How could a human individual not be a human person?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DanielJohn2300
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Not a completely dissimilar situation. I’ve heard people say of elderly and perhaps inconvenient people, things like “he’s not in there anymore.” Meaning that person is not really here, so it’s okay to kill him.

But that’s another discussion.
 
Yes, and its also another mistaken conception of “person”. For what Christian would say the immortal soul has departed? Therefore the person still resides in the permanently comatose or demented.
 
Last edited:
BlackFriar said:
Sorry, this has past its expiry date, there seem to be some basic principles of philosophy you don’t seem to get or agree with (eg inherent teleology/potentiality versus other types) and I really don’t think it useful enough to go on trying to tease that out with you.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, I’m well aware of these concepts and I’m applying them when I talk about the human genome, but I’m happy to listen to what you have to say if you’re willing to present it in a clear and thoughtful manner. Waving your hand and saying that the other person “simply doesn’t understand” isn’t very becoming of someone who claims to be a preacher and teacher. You are a teacher, if you think someone doesn’t understand then teach them.
BlackFriar said:
Please read the article I provided above. It covers all the points I have made on this thread in more detail.
Click to expand...
I’ve read the article. It is nearly 50 years old and does not address the critical questions I’ve raised. For example, the author talks about the adult human heart that still lives when removed from the body, for example, but does not address the question of what kind of soul animates this heart. If the soul of the heart is a vegetative soul, does this mean that the human to whom this heart belonged possessed both a rational and vegetative soul? If the heart possesses a new vegetative soul, from what does this vegetative soul arise? Does the vegetative soul arise from the matter of the heart, despite the fact that vegetative soul was corrupted and replaced by the rational soul? If the rational soul is displaced whenever the matter of the body is not suitable for rational operations, then does the rational soul depart when a person goes into cardiac arrest, only to return when they are revived? Does the rational soul depart when a person is asleep? Does it depart when they are in a coma? If it departs, and exists separate from the still-living body (the heart of the person in a coma still beats, the cells of the body still live), doesn’t this support the Cartesian dualism that the author is arguing against?

continued…
 
The author poses the example of the disembodied heart as a counter to the zygote, saying that the heart possesses the same genetic material as the zygote, yet is not called a human person. While it is true that the heart is not called a person and yet it lives, this fact does not support the notion that the zygote is not a human person, but rather undermines the entire philosophical foundation of delayed hominization. The heart, and all human cells removed from the body, remain alive. They are animated by some kind of soul, and if it is a vegetative or animal soul the questions I posed above must be answered. On the other hand, if they are animated by the rational soul of the person that is utilizing them then there is no difficulty at all. If the heart beats because it is the heart of Blackfriar, and Blackfriar’s soul animates it, then it remains a body part of a human person yet not a human person itself; the heart is a component of the person, just as the soul is. If the heart is transplanted into the body of another human person then it is animated by that person’s soul and becomes a component of this other person. If the heart sits in a box until it stops living, then it remains animated by the soul of the person that it came from until such time as it stops living, as it has no personal identity of its own and is identified by its relation to person.

If this seems arbitrary that is because it is. We have no way of measuring where the jurisdiction of a rational soul begins and where it ends. There is no reasonable way to identify the presence of an immaterial soul except by observing rational operations, but rational operations are not present, even potentially, in every living part of a human person, as in the case of the still-beating heart in a box or the man in a coma. All we can say is that mature, alert human beings possess rational souls, and that their body parts are alive even when they are removed or incapable of rational thought. Since the rational soul is capable of functioning with lesser animating powers, as it enacts nutritive operations even as it enacts rational functions, we have no reason to presume that the vegetative operations of a human individual are the result of a vegetative soul; it is only reasonable to conclude that the man in a coma is animated by a rational soul even if he lacks rational operations. If the man in a coma is animated by a rational soul despite the lack of rational operations, then it is only reasonable to conclude that any human individual is animated by a rational soul, and this includes the zygote. The notion that a rational soul can only animate a body capable of rational operations is demonstrably false, unless we believe that the rational soul continuously departs and then returns to the body throughout a person’s life. That theologians and philosophers of the past came to other conclusions is due to their lack of knowledge; they did not know about disembodied hearts and people that laid in comas without rational brain activity for years before waking up and living as they had before.

We know more now, and what we know does not support the classic notions of progressive animation.
 
