Is the essence of a person the sum total of his atoms?

[Frankenfurter]

If a gentleman said that Christians only believe in letters, because after all scripture is written in words and words are made of letters, then you might think fine, but I’d call that creating a strawman.

I get that. But this again is an example of how the abstract thing is where the essence actually is. In your example, the letters are like atoms. But it seems absurd to describe essence of of the story of Christianity as being made up of letters, and that all of the story of Christianity supervenes on the letters? It is the abstraction from these letters where the meaning is contained. In fact, the letters are not needed at all. We could write up Christianity in other languages, some of which don’t even use letters at all, but could contain the same essence of the story.

So I could ask you, is the essence of a story the sum total of the letters? You would say no. Me too.

Can we agree then?

 

[Bradski]

Then we cannot be responsible for what we did 20 years ago?

Good question, Tony.

If someone is jailed for a significant time (let’s say 20 years), then there seems to be general consensus that quite often, the person being released is not the person who committed the crime. That society is safe in having that person released back into the community.

We’ve done Star Trek, so let’s continue with popular fiction and mention Red in the Shawshank Redemption. He admitted that he had done wrong but felt that the boy that he once was, the boy who was able to commit the crime, was not the same person as he was when he was paroled.

The question is, what if you are not caught for 20 years. Do you punish the man for the crimes of the boy? If you are seeking retribution, then yes. If you are seeking to deter others, then probably yes. But if you are seeking to protect society, then it would seem to serve no purpose.

Wouldn’t this be applicable to Catholicism? If you sin, but then later genuinely repent, you are forgiven.

 

[tonyrey]

Then we cannot be responsible for what we did 20 years ago?

Thanks, Brad.

If someone is jailed for a significant time (let’s say 20 years), then there seems to be general consensus that quite often, the person being released is not the person who committed the crime. That society is safe in having that person released back into the community.

We’ve done Star Trek, so let’s continue with popular fiction and mention Red in the Shawshank Redemption. He admitted that he had done wrong but felt that the boy that he once was, the boy who was able to commit the crime, was not the same person as he was when he was paroled.

“quite often” gives the game away.

The question is, what if you are not caught for 20 years. Do you punish the man for the crimes of the boy? If you are seeking retribution, then yes. If you are seeking to deter others, then probably yes. But if you are seeking to protect society, then it would seem to serve no purpose.

We are justified in being merciful but not in ignoring the harm that has been done.

Wouldn’t this be applicable to Catholicism? If you sin, but then later genuinely repent, you are forgiven.

the fact that you repent implies that you know you were responsible. (“you” doesn’t refer to you in particular, of course, but it may well apply to me!)

 

[Bradski]

?..the fact that you repent implies that you know you were responsible. (“you” doesn’t refer to you in particular, of course, but it may well apply to me!)

Well, yes. I’d agree. If I killed someone twenty years ago then the guy that did the deed would still be Bradski. But that Bradski might be a totally different person to the one that exists today. I may have been a drug taking alcoholic atheist (don’t take this too literally) and am now a sober pillar of Christian society.

Personally, my sense of justice would say that Braski Mark II needs to do the time, whatever his position in society is today. But my sense of justice is retributive.

But what would happen if I repented twenty years later? Divine punishment seems to be all or nothing.

 

[Frankenfurter]

We have to deal with the effects of a crime or sin. If you burn down the town’s gymnasium where all the kids play after school, you might go to jail for a while, and repent and find Jesus while you are in jail. You may leave a changed, more mature man - a different man for sure. Your essence has changed. In fact your essence may be a process to begin with so change is part of it.

We still might make you work on rebuilding the new gym as a community service to repair the effects of your crime. Even if God and the rest of society forgives the new you,there still is the matter of repairing the effects of your crime. The vacant lot is still there after you get out of jail. IT has not changed, and must be remedied. The new you is still responsible for helping in it that effort. This is also a Catholic notion.

 

[fisherman_carl]

The op’s question seems almost offensive or possibly nieve. (No offense to the op himself. I am thinking the op himself has enough sense to recognize that it would be foolish to believe a person is just the sum of his atoms.) What exactly is the sum total of a person’s atoms? Is it the same numbers of atoms in a small evergreen tree? Are atoms what is really important? Of course not. The question is nonsensical.

Even if all we were composed of was atoms. Its not just having atoms that matters, but also how they are arranged, and ultimately into their form of a human being. This gets us back to Aristotle’s form and matter.

The material that a car is made out of is not the most important thing. A car in order to be a car has to function as a car. Otherwise it is not fulfilling its purpose. Things like what material it may be composed of fulfill a higher order purpose, like transportation. The material is only as important as it serves this higher purpose.

The material that humans are composed of also serve a higher purpose. Which is ultimately to know and love God and our neighbor.

 

[Frankenfurter]

I am not referring to the NUMBER of atoms in a person. Hah, that would be a silly one!

The spirit of my question has evolved and been refined with help of the folks here to asking:

Is the essence of a person physical, and nothing more?

We see that by their own definition, the physicalist says yes. But we have most others in agreement that the answer is no.

I am indeed looking for an answer. That is why I posted the question.

