Thy Geekdom Come Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 It's no surpise that a course in the philosophy of the human person is required of catechetics majors here. It's an increasingly anti-Catholic position. I highly recommend Dr. John Crosby's book on the matter, by the way: [url="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0813208653/qid=1134225518/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-0439468-5183364?n=507846&s=books&v=glance"]The Selfhood of the Human Person[/url]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semalsia Posted December 11, 2005 Share Posted December 11, 2005 [quote name='morostheos']In a nutshell - "I think, therefore I am" - Rene Descartes If you're not thinking then you're not a person. [/quote] Well, if the "person" can't think then what can she do? If thoughts do not make a person, then what does? If there are no thoughts then how does she differ from a tree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted December 11, 2005 Share Posted December 11, 2005 the thing that makes humans different than trees is that God gave us dominion to rule over all living creatures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semalsia Posted December 11, 2005 Share Posted December 11, 2005 [quote]the thing that makes humans different than trees is that God gave us dominion to rule over all living creatures.[/quote] That's like the difference between master and slave (or king and peasant). Meaning there's no difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted December 11, 2005 Share Posted December 11, 2005 (edited) [quote name='Semalsia' date='Dec 10 2005, 05:30 PM'][quote name='morostheos']In a nutshell - "I think, therefore I am" - Rene Descartes If you're not thinking then you're not a person. [/quote] Well, if the "person" can't think then what can she do? If thoughts do not make a person, then what does? If there are no thoughts then how does she differ from a tree? [right][snapback]819893[/snapback][/right] [/quote] As I have said in other threads, what is the basis of human rights is the fact that humans are destined to an eternal end. It is not so much his or her ablility to reason as it is, like morostheosmentioned I beleive, that man has an immortal soul. Since God has destined man for the beatific vision, man has rights over creatures and also has rights that are inalienable to him. Oh wait that last part sounds like a thread from a week or so ago. But this presupposes that you believe in God. If you do not, then indeed what is the basis of human rights? You can only answer that the state is what determines rights and thus totalitarianism makes its appearance. The state then has the right to define what is proper to each individual. Such things as this is what happens when man attempts to deny God and strike out on his own. Edited December 11, 2005 by Paphnutius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted December 11, 2005 Share Posted December 11, 2005 [quote name='Semalsia' date='Dec 10 2005, 06:33 PM']That's like the difference between master and slave (or king and peasant). Meaning there's no difference. [right][snapback]819929[/snapback][/right] [/quote] i think its a greater difference, i don't know what the original hebrew conveys but it must be greater than the the difference between master and slave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morostheos Posted December 11, 2005 Share Posted December 11, 2005 The thing that makes humans different than trees is that God created us in His image and gave us souls, and free will. In the Bible, for the first 5 days of creation, God said it was good. Then on the 6th day He created man and it was very good. The problem comes when you have to define what classifies as thoughts. Are brain damaged humans people? What level of "thought" is required before one is considered a person, and more imporantly, how can we determine if others are capable of thought or not? Do infants think? Do unborn babies think? Do people born with disabilities that make them unable to communicate with others think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted December 11, 2005 Share Posted December 11, 2005 "I think therefore I am" is false because it is in the reverse of the truth... it should read "I am therefore I think" but of course, that is the chicken and the egg all over again... but this view leaves the open end to say "God is therefore I am... I am therefore I think" the other formula obviously breaks that chain of thought. but talking about whether a human soul is different from an animal soul, the fact that the human soul is a rational soul certainly is one big distinguishing factor that puts us into a seperate category on the chain of beings than animals... but another big distinguishing factor is the immortal soul, and the self-reflecting soul... it's the connection of a rational immortal soul to flesh that makes us just above animals and just below angels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semalsia Posted December 11, 2005 Share Posted December 11, 2005 (edited) [quote name='Paphnutius' date=' morostheos and Aloysius']soul[/quote] That doesn't really change anything. Now you're just saying that it is the soul that does the thinking and not the