![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Question: are there any other organizations within this movement other than Personhood USA and its affiliates? If so, what are they? -- Gigacephalus ( talk) 19:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The focus on the movement may be mistaken. I'm inclined to think that our coverage should be at Personhood legislation, with a section in that article about the people advocating such legislation. In another article, I'm doing an edit referring to the legislation, which I'll make a piped link here while waiting to see what other editors think about a move. JamesMLane t c 20:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
This article is about a variety of issues related to "personhood" not just one movement. USchick ( talk) 01:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Whether the 14th Amendment prohibits sex discrimination or not is not a question of women's "personhood" as defined in this article. If the Constitution required discrimination, then it would obviously be relevant to personhood. But at most, according to Scalia who believes that it does not prohibit sex discrimination, the Constitution is silent regarding women's personhood. In fact, Scalia would argue that the Constitution also does not prohibit discrimination against men as a class. If neither men nor women are persons, then who is left? Obviously, this controversy has nothing to do with personhood and does not belong in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.156.84.229 ( talk) 08:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The article reads fairly parochial in its focus on many US specific constitutional debates such as Roe vs Wade and the recent commentary on the personhood of women. Such debates do not matter for the personhood of the vast majority of the world's population. In comparison the article doesn't even mention important debates such as the Valladolid debate of 1550 where Spanish colonizers debated whether the people of the new world should be considered full persons with legal and religoius rights. Women's rights and abolition movements were not US specific movements either. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 01:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
There is an article, non-human, that currently acts as a content fork to the non-human personhood section in this article. In addition to being completely unsourced, it also has an incomprehensible section on artificial intelligence and has a title that is an adjective (something we try to avoid. I think the article is completely salvageable and should go the way of non-human animals (i.e. a redirect). Thoughts? — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 13:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I think the articles should be merged; also the quality of what few sources this article uses are questionable and the part on hypothetical beings is completely un-sourced. It would actually look more journalistic to call that section "In popular culture" and to just be quoting science fiction stories than to be using original research. Even if someone actually knows some sentient machines, or happens to be an alien; half animal, or some kind of undead or spirit, than unless that information has been published before, and read by a substantial amount of people, than there's no reason to be mentioning it here. CensoredScribe ( talk) 18:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
This is
circular reasoning
circular definition because:
Personhood is the status of being a
person. But simultaneously:
A person is a being, such as a human, that has certain capacities or attributes constituting personhood,[...]
85.193.232.131 (
talk) 03:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Where it is more than simply a synonym for 'human being', 'person' figures primarily in moral and legal discourse. A person is a being with a certain moral status, or a bearer of rights. But underlying the moral status, as its condition, are certain capacities.
There is a sense in which the word 'person' is merely the singular form of 'people' and in which both terms connote no more than membership in a certain biological species. In those senses of the word which are of greater philosophical interest, however, the criteria for being a person do not serve primarily to distinguish the members of our own species from the members of other species. Rather, they are designed to capture those attributes which are the subject of our most humane concern with ourselves and the source of what we regard as most important and most problematical in our lives. Now these attributes would be of equal significance to us even if they were not in fact peculiar and common to the members of our own species. What interests us most in the human condition would not interest us less if it were also a feature of the condition of other creatures as well. Our concept of ourselves as persons is not to be understood, therefore, as a concept of attributes that are necessarily species-specific. It is conceptually possible that members of novel or even of familiar nonhuman species should be persons; and it is also conceptually possible that some members of the human species are not persons.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Personhood. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Would pre-humans ( Neanderthals et al.) be accorded personhood? I'm reading a few scholarly articles that look at this question.
The article lacks clarity of conception. The discussion presented in the following linked book review would help clarify these issues--as would a reading of the book under review in the article.
See (the proof copy .pdf file of) the review by professor Daniel Lapsley in the journal Human Development :
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306023669_The_Plot_Thickens_Personality_and_Its_Development
Former President of the National Right to Life Committee John Willke stated, "Contained within the single cell who I once was, was the totality of everything I am today." This is a biological argument, distinct from religious or philosophical arguments. The personhood debate, upon which state legislative attempts are based, SHOULD consider this. I have a PhD in developmental biology (the study of embryonic development) so I have a dog in this race. But the personhood section is such a mess I don't know where to begin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tchad49 ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Please create a dedicated article. The personhood-yielding computer is an important field of study.
Paragraphs:
1. personhood cannot exist within the pre-Universal nothingness because it is shaped socially within an environment, 2. personhood has components of memory which are more fundamental than the person (god is not god being non-fundamental), 3. scientific cosmogony has nothing to do with personhood (watch: Before the Big Bang 4 and all the other episodes), 4. everything is a process and a phenomenon (even statues are processes a. their atoms vibrate - otherwise we have no matter, b. a piece of rock becomes an artefact of sculpture only within the symbolic processing of the artist and the viewer) - personhood is one out of many natural phenomena, and certainly a secondary/high level (study: high level program) and non-fundamental (personhood requires many components and processes, most of which aren't exclusively related to persons)
non-personocentricity, non-personocentrality
The state of a phenomenon or process which does not have a person or persons as its basic constituent, or a procedure non related to persons at all.
https://www.protagon.gr/anagnwstes/o-proswpokentrismos-tis-ellinikis-kentroaristeras-30097000000
Yes humans are persons; but personocentricity is the hypernym of anthropocentricity. (it is a side-hypernym because there are various cladological/cladistical criteria (if you force one interpretation you cancel different aspects, some hypernyms are actually side-hypernyms / hypernyms under a specific interpretation or field of study).
