What is a person?

[Autumnlicious]

I think you were just scared of April 1st mode

It amused me a bit, but ultimately wasn't to my taste. I think i did an alright job as a theist for those days though It was kinda cool having a REAL forum admin around though

Yes, I was getting rather tired of fake forum admins doing fake administration and fake discussions.

[ib.me.ub]

I wouldn't declare all people to be humans... it simply isn't able to be backed up unless being human is a required quality of being a person.

per·son   /ˈpɜrsən/ Show Spelled[pur-suhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.
2.a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
3.Sociology. an individual human being, esp. with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.
4.Philosophy. a self-conscious or rational being.
5.the actual self or individual personality of a human being: You ought not to generalize, but to consider the person you are dealing with.
6.the body of a living human being, sometimes including the clothes being worn: He had no money on his person.
7.the body in its external aspect: an attractive person to look at.
8.a character, part, or role, as in a play or story.
9.an individual of distinction or importance.
10.a person not entitled to social recognition or respect.
11.Law. a human being (natural person) or a group of human beings, a corporation, a partnership, an estate, or other legal entity (artificial person or juristic person) recognized by law as having rights and duties.
12.Grammar. a category found in many languages that is used to distinguish between the speaker of an utterance and those to or about whom he or she is speaking. In English there are three persons in the pronouns, the first represented by I and we, the second by you, and the third by he, she, it, and they. Most verbs have distinct third person singular forms in the present tense, as writes; the verb be has, in addition, a first person singular form am.
13.Theology. any of the three hypostases or modes of being in the trinity, namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Apparently under point 1. & 2. it is!

[Violet]

Apparently under point 1. & 2. it is!

Considering #2 "2.a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.": humans are animals... and we already have a distinguishing term... that being "human".

Considering #1 "1.a human being, whether man, woman, or child": this here disregards utterly those humans who are neither man, woman, or child.

I rather reject your colloquial definitions of "person"

3, 5, 6, and 11 also support your idea that "person" merely means "human". I care not Many humans are people... or are they? Are small children just as much people as adults... or adults as much people as children? Is every egg in a mother's ovaries a person, every sperm 'sacred'? Is a dog more a person than a cat? Is a woman less of a person than a man? Is a synthetic person less a person than one formed 'naturally'?

This is the sense in which I am using person (and really anyone with the most obscure understanding of philosophy should be using it in this sense)... however: just what underlies the status of being a person... just "What is a person?"

And although it is a different question... it may in fact be more important than the first: "Why should it matter that a thing is a person or not?"

[tackattack]

Now you're asking about value based classification as opposed to definition based?

[Violet]

Now you're asking about value based classification as opposed to definition based?

There is a difference?

All definition necessitates value. Example definition: car is red.

Value= to what extent car is red.

There is no definition I am aware of that does not include value. Rather: value and attribution (if, for the sake of argument, there was really a difference) completely form our definition of everything and anything. And as I say in the parenthesis... the attribution of value is as much an attribution as any other... just as one might say that without value there would be no attribution.

To return to your question in a less 'roundabout' manner: I've no understanding of any opposition between the two things you suppose there to be an opposition between (under my definitions... which i understand might be different from your own, and hence would require that I be made aware of your definitions (lest we fall into semantic problems)). I do not accept the definition of "person" to mean simply "human" for reasons I stated above. Perhaps you might address those reasons if you disagree with them?

[tackattack]

I see ht process of definition of something, to use your example as : a car is a car, cars usually have 4 wheels, a motor and are used for transportation.
Then you can value the individual car you're looking at through further classification: This car I see is red.
Then you can add value or worth to those attributes including the base: I like cars, they are useful. I hate the color red, this car is red, I'd like it more ifit were a different color.
You could asign a value to tires, motors and transportation, but typically only the object identified in it's whole has a worth initially at least.
All that above is simply a metaphor for my opinion.

I was simply clarifying the direction you wanted to go with your question. You were at first discussing the "what" of a person (definable base attributes) and now seeking the "why" (assertaining a meaning or worth to those attributes. Is this a correct assesment?

[Violet]

I see ht process of definition of something, to use your example as : a car is a car, cars usually have 4 wheels, a motor and are used for transportation.
Then you can value the individual car you're looking at through further classification: This car I see is red.
Then you can add value or worth to those attributes including the base: I like cars, they are useful. I hate the color red, this car is red, I'd like it more ifit were a different color.
You could asign a value to tires, motors and transportation, but typically only the object identified in it's whole has a worth initially at least.
All that above is simply a metaphor for my opinion.

It is one way to look at value... and I look at it somewhat similarly (however... I expand its importance in definition considerably more by my understanding of definition as a self-created construct, hence value becoming indistinguishable from the attribution itself... so that one might say their definition of reality will always formulate around what they value, else what would we make of perception at all?) A car is indeed a car... but does a car necessarily stop being so if it has neither 4 wheels or a motor? And say it was not used for transportation, would is remain a car?

^ This is precisely the problem I have with defining 'person'. There are so many 'usually's and 'often's involved. And finding a base through deductive reasoning is difficult when one knows not the rule... hence the reasoning between 'is a woman a person?' and 'is a dog a person' is inductive... and hence all the more difficult to understand the rule.

