ST88 wrote:BeHereNow wrote:Dilettante: It should also include the social dimension of personhood. A person is also a member of a society or social group.
I don’t think this is true (
"should also include the social dimension").
In practical life all personal identities do have social interaction, but I don’t think this is required for personal identity.
If, in a cruel, evil, experiment, an embryo was always denied living contact, well into adulthood, would we conclude it has no personal identity?
Social dimension certainly shapes personal identity, as physical surroundings shape personality identity. I would not call physical surroundings a part of personality, nor would I call social dimension part of personal identity. This might be a narrow point of difference.
I have to agree with BeHereNow on this one. The social aspect of personhood should be irrelevant when determining if one is a person or has a personal identity. Personality is another matter, but personal identity -- the "I" in your mind -- does not change as your social situation changes.
I think we need to arrive at a definition of "person" or "personhood" that we can agree on, if that is possible (boy, is this a slippery subject). A person, in my view, is defined by who s/he is not just as much as by who s/he is. I define myself in opposition to the others who are not me. Without the others, I am not wholly myself. "Person" derives from "persona", a mask worn by actors playing a role in Roman plays. Imagine going to see a play where actors freely spoke any character's lines as they saw fit at the moment? So the concept of "role", "function" and that of establishing distinctions seems to be central to the concept of "person", even in the grammatical sense of the word. I very much doubt that an embryo deprived of human contact well into adulthood, as in the cruel experiment described by BeHereNow, could ever develop into a full-fledged person, with the ability to feel sympathy for others and a sense of morality. The experiment would, in my opinion, only lead to the creation of a sociopath or at least an autistic or antisocial individual. The strange, sad and fascinating stories of feral children (wild children such as the one reportedly found in 1789 in a forest in Aveyron, France and portrayed in a famous Truffaut movie) seem to indicate that, while such children are biologically human, attempts at integrating them into human society meet only with very limited success. Not that I'm an expert on feral children, though (I would welcome any information which contradicted my pessimistic view of their chances of integration).
Having said this, perhaps the subtle distinction BeHereNow and ST88 made is key to this issue. Perhaps personal identity is more important than anything else. But how can we distinguish personal identity from animal identity? Are animals aware of their own identity, and if so, can animals be considered persons? How about aliens, gods, angels, etc?
The debate could be endless.
Well,I may be wrong, but I hope at least I have stated my reasons clearly.
(Edited for further clarity and spelling correction).
