# Is someone with multiple personality disorder more than one person?*



## John Bunyan

Why? What are the minimal requirements to classify as a person? Also, if one of his personalities is Rev. Jekyll and the other terrorist Hyde, what can we say about his eternal affairs?

* also know as Dissociative identity disorder


----------



## Unoriginalname

The notion of multiple personalities is more a construction of soap opera fiction than clinical observation. The phenomenon known as Dissociative identity disorder is a dissociation not to sound redundant. It is not a person born with two conflicting identities but a person creating a separate identity in order to separate themselves from some sort of event, memory or trauma. It is in the end a coping mechanism. This is the DSM IV's description of it. 


> Diagnostic criteria for 300.14 Dissociative Identity Disorder
> (DSM IV - TR)
> (cautionary statement)
> 
> A. The presence of two or more distinct identities or personality states (each with its own relatively enduring pattern of perceiving, relating to, and thinking about the environment and self).
> 
> B. At least two of these identities or personality states recurrently take control of the person's behavior.
> 
> C. Inability to recall important personal information that is too extensive to be explained by ordinary forgetfulness.
> 
> D. The disturbance is not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance(e.g., blackouts or chaotic behavior during Alcohol Intoxication) or a general medical condition (e.g., complex partial seizures). Note: In children, the symptoms are not attributable to imaginary playmates or other fantasy play.


Now we can argue the merit of the DSM all day long but I just wanted to post it to point out that what most people call multiple personality disorder is not thought to exist. 

I have no philosophical background but I think that created personas do not qualify as separate persons.


----------



## Miss Marple

I have heard that this disorder has been generally disproven, Sybil for example has been exposed as a hoax, and I've read that current psychological theories tend to disbelieve the existence of multiple personalities.


----------



## Claudiu

John Bunyan said:


> What are the minimal requirements to classify as a person?



That's a tough one, philosophically speaking. I mean, it's hard to pinpoint _exactly_ what a person is, and I don't find much of the literature out there on personal identity all that helpful. I would say that the soul has something to with it though. And I think that a person with multiple personalities still has one soul (i.e. still one numerical person).


----------



## John Bunyan

To anyone wanting to read about the medical condition, I've found this article helpful: Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) Treatment, Causes, Symptoms, Statistics - MedicineNet (although I am no doctor and I can't really judge it's content )



Claudiu said:


> John Bunyan said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are the minimal requirements to classify as a person?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a tough one, philosophically speaking. I mean, it's hard to pinpoint _exactly_ what a person is, and I don't find much of the literature out there on personal identity all that helpful. I would say that the soul has something to with it though. And I think that a person with multiple personalities still has one soul (i.e. still one numerical person).
Click to expand...

Must each soul have only one person? Can you summarize what you know about the subject? (like current held opinions on personal identity)


Miss Marple said:


> I have heard that this disorder has been generally disproven, Sybil for example has been exposed as a hoax, and I've read that current psychological theories tend to disbelieve the existence of multiple personalities.


I don't think that's correct.


Unoriginalname said:


> The notion of multiple personalities is more a construction of soap opera fiction than clinical observation. The phenomenon known as Dissociative identity disorder is a dissociation not to sound redundant. It is not a person born with two conflicting identities but a person creating a separate identity in order to separate themselves from some sort of event, memory or trauma. It is in the end a coping mechanism. This is the DSM IV's description of it.


That position (about the causes of DID) is amongst the most held ones. According to the article: "While there is no proven specific cause of DID, the prevailing psychological theory about how the condition develops is as a reaction to childhood trauma"


> I have no philosophical background but I think that created personas do not qualify as separate persons.


What is necessary to be a person? I mean, I know I'm a person because I have my own mind, my own memories, my self-perception and so on. Don't created personas have all of this?


