I once watched a documentary about icebergs. They are so incredibly beautiful and breathtaking. And it is true - what lies beneath the surface is like being in another world - like a parallel universe. There are these gorgeous tunnels or tunnel like pathways throughout the underside of the iceberg. It is so difficult to describe. I was so taken with it I remember that i actually began to cry because it left me breathless.
This is what the human being is actually like I think - so very much that is never revealed.
Not with everyone. Some people you think you know them, then they turn around to abandon you when you need them most. Nothing more painful imo.
We never really completely know a person, Artimas. We just touch the surface and we do have to in a way protect ourselves. And you’re right, there is nothing more painful than being left by someone who you thought cared and loved you. I was abandoned as a child. Then I was a child so I don’t like to use the word “abandoned” now though i understand that the feeling remains the same though we use another word. But just remember and i know that it sounds clichest - you really do have yourself and you have to find ways in which to preserve that self, be good to that self, even working through the pain and the anguish. We do matter.
I agree to some extent but I feel there is still a distinction between human being and person and there is a distinction between individual and self.
Jr Wells
Maybe the word you’re groping for in here is “universal”. A human being is the “universal” connotation for the person. lol
A person is the more singuarly intimate word for one that is also a human being. But then again, a human being is personal and intimate.
Maybe kind of an analogy would an English Garden and a flower such as a rose.
English Garden equals human being[s]
Person equals rose, lilly, etc.
Please don’t make me bang my head against the wall. 
I’m not seeing much of a distinction here - I don’t think.
Let’s see - individuals are each separate organism.
A self is more than just that. A self encompasses everything within that individual.
I rather think that the self is just a connotation for someone who has a greater depth than can be seen in the individual though individuals are also selves.
I don’t think I see much differences in them though.
Maybe the question you need to ask is WHY you want to see the differences? I don’t know.
I think you have got a good idea Arc.
The difference is subtle but nevertheless there is a difference and this difference is significant such that it changes how we use/relate to the words.
I agree…
Human Being = universal
Person = the more intimate human
Individual = unique human being
self = the intimate individual
It is not me that wants to see differences. These words are social constructs and have meanings. If not we would still be cavemen with one word for everything “Ugg”
lol Yes, as in sound and sound waves. 
I forgot about this thread.
I don’t get it? sound vs soundwaves…
Atheris
I think that there is a distinction here. A human being is a member ~~ one might even say part of a collective 
~~of a species, an organism encompassing flesh, blood, and all that goes with one’s physiology, psychology, spirituality…
A person is an individual who is entitled to, by reason of his humanity, certain rights and priviledges …
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–
…unless he has lost them by reason of his unlawful or unethical behavior.
.
Even an undeveloped or handicapped human has “human” rights, Atheris, by reason of their humanity and being ALIVE.
We recognize that animals have rights by reason of their being alive, feeling emotional and physical pain, and having more consciousness than a misquito. We try to care for and fight for the abused animal.
Why would we think less of a HUMAN BEING who is undeveloped and handicapped?
Do you think that those who drew up the Declaration of Independence were leaving out the handicapped?
Wouldn’t you say that the rights of those people need to be guarded even more in a particular way?
And that’s probably the notion or perspective which is responsible for the deaths of unborn children. Let’s face it, Atheris, when it comes to developed human beings, just how many are there of us?
And that’s true for born children and adults alike, also. Perspective affects the sense of the development, and that may be detrimental, or useful to adaptation. Lol.
Why are you laughing, Rumi? Are you drinking in these moments? 
Can you explain what you mean by this a bit more?
Is a newborn humam a person?
Isn’t the fact that it is a human being enough? If it isn’t a person yet, it will develop into one.
Not sure, someone said a person is a developed human. I thought this was strange… Meaning that children and those with intellectual disabilities do not fit into the category of person.
The Universal Guiding Principle;
All humans to strive for optimal well-being of humanity.
The bottom line is the term ‘person’ can be defined in various contexts in alignment with the above guiding principle.
The following are very appropriate meanings;
In the above ‘person’ in Philosophy is ‘a self-conscious or rational being’ for certain purposes and context.
Since there is no such thing as an absolute ontological person, there is no issue to define a person in philosophy to include a living human being that is not necessary self-conscious or not rational within context.
As per my O.P.
Within this I did not propose that there is an absolute ontological person; instead I am proposing that schools of thought develop depending upon the ontological view of person a person (or collective) adopts. I do not tend to think that schools of thought develop in response to what it means to be human, individual, or self.
Human is all encompassing
Individual and self is too restrictive
Whereas person implies something personal, something intimate and something in common with others.
I feel it is from this boundary point that other doctrines follow (including concepts of self and individual).
from wikipedia
Society will impose upon a developing child an encasement of knowledge forming a mind, including a conditioned set of responses. That is one aspect of person.
Once pleasure and pain are experienced by the human organism, personal knowledge will seek a future of pleasure and avoid pain. This process can be destructive compared to what Nature intended in her organization and management of all life.
There is a uniqueness in every individual person and there is also a sameness in how the nature of the human organism functions biologically.
Intelligence and open-mindedness are needed not so much to discover many other ways to take advantage of Nature, but to realize limitations on the destructive nature of thought.
Can you please elaborate on this statement. Thank you.
A cat can be a person.
So can a human
But more than that
We are attributes.