Is someone with multiple personality disorder more than one person?*

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The term person denotes a complete substance endowed with reason, and, consequently, a responsible subject of its own actions. 'Personality' is not an essential and integral part of a nature. A person is a nature with something added, namely, independent subsistence, individuality. (Src: Berkhof, Systematic Theology)

AMR

 

[Rich Koster]

I talk to myself AND answer myself. Does that qualify as having MPD?

Not when working through catechisms

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

On a lighter note, when I had not quite mastered my sweet tooth, I used to say to myself, "Mr. Pig, you are not in charge here, I am!" And occasionally I would go on a fast to clinch who was boss (the Lord enabling me). (Would you believe, I had first written "feast" instead of "fast"! I think Mr. Pig still is around, but he doesn't surface too often.)

Back to the OP: I think the Gadarene demoniac is a case in point, and I think such an occurrence, or something similar, possible today. I don't have a high regard for the DSM IV, seeing it as the "counsel of the ungodly" (Ps 1:1), although it may have its uses. Humanistic psychology – even the "Christian" varieties – may be able classify behaviors, but cannot well treat them, seeing as it does not account for spiritual realities, such as God, sin, guilt, forgiveness, the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit, etc etc. With the "Christian varieties", their being generally client-centered rather than Christ-centered, are dangerous.

 

[ddharr]

I have been a psychiatric nurse for 8 years. Any personality disorder requires much prayer. I also believe we all have a duel nature which affects our whole being Paul describes it best

For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. 16If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. 17Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

 

[jwright82]

There is no definition of person, then, or is person just other way of saying "intelligent"? Like, angels and humans are persons, and they are intelligent. You're saying that there is no definition of person or simply that we don't need to have something in us to "person" to make sense? Is person a primitive concept?

Think of the ways you use the word in everyday life. Is a human being who is asleep a person? If we define person by “intelligence” than how can we say that the human being who is sleeping is intelligent? So when we try to pin down an exact definition or essence of what a person is than we will always be able to find some group out there of human beings who don’t qualify under that definition. In short a person is a word that we use to refer to human beings, what is a human being that specially created creature who is alone made in the image of God. But we use the word person in so many different contexts that it is hard to force them all into one definition of “you are a person if you posses qualities x, y, z, a, b, c.”

James, perhaps I'm not understanding you very clearly, but your words do have a referential meaning: there is an idea of Mr. Hand to which your words refer - you and your daughter share a conceptual construct. Mr. Hand's substance is that of mental fiction - but mental fiction has a reality and existence on its own terms: Uncle Toby is a real invention, even though he exists only in the words of Tristram Shandy. It seems to unlettered me that denying referentiality is contrary to the usage of ordinary language, not to mention common sense.

By the way, I am delighted to make Mr. Hand's acquaintance, and if he did not think it improper would gladly shake him, given the opportunity.

They do refer to something it’s just not an essence or substance in my hand or whatever that they must refer to. Sure they refer to my mental fictional construction as well as the social game that my daughter and I play but there is no essence that they must refer to in order to be meaningful. As long as she and I both understand what’s being said and the rules of the “game” than that is all we need to have a meaningful discussion with Mr. Hand.

In the context of this discussion we don’t have to posses some essence of personhood in order for our statements about persons to be meaningful. As long as you understand what I am saying with the statement “that person with the green hat stole my car” than that is all we need to make sense. You see in times past it was thought that our words must be grounded in some essence or idea somewhere to be meaningful we now know that that is not the case.

If you say well aren’t your words grounded in own ideas, sure they are but here’s the kicker. Do you ever think in a non-language? Or is it always the case that your “thoughts” are themselves always in English or whatever? And where did you learn the language that you think in? From your parents probably and they taught you an established social linguistic pattern that as you matured and learned the meaning of words and there uses your conceptual scheme, or worldview could appropriate here as well, grew and grew. The more you could talk the more you could think.

Again we use the word “person” to refer to human beings and all that they do. If were to point to a computer and say that “that person stole my PDF file” you would be confused.