BlackFriar said:
Please lets not treat readers as simpletons. There is a qualitative world of difference between mechanically separating cells in a 8 cell zygote (which happens naturally often enough to cause twins) and turning a skin cell into a baby. Like you forgot to mention a human ovum is also required, that’s kind of rare and hard to find blowing in the wind. And even then that simple lancet procedure you mention took around 500 fresh attempts for success in dolly the sheep.
Click to expand...
I actually did mention the ovum, though I didn’t go into great technical detail about conception and cloning. That detail is neither here nor there, however, as the point is that the human genome springs to life when in the appropriate environment.

Tell me what you think is the qualitative difference is between a human genome in an ovum, which is what a conceptus is, and a human genome in an ovum, which is what a fresh clone is. The difference is the manner in which the genome came to be in the ovum, but the function of the genome after it is present in the ovum is exactly the same.
 
Last edited:
Ghosty1981 said:
That detail is neither here nor there, however, as the point is that the human genome springs to life when in the appropriate environment.
Click to expand...
Sorry Ghosty, if you cannot see the absurdity of your position re the same inherent potentialities of a zygote versus a human skin cell then rational discussion is no longer possible with you. It seems you are just too wedded to DNA as the sole basis of inherent human personality potential to see the forest for the trees.
 
Last edited:
BlackFriar said:
Sorry Ghosty, if you cannot see the absurdity of your position re the same inherent potentialities of a zygote versus a human skin cell then rational discussion is no longer possible with you. It seems you are just too wedded to DNA as the sole basis of inherent human personality potential to see the forest for the trees.
Click to expand...
Brilliant and well reasoned rebuttal, as always.
 
I have provided my rationale based on a philosophic analysis of the different types of “potentiality”.
You clearly either disagree or do not understand what I stated so discussion cannot proceed.
God bless.
 
BlackFriar said:
You clearly either disagree or do not understand what I stated so discussion cannot proceed.
Click to expand...
I’m glad you allow that the issue may be disagreement. But if disagreement necessitated termination of discussions, CAF threads would be very short! 😂
 
If the disagreement is over a basic principle or intuition then what is the point continuing to emote and vent? Surely most of us have social lives outside of CAF for that sort of catharsis/bonding…but maybe not all 😐.
 
BlackFriar said:
I have provided my rationale based on a philosophic analysis of the different types of “potentiality”.
Click to expand...
You haven’t offered any analysis at all, and that is the propblem. When confronted you don’t support your argument, you link to outdated articles and question the intelligence and education of the ones arguing against you.

You haven’t offered a reason for your belief that “irreversible individuation” should be the point at which a rational soul is present in the zygote. You haven’t even offered an explanation of what “irreversible individuation” is in a world where bone marrow transplants and cloning are realities. You haven’t explained how the potentiality of a zygote is different from the potentiality of a newborn. You haven’t explained how the belief in a progression of souls, from more material and base to more noble, is sustainable in an era when we can keep hearts alive in a box.

You haven’t done much of anything besides wave your hand saying “the Church allows people to believe in delayed hominization,” ignoring the arguments that point out the fatal flaws in this outdated theory.

If you have a reasoned argument for delayed hominization that stands up to the facts we now know, then by all means present it. If all you can do is call people stupid when you won’t provide a reasoned response then why bother posting at all?
 
Last edited:
This is not a theological argument, it’s a common sense argument from observation.

Is a preborn a distinct being from conception? Yes it is clearly a distinct being with it’s own unique and unrepeatable dna.

Is a preborn living at all stages? Yes, it is clearly alive. It (he/she) has all the properties of “living”.

Is a preborn human? Yes, it is by definition human.

All the rest is semantic posturing and detracts from the Church’s position:
all human life is sacred, no exceptions.
 
Last edited:
On the general topic of ensoulment, I’m curious what people think of the case of “heart in a box” transplant technology. For those that don’t know, this new technology allows for warm, living hearts to be transplanted while remaining in what is essentially their still-living state. The heart continues to beat (it does this through its own vital activity, and is not “pumped”, and is hooked up to a machine with tubes that allow oxygenated blood to flow through the heart. This blood is propelled by the heart’s own inherent pumping activity, and the heart’s cells are kept alive by this same blood that it is pumping. The heart actually has to be “sedated” in order to complete the transplant because it is still functioning when the surgery is performed. Here’s a brief video about this type of transplantation:


Is this heart alive? It certainly is from a biological perspective, and it never “died”, but does it have a soul in the philosophical sense of being alive? If it is alive, what type of soul animates it? If it is a rational soul, how does the soul of the donor continue to animate the heart after it is removed and the rest of their body is “dead”. If it is a vegetative, material soul from what does this soul arise and when does this occur? Are our bodies constantly animated by multiple souls, vegetative, sensitive, and rational? Are material souls “dormant” when a body is animated by a rational soul? If we are animated only by a rational soul, does the donated heart continue to live with a new vegetative soul that takes over for the rational soul once the heart is removed from the rest of the body? When does this occur and can we know the moment of transition?