----------



## Miss Marple

Sybil is a fraud, one of many accounts: 

Multiple-personality drama &ldquo;Sybil&rdquo; was a fraud, says new book - NYPOST.com


----------



## NB3K

June 1, 1993 my diagnosis was

Axis I. 296.06 Bi-Polar Disorder, Mixed
313.81 Oppositional Defiant Disorder
313.80 Identity Disorder
314.01 History of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
V61.80 Other specific circumstances

Axis II. 315.00 Developmental Reading Disorder
315.31 Developmental Expressive Receptive Language Disorder

Axis III. History of Abnormal EEG
R/O Partial Complex Seizure Disorder

Axis IV. Psychosocial stressors-4 severe

Axis V. GAF is 15






With that said, people that KNOW me say I have a multiple personality disorder. But I would argue that it's the Mixed Bi-Polar.


----------



## John Bunyan

Miss Marple said:


> Sybil is a fraud, one of many accounts:
> 
> Multiple-personality drama “Sybil” was a fraud, says new book - NYPOST.com



I don't know who Sybil is. I was talking about the idea that DID has been generally disproven


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I knew someone who claimed to have this problem at one time. I would have to say that it seems to be a coping mechanism for trauma if it is real. But I would more than likely say it is some form of Demon possession or oppression. It might also be chemical. I have done some Chemicals before and fully operated but don't remember. What sad events. 

Anyways, I went to Church with this persons son over 20 years ago and we sold her book at the bookstore. I am trying to get into contact with him to see what has happened this many years later and what he thinks now. It is a very complicated matter. 

Amazon.com: Raging Waves (9780932081230): Co. Winter: Books


----------



## newcreature

As the DSM-IV points out, it is separate "personality states", not separate persons. Also, scientifically, it is difficult for one to argue that the disorder does not exist, since it can be clinically diagnosed using the DSM-IV criteria. 

I do wonder about the eternal state of such a person. If one is truly afflicted with such mental illness, and their trust is in Christ alone through faith for salvation, then they are a child of God and their salvation is sure. However, if one uses their mental illness as an excuse for sin, then they are probably not a Christian. 

That's my $0.02.


----------



## Unoriginalname

newcreature said:


> As the DSM-IV points out, it is separate "personality states", not separate persons. Also, scientifically, it is difficult for one to argue that the disorder does not exist, since it can be clinically diagnosed using the DSM-IV criteria.


When I called it a fiction I meant the notion of a jekyll/hyde is a fiction and is not what is being described by a DID. To further your point, DID is categorized with dissociative fugues, I do not think that someone would argue that a fugue state is a separate person from the previous state of the person. Likewise assuming a false identity (false in that it is intrusive and not the original or properly the owner; if you will of the body) should not be described as a separate person because it is a creation of the person.


----------



## Jack K

I know someone who's been diagnosed with Dissociative Identity Disorder. I'm convinced she isn't faking. She had severe psychological trauma in her childhood and the doctors think that's what brought it on. That sounds reasonable to me, though I won't completely rule out other causes or other stuff going on. It isn't an easy thing to understand. And figuring out what's happening is made more confusing by the fact that psychiatrists or therapists (or faith healers, for that matter) may suggest an explanation that the desperate patient then latches onto and starts to believe, accurate or not.

In my friend's case (and I've heard this is true in most cases), there's clearly a dominant, main personality. I don't think we ought to consider the other "personalities" to be separate persons. She's one person whose mind sometimes does dissociative things. It will act out being someone else so fully that this takes over briefly and she forgets she even did it.

The dominant personality is the one that matters when we're discussing matters of faith, obedience and repentance. The other is an aberration that we look to God to deliver her from. In her case, there is progress.


----------



## newcreature

Unoriginalname said:


> newcreature said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the DSM-IV points out, it is separate "personality states", not separate persons. Also, scientifically, it is difficult for one to argue that the disorder does not exist, since it can be clinically diagnosed using the DSM-IV criteria.
> 
> 
> 
> When I called it a fiction I meant the notion of a jekyll/hyde is a fiction and is not what is being described by a DID. To further your point, DID is categorized with dissociative fugues, I do not think that someone would argue that a fugue state is a separate person from the previous state of the person. Likewise assuming a false identity (false in that it is intrusive and not the original or properly the owner; if you will of the body) should not be described as a separate person because it is a creation of the person.
Click to expand...


Very well then. I guess I was being too literal when I should have been thinking more logically.