Personocentricity and anthropocentricity are sometimes used erroneously for the purpose of rhetorical trickery. Some rightists who support the personhood of god, claim that a non-rightist party is equally personocentric as monotheistic religions, but they don't mention anthropocentricity. (Using a hypernym not because of the tendency of generalization, but because they want to fight against the enemies of personocentricity which in that case are anthropocentrists). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:411B:7500:F106:F554:E8D1:7BF7 ( talk) 21:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Should be mentioned. Is personhood self-caused, or the fields of physics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:842C:5400:C1EC:ED32:B5A7:B61A ( talk) 21:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Which has three definitions:
If an orator confuses these two for persuasion; it's causally shallow word-trickery.
Is personhood precosmically self-evident?
1. Any idea, including the impersonal universe might be considered timeless.
Therefore this question is erroneously put.
The real question is concerning substantiality.
Was personhood a self-evident precosmic substantiality?
2. That's a specific question. Ideas are timeless, and makes no sense to speak generically about mere notions without the presence of thinkers. The core question is about the substantiality of a meaning/idea/semantic object/object (as defined in philosophy) which corresponds to a specific semantics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4114:107C:784D:540A:FB23:78D0 ( talk) 12:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
The philosophy section is somewhat disorganized, without clear boundaries regarding what kind of philosophical idea the people that are quoted are describing - I tried to fix that somewhat with the quotation from Francis Beckwith and noticed that much of his definition regarding personhood relates to abortion arguments - with that in mind, would viewpoints about personhood in bioethics belong in the philosophy section or the disability section? It's an important aspect of personhood that the article has not adequately addressed that I'd like to but I don't know where the information would belong. Feralcateater000 ( talk) 18:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
One problem is that supernaturalists (υπερφυσιστές [Greek], because υπερφυσικοί is also an adjective) ascribe personhood before it's present, to beings that will usually manifest it in later times.
We should put some informations about how Islam defines a "person". 103.47.182.22 ( talk) 16:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
2.98.33.84 ( talk) 15:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Question: are there any other organizations within this movement other than Personhood USA and its affiliates? If so, what are they? -- Gigacephalus ( talk) 19:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The focus on the movement may be mistaken. I'm inclined to think that our coverage should be at Personhood legislation, with a section in that article about the people advocating such legislation. In another article, I'm doing an edit referring to the legislation, which I'll make a piped link here while waiting to see what other editors think about a move. JamesMLane t c 20:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
This article is about a variety of issues related to "personhood" not just one movement. USchick ( talk) 01:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Whether the 14th Amendment prohibits sex discrimination or not is not a question of women's "personhood" as defined in this article. If the Constitution required discrimination, then it would obviously be relevant to personhood. But at most, according to Scalia who believes that it does not prohibit sex discrimination, the Constitution is silent regarding women's personhood. In fact, Scalia would argue that the Constitution also does not prohibit discrimination against men as a class. If neither men nor women are persons, then who is left? Obviously, this controversy has nothing to do with personhood and does not belong in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.156.84.229 ( talk) 08:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The article reads fairly parochial in its focus on many US specific constitutional debates such as Roe vs Wade and the recent commentary on the personhood of women. Such debates do not matter for the personhood of the vast majority of the world's population. In comparison the article doesn't even mention important debates such as the Valladolid debate of 1550 where Spanish colonizers debated whether the people of the new world should be considered full persons with legal and religoius rights. Women's rights and abolition movements were not US specific movements either. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 01:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
There is an article, non-human, that currently acts as a content fork to the non-human personhood section in this article. In addition to being completely unsourced, it also has an incomprehensible section on artificial intelligence and has a title that is an adjective (something we try to avoid. I think the article is completely salvageable and should go the way of non-human animals (i.e. a redirect). Thoughts? — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 13:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I think the articles should be merged; also the quality of what few sources this article uses are questionable and the part on hypothetical beings is completely un-sourced. It would actually look more journalistic to call that section "In popular culture" and to just be quoting science fiction stories than to be using original research. Even if someone actually knows some sentient machines, or happens to be an alien; half animal, or some kind of undead or spirit, than unless that information has been published before, and read by a substantial amount of people, than there's no reason to be mentioning it here. CensoredScribe ( talk) 18:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
This is
circular reasoning
circular definition because:
Personhood is the status of being a
person. But simultaneously:
A person is a being, such as a human, that has certain capacities or attributes constituting personhood,[...]
