Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Descartes was wrong: ‘a person is a person through other persons’ (2017)

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 52 posts

Re: Descartes was wrong: ‘a person is a person through other persons’ (2017)

#41

Post by OnlineCourage »

> Ubuntu philosophy

First off, there's no such thing as, "X philosophy." Philosophy (the noun) is a field of study, there's no such thing as, "My personal philosophy," - you don't get your own philosophy, there's just "philosophy." It wouldn't make sense to say, "well according to my own personal mathematics..." Likewise it doesn't make sense to do this kind of comparative cultural philosophy nonsense. It's extremely plausible that ancient African philosophers could have been absolutely wrong with certain propositions they put forward, and it is absolutely plausible that French philosophers in the early modern age were completely wrong. There's no, "happy smile and hold hands, let's all agree that there are different philosophies." That would be called politics, not philosophy.

> a person is a person through other persons

Secondly, that was not what Descartes was talking about, he was not talking about how to define a person, he was talking about how do you create a platform on which to define absolute truth of the existence of something. He was saying, "well, suppose you have a mind, doesn't matter where that mind comes from, just a mind...if that mind doubts that even itself exists, that doubting proves that it exists, therefore it exists." He wasn't talking about defining personhood, he was talking about securing the foundation of how knowledge works.

Re: Descartes was wrong: ‘a person is a person through other persons’ (2017)

#42

Post by dwaltrip »

booleandilemma wrote: post #34

If I was the last man alive in a post-apocalyptic world I’d still be a person though. Not to mention I’d have time enough at last to get to all those books I’ve been meaning to read.

In such a situation, your personhood would be sadly diminished.

Re: Descartes was wrong: ‘a person is a person through other persons’ (2017)

#43

Post by mac_was »

bsenftner wrote: post #23
mac_was wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if all your friends starts killing would you start as well? I believe you have free will, your imagination, a brain and you can assess for yourself what actions you eant to perform.

I bet if your situation was such that your friends start killing, you would be in the same situation and start killing too. Yes we have free will, very much so. That is why we kill.

Animals do not have free will and they kill as well, they kill because of instinct so your point is not true.

Re: Descartes was wrong: ‘a person is a person through other persons’ (2017)

#44

Post by tomlock »

scooble wrote: post #16
tomlock wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thinking entity that is proven to exist is the person. To descartes that thinking entity is the very core and fundamental unit of the person. The body and the interactions with others is irrelevant to that core.

I'm not sure that is right. From the proposition 's runs' I can validly infer that s exists. This does not commit me to the view that running is fundamental to s's personhood. Similarly, the claim that if s thinks then s exists does not entail that a further claim that thinking is central to s's personhood.

> This does not commit me to the view that running is fundamental to s's personhood.

That is not Descartes conclusion or my conclusion.

To Descartes, the person as experienced in a priori thought has a special primacy over all other existing things. While "s" may be doubted due to its a posteriori nature, the self is fundamentally undoubtable in its existence, hence "I think therefore I am".

To Descartes, the existence of a priori thought is the building block of all logic and personhood.

Re: Descartes was wrong: ‘a person is a person through other persons’ (2017)

#45

Post by tomlock »

ElBarto wrote: post #10
tomlock wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thinking entity that is proven to exist is the person. To descartes that thinking entity is the very core and fundamental unit of the person. The body and the interactions with others is irrelevant to that core.

It's the 'person' in a totally different sense than what this article discusses.

The differences are due to the logic and perspectives of the positions, not the concept of a 'person' itself. It's a similar difference to the concept of a person under existentialism as contrasted with cartesian dualism.

Re: Descartes was wrong: ‘a person is a person through other persons’ (2017)

#46

Post by ElFitz »

sametmax wrote: post #11
ElBarto wrote: post #4

This profoundly misunderstands Descartes. Descartes is about proving existence through doubt. If you start doubting everything around you, what is left is your own mind that must exist since it is thinking and doubting. It has nothing to do with being a 'person' as a social construct, or about who I am.

Interstingly, this "I think therefor I am" has been taken as the most barebone possible way to demonstrate what exist and what does not. However, each word of the sentence makes an assumption that it never tries to demonstrate: - "I": assumes individuality and that the mind is a local phenomenon. - "think": assumes cognition and that it's a process of the mind. - "therefor": assumes causality. - "am": assumes there i…

Except it's "Cogito ergo sum", not "I think therefore I am"

"I" here is whatever is the origin of these thoughts, and nothing more. Not you.