Mr. Hand would be delighted to meet you but he is scared of bats so I wouldn’t mention the whole Batman thing.

 

[py3ak]

James, perhaps this is not the thread to discuss the matter fully, but I have to admit your words are making my sceptical senses tingle and my implausibility meter beep.

For one thing, when you say "we now know," that raises a red flag. Obviously in the long history of philosophy fictional characters (and counterfactual hypotheticals, and other ideas which would raise the same difficulties) came up for discussion before recent times, along with the fact that we can discuss them meaningfully and yet they don't exist in the same way that the author who invented them did. If you haven't read it, I would very strongly recommend the essay "Bluspels and Flalansferes" by C.S. Lewis.

It is one thing to say that the ability to have a meaningful conversation about something doesn't mean that it has an essence; it is another thing to move from that to say that the idea of essence is itself meaningless. To take your example of a person sleeping, apart from the fact of dreaming, the continuity between his intelligence before he fell asleep and after he woke up seems to show that there was something in which that intelligence inhered: though the exercise of the faculty was in abeyance, yet it was somewhere preserved in latency - if not by inhering in something continuously subsistent, it is difficult to say where.

 

[a mere housewife]

Ruben, perhaps this is not the thread to discuss the matter fully, but regarding your new signature quote, "You are far from being a bad man. Go and reform." (-Mark Twain, or if quotes are attributable to fictional characters, the man that corrupted Hadleyburg)

 

[jwright82]

James, perhaps this is not the thread to discuss the matter fully, but I have to admit your words are making my sceptical senses tingle and my implausibility meter beep.

It is one thing to say that the ability to have a meaningful conversation about something doesn't mean that it has an essence; it is another thing to move from that to say that the idea of essence is itself meaningless.

Well essence is a very meaningful logical category to have to make sense of things. But not everything has to have an essence somewhere out there, or in here, that all of our words must correspond to. You see it is not essences per se that is wrong it is a view of metaphysics that is in view here. It is pertinent to this discussion because the original post presupposed that there is some essence of personhood that we must discover and then we can answer this sort of question. But we use the word person for so much that you could never pin it down in an exact fashion. The essence of personhood is being human. We never use the word person to refer to anything other than human beings.

For one thing, when you say "we now know," that raises a red flag.

We now know means that philosophy has, despite many objectors, made progress in its own field. We have tools now to deal with certain philosophical problems that we didn’t have before. Some problems are in essence solved. My point is that despite the highly original nature of this question, which it is John and thank you for asking it (you clearly have a very keen mind so keep up the good work), we have the tools to resolve it.

To take your example of a person sleeping, apart from the fact of dreaming, the continuity between his intelligence before he fell asleep and after he woke up seems to show that there was something in which that intelligence inhered: though the exercise of the faculty was in abeyance, yet it was somewhere preserved in latency - if not by inhering in something continuously subsistent, it is difficult to say where.

The problem is that abortion and animal right activists love talking about the essence of personhood because they know that whatever definition we come up with they can under mind and support their cause. Because we use the word “person” to refer to so many different types of human behavior it is hard to define. Peter Singer gets it when he ironically responds that the best argument against pro-life groups is to call into question the presupposition of the sanctity of human life. Once you do that you are forced into a presuppositional battle that can be resolved only by presupposing that persons are image bearers of God and by pointing out the essence of persons as human beings.

 

[py3ak]

Well essence is a very meaningful logical category to have to make sense of things. But not everything has to have an essence somewhere out there, or in here, that all of our words must correspond to. You see it is not essences per se that is wrong it is a view of metaphysics that is in view here. It is pertinent to this discussion because the original post presupposed that there is some essence of personhood that we must discover and then we can answer this sort of question. But we use the word person for so much that you could never pin it down in an exact fashion. The essence of personhood is being human. We never use the word person to refer to anything other than human beings.