It seems that the physicalist point of view is the default philosophy of modern people too. This explains why certain concepts in Catholic understanding seem antiquated and wrong.

Christianity was born being immersed in Aritsotle and Plato, so the notion of forms being the real essence of Christ, of people, of things was part of the essence of Christianity. Replace Plato’s forms with the notion of physicalism, and Christianity becomes hard to comprehend by many people, much less believe it to be true.

How can Jesus be alive in heaven?

How can the essence of Jesus exist in the Eucharist?

How can a person have an eternal soul?

etc.

 

[Solmyr]

Is the essence of a person physical, and nothing more?

I really would like to see a proper, working and usable definition of “essence”. Of course I am familiar with the definition: “the essence is what makes something what it is”. Or using a bit more wordy one: “a property or group of properties of something without which it would not exist or be what it is”. But this definition is so vague that it is totally unusable. Can you (or anyone else) present a list of properties which make a “chair” what it is? Or a list of properties which make a “cow” what it is?

We see that by their own definition, the physicalist says yes.

I don’t say this. My answer is “Huh? What the heck are you talking about? Present a list of properties, which make a person what it is.” Without such a list there is nothing to talk about.

Christianity was born being immersed in Aritsotle and Plato, so the notion of forms being the real essence of Christ, of people, of things was part of the essence of Christianity. Replace Plato’s forms with the notion of physicalism, and Christianity becomes hard to comprehend by many people, much less believe it to be true.

Aristotle’s and Plato’s baseless navel-gazing which tries to masquerade as “metaphysics” has been thrown out into the heap of other useless concepts. Metaphysics is supposed to deal with existence. Without an accompanying epistemology it is a meaningless and fruitless endeavor.

And that is where the proverbial substance hits the fan. No epistemology is offered, where anyone (skeptic or believer) can verify the claims of Christianity. It is all: “God / Jesus / the church said it, we believe it, that’s the end of it”. It is all a reference to some authority. Of course a reference to authority is not bad in and of itself. The problem occurs when the authority is unable to present an argument, except referring to another “authority”. There must be someone, who says: “the buck stops here”, and gives an actual explanation.

 

[tonyrey]

Well, yes. I’d agree. If I killed someone twenty years ago then the guy that did the deed would still be Bradski. But that Bradski might be a totally different person to the one that exists today. I may have been a drug taking alcoholic atheist (don’t take this too literally) and am now a sober pillar of Christian society.

Personally, my sense of justice would say that Braski Mark II needs to do the time, whatever his position in society is today. But my sense of justice is retributive.

But what would happen if I repented twenty years later? Divine punishment seems to be all or nothing.

On the contrary. If you repent you make amends and are accepted as you should be. Retribution is not a primitive notion but the logical outcome of our choices. If we choose to be corrupt we lose our integrity and suffer accordingly. A criminal mentality is not a recipe for peace of mind, happiness, self-respect and the respect of others.

 

[Solmyr]

On the contrary. If you repent you make amends and are accepted as you should be.

It is impossible to make amends for a rape or a murder, or any other irreversible actions.

 

[tonyrey]

The op’s question seems almost offensive or possibly nieve. (No offense to the op himself. I am thinking the op himself has enough sense to recognize that it would be foolish to believe a person is just the sum of his atoms.) What exactly is the sum total of a person’s atoms? Is it the same numbers of atoms in a small evergreen tree? Are atoms what is really important? Of course not. The question is nonsensical.

Even if all we were composed of was atoms. Its not just having atoms that matters, but also how they are arranged, and ultimately into their form of a human being. This gets us back to Aristotle’s form and matter.

The material that a car is made out of is not the most important thing. A car in order to be a car has to function as a car. Otherwise it is not fulfilling its purpose. Things like what material it may be composed of fulfill a higher order purpose, like transportation. The material is only as important as it serves this higher purpose.

The material that humans are composed of also serve a higher purpose. Which is ultimately to know and love God and our neighbor.

The key word is “purpose”. It has never been explained how purposeless molecules can be aware of, let alone pursue, a future goal. The simplest living cell doesn’t know what it is doing but at least it has an urge to survive which inorganic structures lack.

 

[tonyrey]

It is impossible to make amends for a rape or a murder, or any other irreversible actions.

On the contrary. A finite crime doesn’t deserve an infinite punishment. If we repent and do everything we possibly can to help others for the rest of our lives it would be unjust not to forgive us for having done wrong on one occasion. Such as harsh judgment is itself an evil which deserves to be punished! We should always get a taste of our own medicine whether we like it or nor!

 

[tonyrey]

I really would like to see a proper, working and usable definition of “essence”. Of course I am familiar with the definition: “the essence is what makes something what it is”. Or using a bit more wordy one: “a property or group of properties of something without which it would not exist or be what it is”. But this definition is so vague that it is totally unusable. Can you (or anyone else) present a list of properties which make a “chair” what it is? Or a list of properties which make a “cow” what it is?

I don’t say this. My answer is “Huh? What the heck are you talking about? Present a list of properties, which make a person what it is.” Without such a list there is nothing to talk about.

