with the social environment, someone who possess self-awareness , who maintains social relations, is aware of his/her social role and his rights and obligations he has in a certain social system. Not every human being is also a person- a baby or a toddler for example aren’t yet persons.

I think a member of society is someone whose existence is recognized by other members of the society, and who accepts to a certain degree the rules, laws, political system, social expectations of that particular society. Yes, in most cases you become a member of a certain society by birth, or by being received in a certain society at a certain point (immigration or being accepted by that community)

 

[Skeptic92]

What is a Person?

Following Boethius “person” can be defined as an individual substance of a rational nature. Some narrow the definition of person so that it is an individual complete substance of a rational nature. The difference between the two is only important when addressing the question as to whether the separated soul subsists as a human person or merely a human being.

What is a Human Being?

The being of humanity is defined as rational animal. This is following Aristotle whose definition held the consensus of the Catholic Theologians and Philosophers for many, many centuries.

What makes someone a member of society?

Humanity is social by virtue of being a rational animal. The virtuous life can only be fully expressed by man who lives in community with others. For an individual human person can never be properly self-sufficient and his growth in virtue will always be stunted by solitude. For in solitude we can not express the cardinal virtue, and the virtues associated the cardinal virtue, of justice. For justice concerns our actions towards each other, and a lack of growth in justice shall inhibit the growth in prudence which concerns moral action.

What makes someone a member of the human race?

By being an individual substance of the nature of a rational animal.

Thoughts:
Is a Person someone who has human DNA? If so, would that make tumors “persons”?

Whilst biologically it appears necessary that a human person possesses human DNA, it does not appear to be sufficient. For not all things which possess human DNA are substances but things which inhere within a substance and form a parthood relation with the substance. Such as your tumour example.

Is a Human Being someone who can think rationally? If so, would that make newborn babies not Human Beings?

You are confusing the possession of a power with the operation of a power. Newborns possess the power of intellection and the nature of being a rational animal, but they cannot, yet, bring this power into operation.

Is someone a member of society someone who is born? Isn’t that arbitrary?

A human person is a member of society immediately upon conception.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Posting this because it is both related to the thread and it’s a topic that comes up in these forums all the time. Just published today.

youtu.be/39EdqUbj92U

It’s a ~9.5 minute philosophy video on some aspects of personhood. Though it primarily uses AI for its thought examples.

 

[PRmerger]

Testing

 

[levinas12]

“Person” is not a “form” or “nature” - there is no form of, say, Donald Trump qua Donald Trump - but there is a “form” of Donald Trump qua human being. This is an important distinction. Some say that what makes Donald Trump qua Donald Trump is his “matter” - but “person” is deeper than matter. Donald is not just an instance - his individuality is different than the individuality of other material entities.

So “person” is not “form” and not “matter”. As such, “person” falls outside the Aristotelian categories. “Person” is a singularity, not reducible to usual metaphysical concepts. For more on this, see Robert Spaemann’s book on Persons.

 

[levinas12]

Also see Ratzinger and Sokolowski on “person” - I can give you the cites if you want them.

“Person” is the most important issue in philosophy today.

 

[GEddie]

Also see Ratzinger and Sokolowski on “person” - I can give you the cites if you want them.

“Person” is the most important issue in philosophy today.

Why is that? Because of the drive to proclaim certain wild animals persons?

 

[N0X3x]

I think that when a rational faculty is connected to a subjective experience, a person is formed.

examples:

1.a baby, and even a late term fetus with a fully developed rational faculty (babies have a rational faculty, unless I’m mistaken, but have no or little information to plug into it.) is a person.

2.a human being is not a person if it has no rational faculty, or if it had one but is now unrecoverably lost (through death or permanent vegetative states, etc.)

3.A being is not a person if it has only one or the other. For example, most if not all animals (as commonly conceived) have subjective experience but no rational faculty, while a robot (as commonly conceived) has a rational faculty but no subjective experience. However, if some mad scientist somehow managed to connect an animal’s brain to a computer with a rational faculty, the result would be a person.

1. other organisms with rational faculties, such as potential extra -terrestrials, would qualify as persons.

 

[PRmerger]

I think that when a rational faculty is connected to a subjective experience, a person is formed.

Why does this make someone a person?

And how does one determine when rational faculty exists in the organism?

 

[levinas12]

Why is that? Because of the drive to proclaim certain wild animals persons?

It’s not the wild animals … it’s just that Aristotle did not have access to the notion of “person” (in Heidegger’s sense of the “da” in “dasein”). So “person” falls outside the ancient Greek metaphysical categories.

So what’s the genealogy of “person”, the “who” as opposed to the “what”? The notion stems from Christian arguments about the Trinity. In particular, the use of “subsistent relations” to explain the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

“Subsistent” is the tricky word here. It puts “person” more on the side of the “esse” than the “essentia” - there is no essence of a person qua person, e.g., no essence of Donald Trump qua Donald Trump - that’s why proper names are not sortal.

 

[levinas12]

Why is that? Because of the drive to proclaim certain wild animals persons?

Not because of the wild animals … it’s just that Aristotle did not have access to the notion of “person” (at least in our sense of “person” today) … “person” falls outside the ancient Greek metaphysical categories.

It’s especially interesting that the philosophical notion of “person” derives from the Christian arguments about the Trinity.

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are “persons” qua “subsistent relations”.

The tricky word here is “subsistent”. What this word connotes is that “person” is closer to “esse” than to “essentia”. The three Trinitarian Persons have the same Essence but Their Persons are different. How so? They must be different ways of being God. Now the “esse” of God is simple because there is no real distinction between “esse” and “essentia” with respect to God (no composition). But somehow the Divine Esse is differentiated into three Persons.