James, that last line is simply false: we speak constantly of the Persons of the Trinity. I am glad you don't deny that there is such a thing as essence; but if you don't, then you need to have a criteria for distinguishing between what does and what doesn't. There is a quiddity proper even to conceptual constructs with no other form of existence.

We now know means that philosophy has, despite many objectors, made progress in its own field. We have tools now to deal with certain philosophical problems that we didn’t have before. Some problems are in essence solved. My point is that despite the highly original nature of this question, which it is John and thank you for asking it (you clearly have a very keen mind so keep up the good work), we have the tools to resolve it.

The problem is that abortion and animal right activists love talking about the essence of personhood because they know that whatever definition we come up with they can under mind and support their cause. Because we use the word “person” to refer to so many different types of human behavior it is hard to define. Peter Singer gets it when he ironically responds that the best argument against pro-life groups is to call into question the presupposition of the sanctity of human life. Once you do that you are forced into a presuppositional battle that can be resolved only by presupposing that persons are image bearers of God and by pointing out the essence of persons as human beings.

If the solution to the problem of essence is to deny that there is such a thing, that hardly seems like a "solution."
You may not mean this, but your final paragraph sounds as though the fact that people can turn a difficulty in a position against us means the position ought to be abandoned; that's essentially (notice how hard it is to avoid that word?) allowing them to dictate the agenda. I don't think theology or philosophy should be advanced according to what is polemically convenient: adversaries change, and what was polemically convenient because polemically awkward.

 

[a mere housewife]

All Who Care, perhaps this is not the thread fully to discuss the matter, but I use cologne and bathe at least once a month.

Joshua, this is neither the time nor the place for such an irrelevant observation.

 

[BobVigneault]

Let me offer another perspective. I have several special needs kids and they all came with a list of labels given them by a conference of psychologists. These labels are simply arbitrary names given to a person who shows leanings toward a certain list of patterns of behavior. The lines between these patterns are not neat and clear and rely more on a subjective observation than any kind of scientific assessment or check list. MPD and DID are just two more labels that give a shorthand to describing but not explaining a pattern of behaviors.

Now, consider this. We all, this side of the Fall, have more than one personality and it is only the severity of the fracture that sets us apart. A husband who views p0rn and then goes and greets his wife with a loving embrace is TWO persons. A person who shows care and love for a friend and then gossips behind his or her back is TWO persons. We were created to be fully dependent on God and we retain part of our primal personhood when we humbly depend on the Father, (as Christ did every moment), however, to the extent we attempt to live life apart from dependence on the Father, we fracture our personality.

Our 'sense of self' is a result of the fall. Jesus, the second Adam, had no sense of independent self. He spoke what the Father spoke, he did what the Father did, "I and the Father are one." Our sense of self is simply an acknowledgment that we possess a fractured personality. Romans 7 describes the "wretched" battle between these multiple persons.

Only the Gospel can restore this fracture. In prayer we unite with Christ and express our dependence on the Father. In thanksgiving we lower our pride filled, independent self and unite with our humbled dependent self. The "clinical" DIDs and MPDs that we see in society are simply more severe 'fracturings' that we have brought on ourselves in response to horrible trauma, pain and suffering. Finding ourselves in the valley of the shadow of death without the shepherd is a terrifying experience.

 

[jwright82]

James, that last line is simply false: we speak constantly of the Persons of the Trinity. I am glad you don't deny that there is such a thing as essence; but if you don't, then you need to have a criteria for distinguishing between what does and what doesn't. There is a quiddity proper even to conceptual constructs with no other form of existence.

On a creaturely level this is true. But we are made in the image of God hence that is the basis for us analogically being able to ascribe to God “personhood”. I’ll start another thread on my views on essence and substance because to enter into that here would take this talk off course.

If the solution to the problem of essence is to deny that there is such a thing, that hardly seems like a "solution."
You may not mean this, but your final paragraph sounds as though the fact that people can turn a difficulty in a position against us means the position ought to be abandoned; that's essentially (notice how hard it is to avoid that word?) allowing them to dictate the agenda. I don't think theology or philosophy should be advanced according to what is polemically convenient: adversaries change, and what was polemically convenient because polemically awkward.