I was simply clarifying the direction you wanted to go with your question. You were at first discussing the "what" of a person (definable base attributes) and now seeking the "why" (ascertaining a meaning or worth to those attributes. Is this a correct assesment?

Indeed. It seems that I still do not know what a person is... so if I can understand why a thing would be a person: i might deduce 'what' from it... not dissimilarly to discovering the facets of a crime through understanding the intent of the crime.

I still am interested in 'what' a person is (those 'definable base attributes')... but if it were so easy to pinpoint: I should have known already...

IT'S A CONSPIRACY!

[tackattack]

Well let's start with value and worth then. Firstly, value is intrisically subjective. Worth would be a broadermore generally accepted societal value. Example:
You see no value in the $5 in my pocket because it's not yours and you don't intend to steal it. I see lots of value in my 5$ beause I'mbuying breakfast with it. You and I agree that the worth of the object titled $5 has an exchange rate for goods of roughly equal proportions.

So the question should be What is the worth of a person?

I'll go ahead and answer with my opinion and then we'll compare. Worth for me is determined primarily by usefullness and function. A person is worth the usefullness and productivity they contribute to everyone outside themselves. That can be as simmple as making people smile or saving the planet from destruction. The personal value for me would then be dependant on what needs I have to be fufilled by other (love, companionship, quality goods, humor) people in whatever area the person is productive in.

[Violet]

Well let's start with value and worth then. Firstly, value is intrisically subjective. Worth would be a broadermore generally accepted societal value.

Actually... worth is almost equivalent to value (the only real difference being the sense in which the word is used... value being primarily used as a noun... and worth being primarily used as an adjective to describe how much a thing is valued). And a 'generally accepted societal value' is just as subjective as an individual's understanding of the value... one being subjective to the typical member of society (as the value of all things remains an individual's understanding... even when the focus is expanded to a group of individuals. Though these individuals likely differ in opinion as to how much a thing is worth... a seller might attempt to find a price that most of the society is willing to spend, whilst maximizing their profits... and indeed the most typical (mode) opinion of worth will likely be reflected by everything one might generalize about a society (though of course: not necessarily ^_<)), the other being subjective to an individual.

Example:
You see no value in the $5 in my pocket because it's not yours and you don't intend to steal it. I see lots of value in my 5$ beause I'mbuying breakfast with it. You and I agree that the worth of the object titled $5 has an exchange rate for goods of roughly equal proportions.

There is more value to the world than that which is held yourself Say that I have 2 enemies, and 2 of us are attacking the third enemy at once. Whilst they are not my armies, and I do not intend to go into combat with them today... i nevertheless value them as something to be wary of, and as bodies to weaken my enemy.

To return to the $5 in your pocket... you might buy something with that... and hence: even if I do not value its status as a device through which I might buy things... I might still value it in consideration of what you might buy. With those $5, you could do a number of interesting things... and by anticipating what you will do with those $5: they might have easily become far more valuable to me for you to possess than having them in my pocket myself.

Further... that you and I agree to a similar (though likely not equal) exchange rate for those $5 probably reflects our society's common understanding of the exchange rate. However, it remains a subjective understanding... for the caveman sees little to no value in the $5... and even within our society there is great variance for the worth of $5.

So the question should be What is the worth of a person?

To me? Depends on the person That is rather a good question you pose... but to understand that, wouldn't we need to know what a person was first? ^_^

I'll go ahead and answer with my opinion and then we'll compare. Worth for me is determined primarily by usefullness and function.

Usefulness and function aren't all so different when understanding a thing's worth to a girl... is it not from its function that usefulness is considered? Anyway... I have a major difference regarding value... that being location and time it will be there. It's all well and good to have 8 septillion USD... but what does it matter to have all of that when you are stranded by yourself on a desert island, with no method of ever leaving again? Further... it is wonderful to have 8 septillion USD... but what will it matter if you receive it after you die (assuming no 'will' or living relatives)?

Of course... the function of a thing is also important when calculating its value. It might be nice to have something available to you at your place and time... it probably won't be nice to have that something be 5 men hired and equipped to assassinate you.

A person is worth the usefullness and productivity they contribute to everyone outside themselves. That can be as simmple as making people smile or saving the planet from destruction.

A person's worth is the summation of all their attributes and their usefulness to you according to the function you would have them used for. Their location, time they are there (and for how long they will be there), who they are, what platform they reside within/upon/whatever, how they will accomplish a task to which they have been assigned, their reputation, etc... people are fascinating creatures to observe and manipulate... and often one might consider them to be worth a certain amount ± 'unknown packaging'

I agree in some senses with you... though my definition of a person's worth is much broader. Perhaps it is not so difficult to understand why it is difficult for me to pinpoint precisely what a 'person is'

The personal value for me would then be dependant on what needs I have to be fufilled by other (love, companionship, quality goods, humor) people in whatever area the person is productive in.

I can understand that... my understanding of value includes far more variables, however

[tackattack]

Good adding variables is why he're here.

So what we have is :
worth is a value of function based on the objects place in the space time continuum.

When we relate that to a person within our perception of "our world" we can also include our percetption of the credibility and reputation, physical ques as to trustworthiness and mannerisms. Also the fact they're in the time space of "our wolrd" (meaning near enough to us physically to interact and currently have an ability [alive] to interact) fixes the point of reference and allows us to compare values of multiple individuals.

Is that about where we are?