- Mattman
- Unregistered
Re: The Metaphysics of Deformity
" I'm skeptical that it still even qualifies, as mulch is no longer a tree trunk. The question is mainly because the process of the organism deforms itself, and I don't know how that cashes out in terms of how we think about tele."
This reminds me of when, I beleive David Oderberg said that a fetus without a head could not be considered anything other than a human being- just as you and I are.
What exactly is the bare minimum an embryo must have to be considered a "human being"? Is there different ways that one can be considered a human being? Confused as to how a headless fetus is to be considered a human being but not a Hydatidiform mole.
- Greg
- Moderator
Offline 
- Registered: 6/27/2015
- Posts: 516
Re: The Metaphysics of Deformity
Mattman wrote:
This reminds me of when, I beleive David Oderberg said that a fetus without a head could not be considered anything other than a human being- just as you and I are.
What exactly is the bare minimum an embryo must have to be considered a "human being"? Is there different ways that one can be considered a human being? Confused as to how a headless fetus is to be considered a human being but not a Hydatidiform mole.
Well, all fetuses start out, and spend some time, with no head. Unless one thinks that a human being is something other than a human organism (then what?), I don't see what the problem is. It seems that having a head is not a necessary condition for being human.
I don't think that there are (interesting, significantly helpful) necessary and sufficient conditions for saying that a fetus is a human being, for those would be necessary and sufficient conditions for something's possessing an essence, which I don't think generally exist. A human being is a distinct human animal, and we can generally recognize when such a thing exists. There might be vague cases, like the one I mentioned in my first response to this thread.
- iwpoe
- Member
Offline
- From: Knoxville, TN
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 1,080
Re: The Metaphysics of Deformity
I think the significant difference would be, if there is any, that the tumor embryo no longer has even the proper tele of a person: it is literally "just a blob of cells" as opposed to the usual figurative use of that phrase because it cannot any longer even differentiate itself into a proper human body (even a vastly disabled one) and is entirely dependent on a hoast to continue living. I'm inclined to admit that a proper embryo even in early stages can be called human, because it is indeed part of the normal human life cycle to appear in that fashion, and an embryo like that is still directed at the full grown human being.
Another way to ask that could be what's the difference between an acorn, and oak, and oak mulch (though, mulch is unfortunately dead). I really do have to get into Medical oddities or something like cultivated tissue to provide strong parallel examples and other domain.
Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
- •
Thread Starter- Mattman
- Unregistered
Re: The Metaphysics of Deformity
This reminds me of when, I beleive David Oderberg said that a fetus without a head could not be considered anything other than a human being- just as you and I are.
What exactly is the bare minimum an embryo must have to be considered a "human being"? Is there different ways that one can be considered a human being? Confused as to how a headless fetus is to be considered a human being but not a Hydatidiform mole.Well, all fetuses start out, and spend some time, with no head. Unless one thinks that a human being is something other than a human organism (then what?), I don't see what the problem is. It seems that having a head is not a necessary condition for being human.
I don't think that there are (interesting, significantly helpful) necessary and sufficient conditions for saying that a fetus is a human being, for those would be necessary and sufficient conditions for something's possessing an essence, which I don't think generally exist. A human being is a distinct human animal, and we can generally recognize when such a thing exists. There might be vague cases, like the one I mentioned in my first response to this thread.
I'm confused how you do not think something would have to have a sufficient or necessary condition to be called a human being. How are you claiming to know a human being from a molar pregnancy?
human organisms do start without heads--they do not have any body parts. but you didn't think that it was that they had a trajectory to grow a brain from the get go that made them a human being.
Do you beleive that all human conceptus are human beings per se?
An
- Mattman
- Unregistered
Re: The Metaphysics of Deformity
I think the significant difference would be, if there is any, that the tumor embryo no longer has even the proper tele of a person: it is literally "just a blob of cells" as opposed to the usual figurative use of that phrase because it cannot any longer even differentiate itself into a proper human body (even a vastly disabled one) and is entirely dependent on a hoast to continue living. I'm inclined to admit that a proper embryo even in early stages can be called human, because it is indeed part of the normal human life cycle to appear in that fashion, and an embryo like that is still directed at the full grown human being.