It’s a problem because both questions assume a certain view of things that isn’t totally true. When I said that the definition of person is human being what that means is that on a creaturely level, I didn’t emphasize this before thanks for pointing that out to me, all true propositions about persons are true propositions about human beings and vice versa. So yes someone (a synonymous term for person) with multiple personality disorder is a person because they are human. Just how hard is it to phrase the question without referring to them as a person in some way shape or form?

But if we ask the question what is the essence of a person than we have to make some list that captures personhood in some abstract way that would conflict with the ways ordinary people use the term person. For some, not all, metaphysical problems the only reason there is a problem is the fact that you are asking it in the first place. There are all sorts of paradoxes out there that we can solve by simply showing that we are misusing language and that is why we have a problem.

 

[py3ak]

Bob, I think saying "no sense of self" may be an overstatement - there is clearly a consciousness of distinct identity.

James, I don't see how it's helpful in an analysis of ordinary language to dismiss one category of usage because of an analogical relationship between them. The analogical use is a category of ordinary language. Also, one would have no hesitation in speaking of different angels as different persons: Lucifer is not Gabriel.

It is certainly true that many questions ultimately wind up being nonsense - a use of words that is simply, in Lewis' phrase, "playing with counters". That is true in theology, in politics, criticism, etc. But it can also be that stating it's just a nonsense question is simply a way to sidestep an inconvenient issue, and so there has to be some way to distinguish, some rationale offered for why something is nonsense. For instance, it increasingly seems to me like "premillenialism" is not only the wrong answer to a question, it's an answer to a wrong question. It presupposes a way of reading an apocalypse that is not at all in keeping with the nature of the Apocalypse, nor with its role as the confirmation and conclusion of prophesy. But I have to admit that in history there will eventually be an answer to the question, "Is there a golden age for the church and the world, and does it precede, coincide with, or follow, the return of Christ." So even though I think terms like premillenialism and postmillenialism often betray a wrongheaded approach to Revelation, considered abstractly the question is reasonable enough. And in the same way, asking about the "essence" of humanity or personhood or what have you may assume an approach to the question that is wrongheaded, yet that cannot be used simply to sidestep the question of what it is that makes Peter and John and James to be the same sort of thing, though being at the same time distinct.

 

[jwright82]

Bob, I think saying "no sense of self" may be an overstatement - there is clearly a consciousness of distinct identity.

James, I don't see how it's helpful in an analysis of ordinary language to dismiss one category of usage because of an analogical relationship between them. The analogical use is a category of ordinary language. Also, one would have no hesitation in speaking of different angels as different persons: Lucifer is not Gabriel.

It is certainly true that many questions ultimately wind up being nonsense - a use of words that is simply, in Lewis' phrase, "playing with counters". That is true in theology, in politics, criticism, etc. But it can also be that stating it's just a nonsense question is simply a way to sidestep an inconvenient issue, and so there has to be some way to distinguish, some rationale offered for why something is nonsense. For instance, it increasingly seems to me like "premillenialism" is not only the wrong answer to a question, it's an answer to a wrong question. It presupposes a way of reading an apocalypse that is not at all in keeping with the nature of the Apocalypse, nor with its role as the confirmation and conclusion of prophesy. But I have to admit that in history there will eventually be an answer to the question, "Is there a golden age for the church and the world, and does it precede, coincide with, or follow, the return of Christ." So even though I think terms like premillenialism and postmillenialism often betray a wrongheaded approach to Revelation, considered abstractly the question is reasonable enough. And in the same way, asking about the "essence" of humanity or personhood or what have you may assume an approach to the question that is wrongheaded, yet that cannot be used simply to sidestep the question of what it is that makes Peter and John and James to be the same sort of thing, though being at the same time distinct.

