Personhood
Eric Olson, E. Jonathan Lowe, and Lynn Rudder Baker each has different accounts for what a person is. In this paper, I will talk about their points of view on personhood and compare and contrast their ideas while talking about my own account on personhood.
Olson believes that we are all animal. As a result a person is matter that has mental features. Matter is a physical substance that has mass and occupies space, as distinct from immaterial substance like mind and spirit. Mental features are the ability to think, reason, feel, and similar, though Olson doesn’t specify which mental features are only for person. Also, an animal is a living organism, and in the case of human person, a human person is an animal that has special mental …show more content…
A simple substance is a substance that can’t be divided, in other words, it is a substance that has no substantial part. Lowe argues that a self/person is a unique subject of experiences and mental states. Firstly, he claims that mental states are necessarily had by a subject, like I feel pain so the feeling of pain is necessarily associated with my body, and my body is contingently mine though he didn’t explain why. Secondly, since the mental features require a substance to individuate, or unify, them, and, in this case, the subject, or person, own the mental features, then a person is a substance. Lastly, a self, or a person, does not have any substantial part, which mean it can’t be divided, because if a self is created by different parts, each part will have different experiences, yet the self experiences as a whole. As a result, a self is a simple substance. Also, Lowe claims a human person is created by two entities, one is an animal body and the other is the simple substance that embodies the animal body. Moreover, in the animalist argument of Olson, Lowe will probably rejects the second premise which says that the human animal sitting in your chair is thinking. For thinking is mental feature is necessarily had by person, no animal can …show more content…
Then Martians, computers, or anything that can be conscious about its own consciousness can be consider a person. Self-consciousness is distinct for human. A dog has its consciousness since it has its desires and beliefs, yet, unlike human, it can’t have conscious experience of their thoughts and attitudes. Also, Baker thinks that a human person is constituted by human animal when it has self-consciousness. Constitution is the relation between entity and the material that entity is made of, like a bunch of clay (material), if being used rightly, can constitute a statue (entity). Also, Baker will reject the second premise of Olson’s argument for animalism that says human animal can think. However, not in the same sense as Lowe, Baker rejects this premise because even though she believes that even animal has the ability to think, only person has the first-person perspective, which mean one can be aware of one’s own consciousness. In this case, a human animal alone doesn’t have the ability of self-consciousness so a person cannot be an animal. Baker’s and Lowe’s views on personhood are similar since both of them agree on the idea of constitution of the human body from animal and a human person has two entity, a human animal body and a person. In contrast to both Lowe’s and Baker’s view, Olson believes that human person has only one entity and it is animal. Nevertheless, their views are different on the
Eric Olson, E. Jonathan Lowe, and Lynn Rudder Baker each has different accounts for what a person is. In this paper, I will talk about their points of view on personhood and compare and contrast their ideas while talking about my own account on personhood.
Olson believes that we are all animal. As a result a person is matter that has mental features. Matter is a physical substance that has mass and occupies space, as distinct from immaterial substance like mind and spirit. Mental features are the ability to think, reason, feel, and similar, though Olson doesn’t specify which mental features are only for person. Also, an animal is a living organism, and in the case of human person, a human person is an animal that has special mental …show more content…
A simple substance is a substance that can’t be divided, in other words, it is a substance that has no substantial part. Lowe argues that a self/person is a unique subject of experiences and mental states. Firstly, he claims that mental states are necessarily had by a subject, like I feel pain so the feeling of pain is necessarily associated with my body, and my body is contingently mine though he didn’t explain why. Secondly, since the mental features require a substance to individuate, or unify, them, and, in this case, the subject, or person, own the mental features, then a person is a substance. Lastly, a self, or a person, does not have any substantial part, which mean it can’t be divided, because if a self is created by different parts, each part will have different experiences, yet the self experiences as a whole. As a result, a self is a simple substance. Also, Lowe claims a human person is created by two entities, one is an animal body and the other is the simple substance that embodies the animal body. Moreover, in the animalist argument of Olson, Lowe will probably rejects the second premise which says that the human animal sitting in your chair is thinking. For thinking is mental feature is necessarily had by person, no animal can …show more content…
Then Martians, computers, or anything that can be conscious about its own consciousness can be consider a person. Self-consciousness is distinct for human. A dog has its consciousness since it has its desires and beliefs, yet, unlike human, it can’t have conscious experience of their thoughts and attitudes. Also, Baker thinks that a human person is constituted by human animal when it has self-consciousness. Constitution is the relation between entity and the material that entity is made of, like a bunch of clay (material), if being used rightly, can constitute a statue (entity). Also, Baker will reject the second premise of Olson’s argument for animalism that says human animal can think. However, not in the same sense as Lowe, Baker rejects this premise because even though she believes that even animal has the ability to think, only person has the first-person perspective, which mean one can be aware of one’s own consciousness. In this case, a human animal alone doesn’t have the ability of self-consciousness so a person cannot be an animal. Baker’s and Lowe’s views on personhood are similar since both of them agree on the idea of constitution of the human body from animal and a human person has two entity, a human animal body and a person. In contrast to both Lowe’s and Baker’s view, Olson believes that human person has only one entity and it is animal. Nevertheless, their views are different on the