----------



## Unoriginalname

Jack K said:


> That sounds reasonable to me, though I won't completely rule out other causes or other stuff going on. It isn't an easy thing to understand. And figuring out what's happening is made more confusing by the fact that psychiatrists or therapists (or faith healers, for that matter) may suggest an explanation that the desperate patient then latches onto and starts to believe, accurate or not.


I think that is a great point. When I did my psych rotation it was amazing how quickly people would seem to line up more closely with the symptoms of the disorder they were diagnosed with after they were diagnosed. I am not suggesting that they were faking it but that we tend fill the roles that others put us in. The mind is a whacky thing.


----------



## a mere housewife

Unoriginalname said:


> . . . we tend fill the roles that others put us in.



I think perhaps we tend to fill the role we see ourselves in? -- that other people enter in because we tend to define ourselves as they see us? It seems that we know, even if not on a conscious level, that identity is 'common' property: that we are what we are in relationships: not in some forever unknowable corner of our psyche. We were created to exist in an utterly 'known and knowing' (as far as our creaturely being goes: obviously God is incapable of being exhaustively known except by Himself) relationship with God -- to live 'Coram Deo'; and our behavior seems to demonstrate that even where we deny it. I don't know what ramifications it has for severe disorders resulting from terrible trauma -- but for the identity issues we more normally face, I think it can be a terrible and alterative bondage to try to meet that utter human need for definition in relationship, outside of Christ; and it is freeing to identify ourselves in our Creator's knowing of us in steadfast love and favor and forgetfulness of our sins in Christ. It is part of that beautiful liberty of a child of God that we are learning to 'live up to'.

(I'm afraid I can't say much however, to the purpose of this particular disorder or the main focus of the thread, except that my heart for people who have suffered so terribly that they would still be suffering so.)


----------



## Apologist4Him

John Bunyan said:


> Why? What are the minimal requirements to classify as a person? Also, if one of his personalities is Rev. Jekyll and the other terrorist Hyde, what can we say about his eternal affairs?
> 
> * also know as Dissociative identity disorder



I just wonder what the modern Christian and non-Christian psychologist response would be to a person with a problem similar to the one we read about in the Gospel according to Mark Chapter 5:

Mark 5:1 "They came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gerasenes. 2 And when Jesus had stepped out of the boat, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit. 3 He lived among the tombs. And no one could bind him anymore, not even with a chain, 4 for he had often been bound with shackles and chains, but he wrenched the chains apart, and he broke the shackles in pieces. No one had the strength to subdue him. 5 Night and day among the tombs and on the mountains he was always crying out and cutting himself with stones. 6 And when he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and fell down before him. 7 And crying out with a loud voice, he said, “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me.” 8 For he was saying to him, “Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!” 9 And Jesus asked him, “What is your name?” He replied, “My name is Legion, for we are many.” 10 And he begged him earnestly not to send them out of the country. 11 Now a great herd of pigs was feeding there on the hillside, 12 and they begged him, saying, “Send us to the pigs; let us enter them.” 13 So he gave them permission. And the unclean spirits came out, and entered the pigs, and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed down the steep bank into the sea and were drowned in the sea." - *NKJV

*Could demon possession have a "multiple personality" disorder like effect on a person? From what we read in Mark, the man healed by Jesus, had been possessed by many unclean spirits or demons. Is this perplexing problem no longer possible (however rare it might be) with modern unregenerate mankind? If so, on what basis?


----------



## sevenzedek

A question that REALLLY gets at the meat of the perceived question is the one about the person who has two different sets of DNA. I have heard convincing evidence of such a case.


----------



## Unoriginalname

sevenzedek said:


> A question that REALLLY gets at the meat of the perceived question is the one about the person who has two different sets of DNA. I have heard convincing evidence of such a case.


Not necessarily because they are functioning as one human. Would someone who had an organ transplant be two people? Personhood is more than just genetics.


----------



## newcreature

Apologist4Him said:


> Could demon possession have a "multiple personality" disorder like effect on a person? From what we read in Mark, the man healed by Jesus, had been possessed by many unclean spirits or demons. Is this perplexing problem no longer possible (however rare it might be) with modern unregenerate mankind? If so, on what basis?