Well by nonsense I mean that any attempt to define the essence of a person to settle this question will end up in absurdity. Take an example intellect, emotion, and will are all 3 things that persons have. Well animals certainly it could be argued think, feel, and choose to do stuff. Therefore they are persons but we naturally object that they are persons, why? Well because they are not us. Does a person sleeping have intellect, feel, and choose? Or someone who is in a coma? What about a baby? In all 3 questions our inclination is to say “yes”. But why do we say that? Because in all 3 examples it is a human being that is in view.

Oh thanks for pointing out the angel part I missed that. But why do we ascribe personhood to them? Pointing out that God is a person or that we may ascribe personhood to angels doesn’t change the general use of the word or the problems with an exact essence of what is or isn’t a person because ascribing personal attributes only makes sense because I know what those words mean by observing other humans perform them.

Even if we say that a person is someone who has rational faculties. Well that still doesn’t answer the 3 questions above because how do you know if a being posses rational faculties? You observed humans behaving in ways that we describe as rational or that it results from possessing rational faculties.

 

[py3ak]

James, are you saying that the definition is circular? We start with ourselves, describe ourselves, and then insist that we are distinct, even though the terms we used to describe ourselves are applicable to other beings? I'm sorry if that is miles away from your position - I feel I'm not understanding something in your post, but I'm not sure what!

 

[BobVigneault]

Thanks Ruben, I should have said "an independent self".

 

[jwright82]

James, are you saying that the definition is circular? We start with ourselves, describe ourselves, and then insist that we are distinct, even though the terms we used to describe ourselves are applicable to other beings? I'm sorry if that is miles away from your position - I feel I'm not understanding something in your post, but I'm not sure what!

No Ruben I am probably not describing myself very well, sorry for that. I guess circular might be a good way to describe it. We as humans ask what a person is and we try to hatch out whatever the essence of person is but we will always end up talking about ourselves in some way. But the meaning of whatever attributes we come up with are essential to being human will always have been learned by watching humans and our experience as a human.

Even if we ascribe these attributes to other things (angels) we still learned the meanings of the words from being human and observing humans. Or else we would not know what they were. Would we be able to understand as creatures on a creaturely level what God’s anger was unless we experienced anger? No, we need the human element to make sense of those things. I hope this is better than my previous posts in explaining things.

Oh totally off topic but not only is there Mr. Hand but my right foot is Mr. Foot. He is a Hispanic person who speaks a mixture of Spanish and English (because I only know so many Spanish words) but denies that he can speak English despite saying that in English. My daughter tries to convince of it but he stubborn. Apparently hands and feet have a rivalry against one another; hands think that they are better than feet and vice versa. That is why they are so far apart on the body because if they were closer than they would fight. My daughter has been trying in vain to get them both to see that hands and feet are not so different and they should get along. She is coming over this weekend so you can imagine that tomorrow afternoon I will be playing three different people in the water with her.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

An attempt to define person or personhood: a person is a sentient being aware of its individual identity. Identity is the distinguishing character of a unique sentient being. Personhood is the quality or condition of being an individual person. (latter sentence taken from a dict. – couldn't improve on it )

 

[py3ak]

No Ruben I am probably not describing myself very well, sorry for that. I guess circular might be a good way to describe it. We as humans ask what a person is and we try to hatch out whatever the essence of person is but we will always end up talking about ourselves in some way. But the meaning of whatever attributes we come up with are essential to being human will always have been learned by watching humans and our experience as a human.

Even if we ascribe these attributes to other things (angels) we still learned the meanings of the words from being human and observing humans. Or else we would not know what they were. Would we be able to understand as creatures on a creaturely level what God’s anger was unless we experienced anger? No, we need the human element to make sense of those things. I hope this is better than my previous posts in explaining things.

Thanks, James, that does clear almost everything up - except how it militates against there being a human essence.

Oh totally off topic but not only is there Mr. Hand but my right foot is Mr. Foot. He is a Hispanic person who speaks a mixture of Spanish and English (because I only know so many Spanish words) but denies that he can speak English despite saying that in English. My daughter tries to convince of it but he stubborn. Apparently hands and feet have a rivalry against one another; hands think that they are better than feet and vice versa. That is why they are so far apart on the body because if they were closer than they would fight. My daughter has been trying in vain to get them both to see that hands and feet are not so different and they should get along. She is coming over this weekend so you can imagine that tomorrow afternoon I will be playing three different people in the water with her.