Another way to ask that could be what's the difference between an acorn, and oak, and oak mulch (though, mulch is unfortunately dead). I really do have to get into Medical oddities or something like cultivated tissue to provide strong parallel examples and other domain.
I think it's in areas like this where I have issues with the substance view in particular.
Yes acorns oaks and mulch are all part of the same life process bo doubt. But can one say an ovum is a human being because it is human life? There is clearly an abrupt change, no?
- Mattman
- Unregistered
Re: The Metaphysics of Deformity
It's also interesting to note that there is still much back and forth between pro life scientist who argue a human being begins at the beginning of fertilization and those who argue it begins upon completion. What is this one quality that is being looked for?
- iwpoe
- Member
Offline
- From: Knoxville, TN
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 1,080
Re: The Metaphysics of Deformity
The ovum had no proper internal human tele. It is transformed in substance by fertilization.
Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
- •
Thread Starter- Greg
- Moderator
Offline
- Registered: 6/27/2015
- Posts: 516
Re: The Metaphysics of Deformity
I'm confused how you do not think something would have to have a sufficient or necessary condition to be called a human being.
Well, there might be some necessary and sufficient conditions. For instance, I said, "A human being is a distinct human animal." But that necessary and sufficient condition obviously isn't helpful; it doesn't give an analysis of "human being" in terms of some more basic, more straightforward, more easily known constituent concepts.
How are you claiming to know a human being from a molar pregnancy?
I didn't claim to know a human being from a molar pregnancy. I'm not sure of all of the biological specifics of the latter so I couldn't say.
But I have pointed out that I think there can be epistemologically vague cases. I think distinct human animals are human beings, and fetuses are distinct human animals in a way that skin cells and gametes are not. But just as a grown man could donate an organ to someone else and then die, so perhaps could a fetus "donate" an organ (or some cells) to its mother and then die, though the organ (or cells) go on living as part of the mother.
How does one tell whether it's a fetus that is still living in the mother or whether it is more like the organ donation case? I don't think there's an algorithm one can apply here. One could make a more or less sound defeasible judgment if one knows enough about a particular situation, but I don't claim that there is some uncontroversial resolution in cases like that.
human organisms do start without heads--they do not have any body parts. but you didn't think that it was that they had a trajectory to grow a brain from the get go that made them a human being.
I'm not sure what you are saying or asking here.
Do you beleive that all human conceptus are human beings per se?
Yeah.
- Timocrates
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 7/06/2015
- Posts: 357
Re: The Metaphysics of Deformity
Form precedes and is the basis of ends in an individual substance and is, consequently, the basis of deformity. It would be ludicrous to look at the development of a dog, say, and declare it deformed because it wasn't becoming human or incapable of actualizing natural human functions. It is an accidental consequence of being human that we are susceptible to things like deformity, disease and death (we are born that we might live not to die).
There is nothing about an embryo that in itself should give reason to think it is unfit to be animated by a human soul; indeed, the fact the embryo already has its own sex assigned and unique human DNA begs the question. Deformity is posterior in nature as the word suggests. Had there been no hermaphrodites, one might have thought that a basic genetic excess of sex assignment in the embryo would mean that the person would be lacking something necessary to fulfill their end as a human being and may not even be 'valid' (human beings always have a sex; indeed, one could argue hermaphrodites are in a sense nature erring on the side of caution - sexuality is just that fundamental to our basic physical form/pattern/structure that it is as if nature doesn't know what to 'build' as it were without it - hence these theories that would make gender meaningless are quite absurd: a hermaphrodite is not asexual and we have never known an instance of an asexual human being. Indeed, I don't think it's even a possibility - certainly not in nature).
It is correct to think that a massively deformed embryo, say (i.e. an embryo that has become massively deformed), is almost certainly incapable of providing the material basis for just about any and every activity we consider fully or properly human. But being knocked unconscious just as easily renders a man incapable of actualizing anything fully or properly human.
Last edited by Timocrates (2/24/2016 10:47 am)
"The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16 (3).
Defend your Family. Join the U.N. Family Rights Caucus.