I believe this is a strong possibility. It seems to me there are two causes of mental illness. The first, widely accepted by science, is the presence of trauma and/ or chemical imbalance. We know that this has merit because people with hormonal imbalances can often become mentally unstable. 

Now we know that Jesus is real and that He has all power. And we also know that demons are real, even though they have only as much power as God allows them. With this in mind, and please correct me if I am not applying this scripture correctly, but we are created as beings both natural and spiritual.

So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

(1 Corinthians 15:42-45; 1 Corinthians 15:46-49 ESV)

Therefore, I believe that demon possession, as demonstrated in the New Testament, was certainly real then and is also possible now. I believe that some people who are reprobate may be given over to evil spirits. I believe that modern medicine, psychiatry, and psychology can not help someone with mental illness due to demon possession. However, I do believe that modern medicine may help the condition of one afflicted with mental illness due to trauma or chemical imbalance.


----------



## John Bunyan

Could we say that the several personalities are dissociated parts of one person, then? Are "personality states" then both half-persons? By the way, can anyone here propose a definition of person? Are small children persons? Are unborn children persons? I know they're humans, and have souls, but is being a person and having a soul synonimous?


----------



## a mere housewife

I have been thinking of Psalm 139 -- I don't think a 'person' can be defined apart from the knowledge God has of us? I don't think personhood can be defined outside of relationship to our Creator.

I don't think dissociative personality states would be 'half persons' in that light. They would be manifestations of the way sin and its effects disrupt and destroy the integrity of identity before God.

edit: it is perhaps also worth pointing out that we define the 'Persons' of the Godhead by their relationships to one another.


----------



## Afterthought

^A wonderful thought that is philosophically interesting and insightful too, in my own opinion (though an opinion which is, admittedly, that of one not anywhere near an expert on the topic)! Thank you for that thought.


----------



## a mere housewife

Raymond, that's very kind. I'm sure it does have a lot of ramifications in ways that are probably beyond me (I remember reading something by Bertrand Russell where if I remember correctly, he said that propositions reflect reality by way of the relationships expressed; and of course we know that Truth is a Person in relation to other Persons, and not a mere proposition at all); but one very simple application, very much up the alley of a housewife to make -- and which would perhaps spare so much of this kind of pain -- is something Carol from this board said recently: that people in our lives are not our possessions. They belong to the Lord. They are gifts in our lives to be cherished every day.


----------



## jwithnell

> When I did my psych rotation it was amazing how quickly people would seem to line up more closely with the symptoms of the disorder they were diagnosed with after they were diagnosed.


 Fascinating observation. I suppose there might be some relief -- ah, so xyz diagnosis explains these weird things that have been happening to me ...


----------



## OPC'n

I talk to myself AND answer myself. Does that qualify as having MPD?


----------



## jwright82

John Bunyan said:


> Could we say that the several personalities are dissociated parts of one person, then? Are "personality states" then both half-persons? By the way, can anyone here propose a definition of person? Are small children persons? Are unborn children persons? I know they're humans, and have souls, but is being a person and having a soul synonimous?



Person in how it used in ordinary language answers your question. We use the term person to refer to ourselves and others like us. We must not make the referential fallacy that when we use a word it must refer to some substance or essence or thing. That is in classical philosophy it was thought that for a term like unicorn to make any sense there must be some ideal or essence, perhaps in the mind of God or us, out there for the term to refer to even though there isn’t any such thing as unicorns. 

That idea is false because it is not true that all words must refer to some ideal or essence or thing to make sense. My daughter and I have a game that she loves to play that reflects this idea well. We pretend that my right hand is a person named Mr. Hand. He is scared of everything and speaks in a very high pitched voice. The game is that she tries to help him come to grips with his own fear despite the fact that he refuses to. Now there are propositions, statements that can be either true or false (over and against other statements like to direct some one like “go over there”), that can made about Mr. Hand and some are true and some are false.

But is my right hand actually Mr. Hand to which those propositions refer to? Is there some ideal, Plato here, realm with an ideal of Mr. Hand to which my propositions refer to? Is there some essential substance in my right hand, Aristotle here, that contains the essence of Mr. Hand to which my propositions refer to? Is there some idea in the mind of God, Augustine here, of Mr. Hand that my propositions refer to? I think we can safely answer NO to all those previous questions. But does that somehow make the game we play without meaning? Again, no it doesn’t.