You have too good an imagination to waste on philosophy. You should develop a puppet show with absurd humor instead. I know I would laugh immoderately if it were along these lines. You have no idea how happy the idea of a person who speaks Spanglish and is convinced he speaks no English makes me.

 

[jwright82]

Thanks, James, that does clear almost everything up - except how it militates against there being a human essence.

Yeah, I would say that we can nail down what the essence of being human, the only creature made in God’s image. Which because angels have many of the same abilities that we do (reason, linguistic capabilities, etc.) we must say that being a person is not exclusive to us as humans but that my whole point is that someone who is sleeping is no less of a person than someone who is awake, which is what I fear could be the end result of trying to define what a person is away from how we ordinarily use the term.

Also mowing the lawn or talking on cell phones is no less “essential” to being human than being able to reason. Now obviously people who never had cell phones are no less human than those who do but we shouldn’t adopt the substance type view of metaphysics and call those sorts of things mere accidents attached to our essence. And thus on one level unimportant. But the unfolding of that essence in new ways that become concrete examples of our essence. As we unfold ourselves within the various law spheres of creation we take new examples of what it means to be human and all of them are as important as the rest.

You have too good an imagination to waste on philosophy. You should develop a puppet show with absurd humor instead. I know I would laugh immoderately if it were along these lines. You have no idea how happy the idea of a person who speaks Spanglish and is convinced he speaks no English makes me.

Oh thank you Ruben you are too kind. The only other character I have is guard dog, my left hand. He guards wherever he is whether he lives there or not. He clearly has anger management issues and my daughter is working with him on calming down and resolving his “issues” with trespassers in a kinder and gentler way. He is a work in progress.

 

[py3ak]

I'm not sure I'm ready to discard the distinction between substance and accident: it is useful to have a way to say "doing this is human, but not doing it in no way makes you less human."

It sounds like you have the nucleus for an amazing series of hilarious adventures, James. The psychological quirks make rich material for endearing comedy, and I'm sure your daughter is becoming quite the therapist.

 

[John Bunyan]

I thought this topic had died long ago. Since it didn't, what about these 3 definitions?
(I) A person is a being created in the image of God.
(II) A person is a being whose nature possesses the properties of setience and the ability to reason.
(III) A person is a being with the capacity of having a "center of consciousness".
is obvious to me that (I) isn't good enough, for it applies only to creatures. But we could add an "or a divine consciousness" after it - is this a proper definition of the persons of the Trinity? (II) and (III) seems to apply to all human and angelic beings, however, and to God - but there are good chances that I commited a mistake in both of them. Someone please point the errors, if they exist.

 

[jwright82]

I'm not sure I'm ready to discard the distinction between substance and accident: it is useful to have a way to say "doing this is human, but not doing it in no way makes you less human."

It sounds like you have the nucleus for an amazing series of hilarious adventures, James. The psychological quirks make rich material for endearing comedy, and I'm sure your daughter is becoming quite the therapist.

I don't object to that at all. Yeah my daughter just loves to help people.

I thought this topic had died long ago. Since it didn't, what about these 3 definitions?
(I) A person is a being created in the image of God.
(II) A person is a being whose nature possesses the properties of setience and the ability to reason.
(III) A person is a being with the capacity of having a "center of consciousness".
is obvious to me that (I) isn't good enough, for it applies only to creatures. But we could add an "or a divine consciousness" after it - is this a proper definition of the persons of the Trinity? (II) and (III) seems to apply to all human and angelic beings, however, and to God - but there are good chances that I commited a mistake in both of them. Someone please point the errors, if they exist.

But this is the problem because 2 and 3 can be argued to apply to animals as well. How you define those terms can be applied or not applied to babies or animals.

