Conversation

I am going to have to contend with this article because I like it and it's very clear and I have only a vague feeling of disagreement, made slightly sharper by this paragraph where I'm like, hmm, I don't think personhood is so purely "societal"
Image
1
2
a snarky dumb way to put it is that Simler's version of personhood seems "bourgeoisie," like it's all about these universal basic norms of peaceful coexistence: for me personhood seems like too sacred a name for that, if that makes any sense
1
3
Replying to and
maybe also that if you emphatically say that someone is a person, I think it doesn't mean that they are extremely polite and conscientiously social contractual; actually if someone is REALLY a person they have be flawed, weird, "personal", there's an intimacy to it
1
2
but I recognize also that Simler is mostly using "person" as an adequate label for a certain idea, so it's not like I'm disagreeing with him, just trying to triangulate how what I'm thinking of is somehow different
1
3
Show replies