Rather than ask about the age old question: What is self?
I thought I would ask about “what is a person?” as the notion of “person” is different to the notion of “self”.
I would initially define person in the following ways (open to change):
Experiences feeling
Has thoughts
Has memories
Has wants
Is an agent of change of their own person and of their environment
I tend to think that various schools of thought (individual or collective) develop depending on the ontological view of “person” rather than the ontological view of “self”.
That is why I said there is a distinction between self (identity) and the notion of what it means to be a person. The words are related but not synonyms. When we say “he is a person” we are not referring to his identity. Instead we are referring to something else.
Possibly… Not sure. Can a non human animal intentionally change its own thoughts, feelings and memories? That is why I am asking for a definition of what it means to be a person. Looking for contributions.
I think there is a distinction in how we relate to the words human being and person. We use them in very different contexts and with a very different purpose. Like I said in the OP, I feel that various schools of thought are spawned from different ontological views of person. I don’t think much schools of thought arise out of what a human being is.
A lot of animals don’t have the same effect/affect on reality that we do… This is what separates us. What connects us is that they are from the same universe, composed of the very same material we are. They are our brothers/sisters really, even the plants. We should be taking care of life, not destroying it. Destroying it by greed, urge, hate, etc. If you want a real ‘Jesus’, look at the plants and animals. They die every day so that humanity can go on. Then we squander our abilities and everything given or sacrificed to live for the self/ego.
We have the most influence, because we can acquire knowledge then execute the knowledge as an idea into creation. Other species can do this I am sure, just not as efficiently or quickly as we can. Similarly, a beaver can build a dam, but can it build a laptop? We are not advanced in terms of wisdom, only advanced in terms of science/technology, and even then we’re hardly cutting it. An advanced species does not pollute their home to live or better yet, live better. In simple terms, an advanced species does not shit where they eat. Kind of ironic though seeing as everything grows from shit (fertilizer).
Possibly everything you say is true but my OP was avoiding the question of humanity and the question of self(identity).
I am asking what it means to be a person and I understand that this is not the normal sort of question people are used to thinking about.
It is a simple question but a difficult question to answer.
I am not quite sure I understand what the answer is you’re looking for then… if it has nothing to do with identity or being human. Is it the personality of someone? or does that have to do with identity as well?
What I am suggesting is that
Being human is a collective term for something we all have in common (it implies similarity).
Being an individual is a term that considers the differences we have (it implies unique).
Identity (self) implies an entity.
I have similar standards for a person, but may I ask why is this in the Religion and Spirituality and not in Psychology and Mind? There don’t seem to be any religious undertones.
Adding to that, I’d say that possessing the attributes that constitute personhood (being a person) differentiates us from animals and undeveloped/handicapped humans. Person is a developed human being.
Person is an idea. It’s a belief that some ‘one’ is controlling the world when actually nature is. All of us are puppets and nature is pulling the strings, but we think that we are acting. We have superimposed on nature a ‘person’ who is pulling those strings.
Generally, it is obvious we can differentiate humans from animals based on the DNA structure.
All humans has different levels of self and consciousness from proto to cerebral.
The critical consideration is at what point is a living thing with human DNA not a moral person.
If it is not a moral person, then it is not subject to basic moral issues.
The critical issues surrounding what is a moral person are,
the issue of abortion
the issue of withdrawing life support by medical personnel.
at what point is a human brain dead, thus not a person.