The propositions about Mr. Hand do not have to refer to some object, essence, or ideal to be meaningful. This relates to personhood in the same way. Is there some essential property that we posses that personhood refers to give the idea meaning? There doesn’t have to be. We lose our skin cells completely after a certain amount of time once that happens do we have to pick a new name for ourselves? No we do not because we use person, and our name, to refer to us as we are without reference to some underlying essence we posses. This may not answer every question but I hope it is edifying.


----------



## Apologist4Him

newcreature said:


> I believe this is a strong possibility. It seems to me there are two causes of mental illness. The first, widely accepted by science, is the presence of trauma and/ or chemical imbalance. We know that this has merit because people with hormonal imbalances can often become mentally unstable.
> 
> Now we know that Jesus is real and that He has all power. And we also know that demons are real, even though they have only as much power as God allows them.
> 
> Therefore, I believe that demon possession, as demonstrated in the New Testament, was certainly real then and is also possible now. I believe that some people who are reprobate may be given over to evil spirits. I believe that modern medicine, psychiatry, and psychology can not help someone with mental illness due to demon possession. However, I do believe that modern medicine may help the condition of one afflicted with mental illness due to trauma or chemical imbalance.



I agree. What makes me sad though, is Christians (especially Charismatics/Pentecostals) whom are of the mindset that a Christian could be possessed by evil spirits when Jesus taught that "No one can serve two masters", “He who is not with Me is against Me", "if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand". I do believe a Christian sealed (Eph 1:13, Eph 4:30) by the Holy Spirit (sorry for redundancy) can be influenced and or afflicted by evil spirits (temptations, depression, etc.), while not being possessed. However a Christian, because of the authority of Christ, and belonging to Him, has authority over evil spirits and demons, whether put into practice or not. Many times in affliction, I've called on Jesus name, and reminded the evil one that Jesus Christ is Lord. From the book of Job we learn exactly what you said "they have only as much power as God allows them". Though we are perplexed and troubled at times by the extent of which God allows, we can only hope and trust our Redeemer to bring about good for His purpose and glory from it, even though He would be perfectly just to allow us all to wallow in our sins.


----------



## John Bunyan

jwright82 said:


> John Bunyan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could we say that the several personalities are dissociated parts of one person, then? Are "personality states" then both half-persons? By the way, can anyone here propose a definition of person? Are small children persons? Are unborn children persons? I know they're humans, and have souls, but is being a person and having a soul synonimous?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Person in how it used in ordinary language answers your question. We use the term person to refer to ourselves and others like us. We must not make the referential fallacy that when we use a word it must refer to some substance or essence or thing. That is in classical philosophy it was thought that for a term like unicorn to make any sense there must be some ideal or essence, perhaps in the mind of God or us, out there for the term to refer to even though there isn’t any such thing as unicorns.
> 
> That idea is false because it is not true that all words must refer to some ideal or essence or thing to make sense. My daughter and I have a game that she loves to play that reflects this idea well. We pretend that my right hand is a person named Mr. Hand. He is scared of everything and speaks in a very high pitched voice. The game is that she tries to help him come to grips with his own fear despite the fact that he refuses to. Now there are propositions, statements that can be either true or false (over and against other statements like to direct some one like “go over there”), that can made about Mr. Hand and some are true and some are false.
> 
> But is my right hand actually Mr. Hand to which those propositions refer to? Is there some ideal, Plato here, realm with an ideal of Mr. Hand to which my propositions refer to? Is there some essential substance in my right hand, Aristotle here, that contains the essence of Mr. Hand to which my propositions refer to? Is there some idea in the mind of God, Augustine here, of Mr. Hand that my propositions refer to? I think we can safely answer NO to all those previous questions. But does that somehow make the game we play without meaning? Again, no it doesn’t.
> 
> The propositions about Mr. Hand do not have to refer to some object, essence, or ideal to be meaningful. This relates to personhood in the same way. Is there some essential property that we posses that personhood refers to give the idea meaning? There doesn’t have to be. We lose our skin cells completely after a certain amount of time once that happens do we have to pick a new name for ourselves? No we do not because we use person, and our name, to refer to us as we are without reference to some underlying essence we posses. This may not answer every question but I hope it is edifying.
Click to expand...

