Existentialism

[Istvan]

Well, it is something that needs clarification.  It's not really that a person cannot be so impaired or so enabled that this does not factor into a definition of who they are.  Nor is it obviously the case that this is not a more accurate definition of who they are.  If we can agree to the possibility, then we should have some explanation as to why even the most extreme examples of that, instantiated, don't persuasively argue against our preferred way to define what a person is.

Existentialists talk a lot about transcendence, which they use without any mystical import; it's merely how one transcends one's circumstances. 

I never said we could come up with a simple catch-all definition of what any given human is, merely that it's what they do with what's been done to them.