Today's Thomist moment: What is a Person?
It would seem to matter right? Are some people not persons? What makes a 'person' special.
Definition: a 'person' is a supposit with intellectual soul.
So, that begs the questions 1/ what is a supposit 2/ what an int. soul?:thread:
It would seem to matter right? Are some people not persons? What makes a 'person' special.
Definition: a 'person' is a supposit with intellectual soul.
So, that begs the questions 1/ what is a supposit 2/ what an int. soul?:thread:
A supposit is an 'individual substance' (typically, except when discussing a Person of the Trinity... a matter-form composite). But in any event, a THING.
See @M_Millerman for das Ding an sich
A COVID virus crystal is a thing. A mineral is a thing. A plant, a dog, a human...
See @M_Millerman for das Ding an sich
A COVID virus crystal is a thing. A mineral is a thing. A plant, a dog, a human...
But not all things are *PERSONS*
Only those with an 'intellectual or rational soul'.
Soul here is 'psyche' by the way. Humans have psyches and so do animals. Plants -- we'll save that for the advanced course (hint: stoics and platonists don't agree).
Only those with an 'intellectual or rational soul'.
Soul here is 'psyche' by the way. Humans have psyches and so do animals. Plants -- we'll save that for the advanced course (hint: stoics and platonists don't agree).
Are animals rational though? Is it possible for a human to lose his rationality and become an irrational animal or even demonic?
Not in this life. In this life, we have free will, a choice, to embrace what is Rational and Natural (the Latin word Natura corresponds to Psyche)
Not in this life. In this life, we have free will, a choice, to embrace what is Rational and Natural (the Latin word Natura corresponds to Psyche)
Man's Natural Soul in this life is a RATIONAL one -- Man is a Logos-Animal.
THAT is why we are, according to the correct definition, persons.
Extra credit: are 'legal persons' such as Corporations *really* persons?
A famous court case in the 18th century decided that...
THAT is why we are, according to the correct definition, persons.
Extra credit: are 'legal persons' such as Corporations *really* persons?
A famous court case in the 18th century decided that...
... Corporation don't have souls. This was an important question, and of the essence.
Since they don't even have souls, Corporations can't possibly be 'persons'. The Law is an Ass.
Or, as St Thomas would say ergo tu es asinus.
tl;dr Corporations are NPCs. Sorry.
Since they don't even have souls, Corporations can't possibly be 'persons'. The Law is an Ass.
Or, as St Thomas would say ergo tu es asinus.
tl;dr Corporations are NPCs. Sorry.
('ergo tu es asinus' is the standard scholastic formula for what mathematicians call 'an indirect proof')
Can we rephrase this in modern terms. Sure -- consider the Star Trek Borg. What exactly has a 'member of the borg lost'? He's ceased to become an *individual substance'
Can we rephrase this in modern terms. Sure -- consider the Star Trek Borg. What exactly has a 'member of the borg lost'? He's ceased to become an *individual substance'
The theoretical possibility that a person is part of a Collective (no longer an individual *sui juris*) means that, like a Corporation, the unthinking hive-individual has ceased to be a PERSON.
So remember ... to be a PERSON, you need to maintain two things:
1/ your sui juris individual rights
2/ your rationality
1/ your sui juris individual rights
2/ your rationality
@threadreaderapp unroll
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