He explained it as "we cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt"

So no, there is no postulate, just observation. However far the doubt goes... well, there is still something doubting, and thus thinking (doubts are thoughts), that has to be.

Otherwise there would be no doubt.

That's all.

Wether it's an individual human's mind or the self-deceiving / self-ignorant projection of a 6 dimensional octopus, wether thinking really is an independent creative process or just the deterministic result of outside events doesn't matter.

Re: Descartes was wrong: ‘a person is a person through other persons’ (2017)

#47

Post by ordu »

technothrasher wrote: post #35
hopler wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For everyone's sake, don't test your theory on any toddlers. Why draw the line at age 3, and not 9 (Age of Reason) pubescence (Coming of Age), or post-pubescence? People under the age of maybe 30 universally have terrible misconceptions about how the universe works, making them dangerous if they are given full freedom.

For everyone's sake, don't test your theory on any toddlers. Amen to that! Why draw the line at age 3 I believe because the original poster was positing that self-awareness is the dividing line between person and non-person, and was claiming that this happens at age 3. Of course, the real world isn't that simple. Not only do newborns show some simple self-awareness (See Rochat's 'Five Stages of Self-Awareness'), but…

> Of course, the real world isn't that simple.

Yes. Any our theory is a simplification of reality.

> I'm not sure most folks are prepared to give animals personhood.

Yeah. This is a problem I think. Is there is any way to define a person, which can justify human right to eat a chicken. Self-awareness seems the most promising.

Re: Descartes was wrong: ‘a person is a person through other persons’ (2017)

#48

Post by ordu »

hopler wrote: post #31
ordu wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they told about different things. Distinction between self/other is a definition of a person. But at the same time they spoke about the same thing. If you killed a person, you would be a murderer, and it doesn't matter what definition of a person you use. There are some small differences though, like killing a toddler seems not so bad, if toddler is not a person yet. I personally believe that toddler is not…

For everyone's sake, don't test your theory on any toddlers. Why draw the line at age 3, and not 9 (Age of Reason) pubescence (Coming of Age), or post-pubescence? People under the age of maybe 30 universally have terrible misconceptions about how the universe works, making them dangerous if they are given full freedom.

> For everyone's sake, don't test your theory on any toddlers.

I do not kill dogs belonging to other people (or any dog, to be clear), why should I kill toddlers belonging to other people? And if I claim that toddler is an external limb of parents, than killing toddler means damaging parents, it is like to cut off their arms or something like. It is a good enough reason to not kill toddlers, isn't it?

> Why draw the line at age 3, and not 9 (Age of Reason) pubescence (Coming of Age), or post-pubescence?

Because the line between a person and not a person is drawn to separate humans from other animals. To make humans special and to give them rights to kill animals, to own animals. We need a way to justify our denial of animal rights on land or on any other kind of property and so on. So we should try to draw a line such a way, that reflects specialty of humans.

Re: Descartes was wrong: ‘a person is a person through other persons’ (2017)

#49

Post by bsenftner »

mac_was wrote: post #43
bsenftner wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bet if your situation was such that your friends start killing, you would be in the same situation and start killing too. Yes we have free will, very much so. That is why we kill.

Animals do not have free will and they kill as well, they kill because of instinct so your point is not true.

Animals certainly have free will. It is nonsense to believe otherwise.

Re: Descartes was wrong: ‘a person is a person through other persons’ (2017)

#50

Post by gowld »

ordu wrote: post #47
technothrasher wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For everyone's sake, don't test your theory on any toddlers. Amen to that! Why draw the line at age 3 I believe because the original poster was positing that self-awareness is the dividing line between person and non-person, and was claiming that this happens at age 3. Of course, the real world isn't that simple. Not only do newborns show some simple self-awareness (See Rochat's 'Five Stages of Self-Awareness'), but…

> Of course, the real world isn't that simple. Yes. Any our theory is a simplification of reality. > I'm not sure most folks are prepared to give animals personhood. Yeah. This is a problem I think. Is there is any way to define a person, which can justify human right to eat a chicken. Self-awareness seems the most promising.

Why do you have a human right to eat a chicken, or a cow, or a pig?

https://www.reddit.com/r/likeus/

Why do you not have a human right to kill a person, when push comes to shove comes to bullets?

Post reply on HN