In traditional philosophy we might say, with Aquinas, that the rational soul replaces the vegetative and sensitive souls through a process of progressive ensoulment, and that in a complete human being the vegetative and sensitive functions of the body are brought about by the rational soul which itself can maintain the functions of the lower souls even though it has utterly replaced them; in the mature human being there is no longer a vegetative and sensitive soul, but just a rational soul that can perform these baser functions in addition to its immaterial, rational operations. Does this traditional approach line up with what we see in the case of the heart? The heart clearly doesn’t have rational operations, so can’t be said to be “fitting matter” for a rational soul, but its life has apparently continued uninterrupted from donor, to box, to recipient. The cells were alive and functioning as part of a rational substance, and they are alive and functioning the same way now. Has the animating principle changed, and will it change again after transplant?

I believe that these are very relevant questions, and I also believe that such new information points to the insufficiency of classical philosophical answers about the soul.
 
Last edited:
Ghosty1981 said:
You haven’t offered any analysis at all,
Click to expand...
Yes I get it you disagree with it. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t articulated.
There is nothing more to discuss then if you deny intuitive first principles.
We clearly live on different philosophic planets.
 
BlackFriar said:
Yes I get it you disagree with it. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t articulated.

There is nothing more to discuss then if you deny intuitive first principles.

We clearly live on different philosophic planets.
Click to expand...
Yes, I live on the planet that addresses known facts rather than merely parroting old ideas without holding them up to modern scrutiny. You have merely asserted traditional notions of the soul, but you haven’t addressed the apparent contradictions of such a system when faced with current evidence. When challenged you don’t subject this old system, based as it is on incomplete observations of life, to reevaluation, but rather you simply say “the Church doesn’t forbid it” and accuse others of being “out of their depth” intellectually.

If you have nothing to add to the discussion beyond assertions then don’t be surprised if people are unimpressed with your intellectual prowess and education.
 
Last edited:
I know the distinct difference in “baby potentiality” between a zygote and a skin cell.
You maybe not so much.
Good luck with that thesis.
 
Last edited:
BlackFriar said:
Yes, and its also another mistaken conception of “person”. For what Christian would say the immortal soul has departed? Therefore the person still resides in the permanently comatose or demented.
Click to expand...
The permanent loss of conscious awareness of self and self determination doesn’t remove personhood then. The zygote is self determined growth towards conscious awareness. Doesn’t that give positive evidence that a zygote is a rational being with a rational soul, therefore a person?
 
Last edited:
So “removing personhood” and “achieving personhood” are not univocal scenarios.
 
Question, thoughts, and some reflection:
  1. What body of law, does the measure, weight, and dimension judge person-hood to be true? And what measure is it to say “person-hood.”? This has to be objective, not subjective.
  2. In the arena of the Western World. I am mainly speaking with the U.S. in mind, DNA is far an advancement in mind of an individual. Identifiable marking of a unique life-form that is human. DNA applies to all living things for the most part but not all. Yet in the human sphere, the DNA of the developing human life form in utero is distinct and apart from the mother/father.
  3. The question isn’t whether the human being has retained person-hood or not, but that it has/weighs the potentiality of that person-hood exists in the embryological structure. For the DNA is human. And those are decisive ways the beings hair, eyes color, how their hands will be form (i.e. large or small etc. in life), feet, body and sex. So it is capable of person-hood. That is what the babe in the womb of a mother of capable of being. But even then, person-hood is a developmental foundation. For a person gains his or her personality as they emerge from the womb. It’s not like they had just had personality from the time of beginning. It’s intrinsically there, the human person. Because that is what the expression of that person is. Through their existence and presence which we know by as a human person; a human being.
The question is not whether it became a person or not, in utero. Or when. Rather, it is the life and dignity of the person that is capable, thus entering in the human soul. That means life (anima, animated, soul.) The state of that person, no less that who is mute, or handicap or in coma, does not dictate whether that individual human being etched with a unique code of DNA has person-hood or not. It means the potential to coming into existence and becoming real/realized from the moment of birth since Conception.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top