Aristotle’s and Plato’s baseless navel-gazing which tries to masquerade as “metaphysics” has been thrown out into the heap of other useless concepts. Metaphysics is supposed to deal with existence. Without an accompanying epistemology it is a meaningless and fruitless endeavor.

And that is where the proverbial substance hits the fan. No epistemology is offered, where anyone (skeptic or believer) can verify the claims of Christianity. It is all: “God / Jesus / the church said it, we believe it, that’s the end of it”. It is all a reference to some authority. Of course a reference to authority is not bad in and of itself. The problem occurs when the authority is unable to present an argument, except referring to another “authority”. There must be someone, who says: “the buck stops here”, and gives an actual explanation.

The authority exists in the reality of love:

“Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”

Everything without love is indeed worthless, meaningless and fruitless and it was expressed by the founder of Christianity who chose to live and die for all of us.

 

[tonyrey]

I am not referring to the NUMBER of atoms in a person. Hah, that would be a silly one!

The spirit of my question has evolved and been refined with help of the folks here to asking:

Is the essence of a person physical, and nothing more?

We see that by their own definition, the physicalist says yes. But we have most others in agreement that the answer is no.

I am indeed looking for an answer. That is why I posted the question.

It seems that the physicalist point of view is the default philosophy of modern people too. This explains why certain concepts in Catholic understanding seem antiquated and wrong.

Christianity was born being immersed in Aritsotle and Plato, so the notion of forms being the real essence of Christ, of people, of things was part of the essence of Christianity. Replace Plato’s forms with the notion of physicalism, and Christianity becomes hard to comprehend by many people, much less believe it to be true.

How can Jesus be alive in heaven?

How can the essence of Jesus exist in the Eucharist?

How can a person have an eternal soul?

etc.

Physicalism is clearly false because it is a soul-destroying theory which deprives life of all its value, purpose and meaning.

 

[tonyrey]

Remember the “statute of limitations”.

That is an arbitrary human decision with no logical justification. Why a specific number of years?

 

[St_Redemption]

I think the answer is no.

The essence of a person cannot be described by the sum total of the atoms.

I believe this means that the atomists are wrong. We cannot look for the essence of a person (or any other thing) by reducing it to its atoms.

Instead, it is the way the the thing (or person) interacts with the rest of reality (and creation as a whole) that defines its essence.

I will take another step to say that the essence of Jesus is not his atoms, but his relationship to creation. I am therefore able to say that the essence of Jesus can exist in the Eucharist, and have no need to go and look for his atoms within the wafer.

I will ask another related question. Is the essence of the song ‘America’ the vibration of atoms between the speaker cone and my ear? Or, is the relationship of the song to my life, and the life of millions of others its essence.

I believe these two example show how the modern anatomist theory misses the point on what the essence of a thing is.

If a man looses his hand in an accident…he is still 100 percent the same person as he was before the accident

 

[tonyrey]

You seem to be describing an emasculated version of atomism there. I’ll quote some public definitions of physicalism by way of contrast:

“Physicalism: The doctrine that the real world consists simply of the physical world.” - oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/physicalism

“In philosophy, physicalism is the ontological thesis that “everything is physical”, that there is “nothing over and above” the physical, or that everything supervenes on the physical.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism

“Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical. The thesis is usually intended as a metaphysical thesis, parallel to the thesis attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher Thales, that everything is water, or the idealism of the 18th Century philosopher Berkeley, that everything is mental. The general idea is that the nature of the actual world (i.e. the universe and everything in it) conforms to a certain condition, the condition of being physical. Of course, physicalists don’t deny that the world might contain many items that at first glance don’t seem physical — items of a biological, or psychological, or moral, or social nature. But they insist nevertheless that at the end of the day such items are either physical or supervene on the physical.” - plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

Hopefully you can see from the above definitions that you’re not describing physicalism as it is believed, but are instead attacking a strawman of your own devising.

You are still confusing emergent with reductive materialism/physicalism.

 

[Bradski]

On the contrary. A finite crime doesn’t deserve an infinite punishment. If we repent and do everything we possibly can to help others for the rest of our lives it would be unjust not to forgive us for having done wrong on one occasion.

But that’s not the case. You can be the most evil person in the world and spend every waking moment causing the maximum amount of misery, but if you truly repent on your death bed, with no chance to balance the books, as it were, then you are forgiven.

No retribution. No justice.

 

[thinkandmull]

But that’s not the case. You can be the most evil person in the world and spend every waking moment causing the maximum amount of misery, but if you truly repent on your death bed, with no chance to balance the books, as it were, then you are forgiven.

No retribution. No justice.

Purgatory

 

[Bradski]

If a man looses his hand in an accident…he is still 100 percent the same person as he was before the accident

I think you’re missing the point. But I think you are wrong in any case.

To push your example a little further so it’s easier to comprehend, what if the man lost both arms?

His attitudes, his demeanour, his outlook, his expectations, his abilities, his mental state would be different. One can easily imagine someone saying of that person: ‘He’s not the same man anymore’.

There would be two men. Joe, with all his faculties intact and Joe who has had to change his life drastically.