 

[John Bunyan]

I'm not sure I'm ready to discard the distinction between substance and accident: it is useful to have a way to say "doing this is human, but not doing it in no way makes you less human."

It sounds like you have the nucleus for an amazing series of hilarious adventures, James. The psychological quirks make rich material for endearing comedy, and I'm sure your daughter is becoming quite the therapist.

I don't object to that at all. Yeah my daughter just loves to help people.

I thought this topic had died long ago. Since it didn't, what about these 3 definitions?
(I) A person is a being created in the image of God.
(II) A person is a being whose nature possesses the properties of setience and the ability to reason.
(III) A person is a being with the capacity of having a "center of consciousness".
is obvious to me that (I) isn't good enough, for it applies only to creatures. But we could add an "or a divine consciousness" after it - is this a proper definition of the persons of the Trinity? (II) and (III) seems to apply to all human and angelic beings, however, and to God - but there are good chances that I commited a mistake in both of them. Someone please point the errors, if they exist.

But this is the problem because 2 and 3 can be argued to apply to animals as well. How you define those terms can be applied or not applied to babies or animals.

Ain't reason a distinctive human characteristic? By reason I mean the ability to know and to know that you know, and by sentience the ability to feel and know that you feel. I thought these excluded animals - even the most radical animal rights activists seem to dispute that animals don't posess sentience and the ability to reason as I have defined it.
I tried to include every human in my definitions, matter fact I was thinking about babies when I wrote "whose nature possesses" or "with the capacity to"; don't want to exclude human beings in their early existence nor defficient people like abortionists and nazis.
What about (IV) "A person is a being with a soul"?

 

[jwright82]

I'm not sure I'm ready to discard the distinction between substance and accident: it is useful to have a way to say "doing this is human, but not doing it in no way makes you less human."

It sounds like you have the nucleus for an amazing series of hilarious adventures, James. The psychological quirks make rich material for endearing comedy, and I'm sure your daughter is becoming quite the therapist.

I don't object to that at all. Yeah my daughter just loves to help people.

I thought this topic had died long ago. Since it didn't, what about these 3 definitions?
(I) A person is a being created in the image of God.
(II) A person is a being whose nature possesses the properties of setience and the ability to reason.
(III) A person is a being with the capacity of having a "center of consciousness".
is obvious to me that (I) isn't good enough, for it applies only to creatures. But we could add an "or a divine consciousness" after it - is this a proper definition of the persons of the Trinity? (II) and (III) seems to apply to all human and angelic beings, however, and to God - but there are good chances that I commited a mistake in both of them. Someone please point the errors, if they exist.

But this is the problem because 2 and 3 can be argued to apply to animals as well. How you define those terms can be applied or not applied to babies or animals.

Ain't reason a distinctive human characteristic? By reason I mean the ability to know and to know that you know, and by sentience the ability to feel and know that you feel. I thought these excluded animals - even the most radical animal rights activists seem to dispute that animals don't posess sentience and the ability to reason as I have defined it.
I tried to include every human in my definitions, matter fact I was thinking about babies when I wrote "whose nature possesses" or "with the capacity to"; don't want to exclude human beings in their early existence nor defficient people like abortionists and nazis.
What about (IV) "A person is a being with a soul"?

But how do you know a being or person is sentient? How do you someone is being rational? It is certain behaviors that they exhibit that you interpret as being sentient or rational. But how do you know that an animal does not posses these same properties on some lesser level? Note that I do not doubt that your definitions of what a person are wrong just that when we try to boil it down to an exact definition than you run into trouble.

 

[crixus]

Are they more than one person, definitely not. But I do think that God takes in account the actions of the mentally ill. I mean the seriously mentally ill that have no control of themselves. I feel bad for anyone in pain whether it's physical, emotional or mental. But unfortunately there's still a stigma against the mentally ill in our society. But I guess it's just natural to be weary or frightened of what we don't understand? I do admit that I've felt uneasy at times when approached by people that have an obvious mental illness, but I try to be compassionate and helpful whenever possible.