flesh. You are defining personhood as thoughts, just like Descartes. Free will consists of thoughts, does it not? You might say that a human that doesn't have a brain (some babies are born that way, by the way) still has a soul and thus does indeed think, but what is the purpose of the brain then? Why do humans have brains, if they are not needed for forming thoughts? [quote name='Aloysius']"I think therefore I am" is false because it is in the reverse of the truth... it should read "I am therefore I think" [/quote] Well no. Not all things that exist can think (like rocks), therefore the latter is false. And unless you can explain how something can think and at the same time not exist, the former is quite valid. Edited December 11, 2005 by Semalsia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dspen2005 Posted December 11, 2005 Share Posted December 11, 2005 if this theory allows for this "cognitive capacity" it may not inherently preclude the unborn -- so long as it is explained clearly. for instance, Aquinas speaks of a "radical capacity" -- this is a capacity that is at the heart of a being, something that is inherent within the being -- for example the capacity of reason is inherent in humans even while not in act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted December 11, 2005 Share Posted December 11, 2005 [quote name='Semalsia' date='Dec 10 2005, 07:40 PM']That doesn't really change anything. Now you're just saying that it is the soul that does the thinking and not the flesh. You are defining personhood as thoughts, just like Descartes. Free will consists of thoughts, does it not? You might say that a human that doesn't have a brain (some babies are born that way, by the way) still has a soul and thus does indeed think, but what is the purpose of the brain then? Why do humans have brains, if they are not needed for forming thoughts? [/quote] You are focusing on the wrong part here. I did not saying anything about thought or cognitive capacity. What I said had to deal with the imortality of the soul. The fact that the soul is destined to the beatific vision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted December 11, 2005 Share Posted December 11, 2005 [quote name='Semalsia' date='Dec 10 2005, 08:40 PM']Well no. Not all things that exist can think (like rocks), therefore the latter is false. And unless you can explain how something can think and at the same time not exist, the former is quite valid. [right][snapback]819996[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I'm arguing against the notion that our thoughts cause us to exist. anyway, just like the chicken and the egg, one side can end up unwittingly arguing the otherside. if something can exist that cannot think, then "I think, therefore I am" is false, because we illustrate that there is something that "doesn't think, therefore it is" which is why "I think therefore I am" leads down to the philosophy that says "I think, therefore this rock is" and we begin to think that the only reason anything else exists is because we perceive it to exist. of course insert-a-word makes it all better: "I am man, therefore I think" and even with the insert I take offense to the reversal "I think therefore I am man". thinking doesn't make you man. being man makes you think. (I use man gender-neutrally the way my beloved English language intended it, so don't take offense) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semalsia Posted December 11, 2005 Share Posted December 11, 2005 [quote name='Paphnutius']You are focusing on the wrong part here. I did not saying anything about thought or cognitive capacity. What I said had to deal with the imortality of the soul. The fact that the soul is destined to the beatific vision.[/quote] Umm... so humans shouldn't be killed because they are immortal? And it's ok to kill animals, because they are mortal? That's pretty confusing. [quote name='Aloysius']I'm arguing against the notion that our thoughts cause us to exist.[/quote] Oh ok, but I don't think that's what Descartes meant by that phrase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted December 11, 2005 Share Posted December 11, 2005 [quote name='Semalsia' date='Dec 10 2005, 08:21 PM']Umm... so humans shouldn't be killed because they are immortal? And it's ok to kill animals, because they are mortal? That's pretty confusing. [right][snapback]820058[/snapback][/right] [/quote] It is not as simple as that, but that could be a basis. My point was, that because man is ordered towards the beatific vision he has certain inalienable rights as a person. Animals lack an immortal soul and therefore do not have equivalent rights to humans. This does not give one free reign to abuse animals, but rather puts things in perspective that the animals and nature are subject to man insofar as they help him to achieve his ultimate end. So personhood and the rights connected with it are not based on thoughts, cognitive capacity, and such, but on the fact that he or she is human and has an immortal soul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted December 11, 2005 Author Share Posted December 11, 2005 Thats a fine argument until you are deling with people who don't believe in souls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now