85.193.232.131 (
talk) 03:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Where it is more than simply a synonym for 'human being', 'person' figures primarily in moral and legal discourse. A person is a being with a certain moral status, or a bearer of rights. But underlying the moral status, as its condition, are certain capacities.
There is a sense in which the word 'person' is merely the singular form of 'people' and in which both terms connote no more than membership in a certain biological species. In those senses of the word which are of greater philosophical interest, however, the criteria for being a person do not serve primarily to distinguish the members of our own species from the members of other species. Rather, they are designed to capture those attributes which are the subject of our most humane concern with ourselves and the source of what we regard as most important and most problematical in our lives. Now these attributes would be of equal significance to us even if they were not in fact peculiar and common to the members of our own species. What interests us most in the human condition would not interest us less if it were also a feature of the condition of other creatures as well. Our concept of ourselves as persons is not to be understood, therefore, as a concept of attributes that are necessarily species-specific. It is conceptually possible that members of novel or even of familiar nonhuman species should be persons; and it is also conceptually possible that some members of the human species are not persons.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Personhood. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Would pre-humans ( Neanderthals et al.) be accorded personhood? I'm reading a few scholarly articles that look at this question.
The article lacks clarity of conception. The discussion presented in the following linked book review would help clarify these issues--as would a reading of the book under review in the article.
See (the proof copy .pdf file of) the review by professor Daniel Lapsley in the journal Human Development :
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306023669_The_Plot_Thickens_Personality_and_Its_Development
Former President of the National Right to Life Committee John Willke stated, "Contained within the single cell who I once was, was the totality of everything I am today." This is a biological argument, distinct from religious or philosophical arguments. The personhood debate, upon which state legislative attempts are based, SHOULD consider this. I have a PhD in developmental biology (the study of embryonic development) so I have a dog in this race. But the personhood section is such a mess I don't know where to begin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tchad49 ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Please create a dedicated article. The personhood-yielding computer is an important field of study.
Paragraphs:
1. personhood cannot exist within the pre-Universal nothingness because it is shaped socially within an environment, 2. personhood has components of memory which are more fundamental than the person (god is not god being non-fundamental), 3. scientific cosmogony has nothing to do with personhood (watch: Before the Big Bang 4 and all the other episodes), 4. everything is a process and a phenomenon (even statues are processes a. their atoms vibrate - otherwise we have no matter, b. a piece of rock becomes an artefact of sculpture only within the symbolic processing of the artist and the viewer) - personhood is one out of many natural phenomena, and certainly a secondary/high level (study: high level program) and non-fundamental (personhood requires many components and processes, most of which aren't exclusively related to persons)
non-personocentricity, non-personocentrality
The state of a phenomenon or process which does not have a person or persons as its basic constituent, or a procedure non related to persons at all.
https://www.protagon.gr/anagnwstes/o-proswpokentrismos-tis-ellinikis-kentroaristeras-30097000000
Yes humans are persons; but personocentricity is the hypernym of anthropocentricity. (it is a side-hypernym because there are various cladological/cladistical criteria (if you force one interpretation you cancel different aspects, some hypernyms are actually side-hypernyms / hypernyms under a specific interpretation or field of study).
Personocentricity and anthropocentricity are sometimes used erroneously for the purpose of rhetorical trickery. Some rightists who support the personhood of god, claim that a non-rightist party is equally personocentric as monotheistic religions, but they don't mention anthropocentricity. (Using a hypernym not because of the tendency of generalization, but because they want to fight against the enemies of personocentricity which in that case are anthropocentrists). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:411B:7500:F106:F554:E8D1:7BF7 ( talk) 21:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Should be mentioned. Is personhood self-caused, or the fields of physics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:842C:5400:C1EC:ED32:B5A7:B61A ( talk) 21:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Which has three definitions:
If an orator confuses these two for persuasion; it's causally shallow word-trickery.
Is personhood precosmically self-evident?
1. Any idea, including the impersonal universe might be considered timeless.
Therefore this question is erroneously put.
The real question is concerning substantiality.
Was personhood a self-evident precosmic substantiality?
2. That's a specific question. Ideas are timeless, and makes no sense to speak generically about mere notions without the presence of thinkers. The core question is about the substantiality of a meaning/idea/semantic object/object (as defined in philosophy) which corresponds to a specific semantics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4114:107C:784D:540A:FB23:78D0 ( talk) 12:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
The philosophy section is somewhat disorganized, without clear boundaries regarding what kind of philosophical idea the people that are quoted are describing - I tried to fix that somewhat with the quotation from Francis Beckwith and noticed that much of his definition regarding personhood relates to abortion arguments - with that in mind, would viewpoints about personhood in bioethics belong in the philosophy section or the disability section? It's an important aspect of personhood that the article has not adequately addressed that I'd like to but I don't know where the information would belong. Feralcateater000 ( talk) 18:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
One problem is that supernaturalists (υπερφυσιστές [Greek], because υπερφυσικοί is also an adjective) ascribe personhood before it's present, to beings that will usually manifest it in later times.
We should put some informations about how Islam defines a "person". 103.47.182.22 ( talk) 16:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
2.98.33.84 ( talk) 15:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)