persons
04.03.03 8:47 p.m.

the photo is by kennerly. i'm keeping up the type alice link because it really is her layout with a replaced image.

i began to think of my philosophy paper today in class. can a person be non-human?

webster will muddy matters up by serving 8 defintions.
1- a human being, esp. as distinguished from a thing or lower animal
2- (now rare) an individual regarded slightingly, as one of a lower status
3- a. a living human body b. bodily form or appearance (to be neat about one's person
4- personality, self, being
5- a characteristic, as of pronouns and verbs, indicating whether a given utterance refers to the speaker(s), the one(s) spoke to, or the one(s) spoke about
6- a role in a play, character
7- any individual or incorporated group having certain legal rights and responsibilities
8- any of the three modes of being (father, Son and Holy Ghost) in the Trinity

now since this is philosophy and we've just been reading dialogues, i'm going to ignore the last one for now.

but imagine, a person is not necessarily human. animals are protected by the law.

i'm wary of the first definition because it makes me think of descartes' arguement about souls. which the dialogues that we're reading now seems to refute. well, doesn't seem to, but rather does.

either way it's interesting to see the arguement. it makes me wonder if there is a way to separate the self from the body. it seems as though the self, perhaps the "soul" even, will begin to define itself in terms of the body even if that is only temporary. so that way the two would not be inseperable.

and there's no way to end this arguement.