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

31–40 of 52 posts

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

#31

Post by hopler »

ordu wrote: post #28
Laukhi64 wrote: post #2

I don't see anything that I'd explicitly disagree with, but I also can't help but have a feeling that something is lost in translation. I'm not sure that Descartes and African philosophers are talking about exactly the same thing when they say something like "person".

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.

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

#32

Post by claudiawerner »

mac_was wrote: post #12

This is environmental determinism and it is an old concept. Obviously we live with others and other can have impact on us but it is still up to us if are impacted by them or we are self contained human beings which decide for themselves.

Is there any reason to think that we have such a choice? Spinoza, a contemporary of Descartes, makes a good case that we don't have such any option at all. In fact, one particular quote I love is a very simple one: "Men are deceived in thinking themselves free, a belief that consists only in this, that they are conscious of their actions and ignorant of the causes by which they are determined."

I think this is in some way separate from the metaphysical issue of free will and determinism, since whether our choices are determined by the universe or by us is quite a separate question to the extent to which society influences our choices in general. In my experience, it is absolutely not "still up to us" whether we are influenced by these factors, and a belief that it is up to us is more dangerous since it's delusional. The whole existence of the field of psychology, advertising, politics and propaganda is based on the idea that many things are not up to us - unfortunately we don't get to decide, but we like to think that we do.

Our desires, hopes, fears, opinions etc. are all imported from outside sources to a great extent, and it takes critical thinking to seriously ask about those - critical thinking we very rarely, if ever, apply to ourselves, because it leads to a kind of cognitive dissonance. I have personally suffered through this as I went deeper into political philosophy and saw that many concepts I held so dearly to were simply unsubstantiated, things that I believed due to ideological factors (from which none of us are ever free) and from my friends and relatives (which we may distance ourselves from to some extent only).

The idea we have control over these things without this critical-induced "pain" of having to confront ourselves is farcical.

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

#33

Post by mbrock »

amelius wrote: post #15

So in a hypothetical situation where all people except one are wiped out, then that one remaining person is not a person?

They might remain a person insofar as they think in language and in other ways exist in reference to a community even if everyone else is dead—in this view, they might also lose their personhood as they become another kind of being after dissociating from human community.

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

#35

Post by technothrasher »

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.

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 some animals also show various levels of self-awareness (Gallop's Mirror Test, and others) and I'm not sure most folks are prepared to give animals personhood.

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

#36

Post by lisper »

cdoxsey wrote: post #25

> Accepting that others are vital to our self-perception is a corrective to the limitations of the Cartesian view. This brought to mind John Calvin's Institutes. In the first chapter he suggests that knowledge consists primarily of two parts: knowledge of self and knowledge of God, and oddly, the best way to know oneself is to know God: > If, at mid-day, we either look down to the ground, or on the surrounding object…

The problem with this approach is that when different people acquire knowledge of God they often end up with very different results and no way to reconcile them, c.f. the Islamic State.

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

#37

Post by jacobush »

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.

Better keep those glasses safe.

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

#38

Post by zwkrt »

mac_was wrote: post #20
Geimfari wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That we are self contained human beings isn't obvious to me. All of my opinions, thoughts, and actions are a reflection of my surrounding social group.

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.

Didn't you just describe the military?

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

#39

Post by zwkrt »

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.

I don't disagree, but I find it interesting that if you were the last person alive you would spend your time reading the literary artifacts of other people, thereby continuing to grow and define yourself through social action.

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

#40

Post by obstacle1 »

mac_was wrote: post #20
Geimfari wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That we are self contained human beings isn't obvious to me. All of my opinions, thoughts, and actions are a reflection of my surrounding social group.

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.

Can you think of any societies/cultures in history within which killing became highly normalized behavior? I can think of a few.
Post reply on HN