There is no definition of person, then, or is person just other way of saying "intelligent"? Like, angels and humans are persons, and they are intelligent. You're saying that there is no definition of person or simply that we don't need to have something in us to "person" to make sense? Is person a primitive concept?


----------



## jwithnell

Shouldn't a question regarding personhood be answered by what scripture has revealed concerning man? We are created body and soul. However you might define mind (that's another whole discussion) you may not remove reference to the spiritual from the physical and the mind would be encompassed by one or the other. A person's body may be dead, but their spirit is with Christ, and both parts -- one corresponding to the other -- exist though separated. There may be a seriously ill individual, but unless you are dealing with demonic possession, that individual is one human being, body and soul, regardless of what he or she may be experiencing.


----------



## py3ak

jwright82 said:


> John Bunyan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could we say that the several personalities are dissociated parts of one person, then? Are "personality states" then both half-persons? By the way, can anyone here propose a definition of person? Are small children persons? Are unborn children persons? I know they're humans, and have souls, but is being a person and having a soul synonimous?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Person in how it used in ordinary language answers your question. We use the term person to refer to ourselves and others like us. We must not make the referential fallacy that when we use a word it must refer to some substance or essence or thing. That is in classical philosophy it was thought that for a term like unicorn to make any sense there must be some ideal or essence, perhaps in the mind of God or us, out there for the term to refer to even though there isn’t any such thing as unicorns.
> 
> That idea is false because it is not true that all words must refer to some ideal or essence or thing to make sense. My daughter and I have a game that she loves to play that reflects this idea well. We pretend that my right hand is a person named Mr. Hand. He is scared of everything and speaks in a very high pitched voice. The game is that she tries to help him come to grips with his own fear despite the fact that he refuses to. Now there are propositions, statements that can be either true or false (over and against other statements like to direct some one like “go over there”), that can made about Mr. Hand and some are true and some are false.
> 
> But is my right hand actually Mr. Hand to which those propositions refer to? Is there some ideal, Plato here, realm with an ideal of Mr. Hand to which my propositions refer to? Is there some essential substance in my right hand, Aristotle here, that contains the essence of Mr. Hand to which my propositions refer to? Is there some idea in the mind of God, Augustine here, of Mr. Hand that my propositions refer to? I think we can safely answer NO to all those previous questions. But does that somehow make the game we play without meaning? Again, no it doesn’t.
> 
> The propositions about Mr. Hand do not have to refer to some object, essence, or ideal to be meaningful. This relates to personhood in the same way. Is there some essential property that we posses that personhood refers to give the idea meaning? There doesn’t have to be. We lose our skin cells completely after a certain amount of time once that happens do we have to pick a new name for ourselves? No we do not because we use person, and our name, to refer to us as we are without reference to some underlying essence we posses. This may not answer every question but I hope it is edifying.
Click to expand...


James, perhaps I'm not understanding you very clearly, but your words do have a referential meaning: there is an idea of Mr. Hand to which your words refer - you and your daughter share a conceptual construct. Mr. Hand's substance is that of mental fiction - but mental fiction has a reality and existence on its own terms: Uncle Toby is a real invention, even though he exists only in the words of _Tristram Shandy_. It seems to unlettered me that denying referentiality is contrary to the usage of ordinary language, not to mention common sense.

By the way, I am delighted to make Mr. Hand's acquaintance, and if he did not think it improper would gladly shake him, given the opportunity.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

The term _person_ denotes a complete substance endowed with reason, and, consequently, a responsible subject of its own actions. 'Personality' is not an essential and integral part of a _nature_. A _person_ is a nature with something added, namely, independent subsistence, individuality. (Src: Berkhof, _Systematic Theology_)

AMR


----------



## Rich Koster

OPC'n said:


> I talk to myself AND answer myself. Does that qualify as having MPD?



Not when working through catechisms


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

On a lighter note, when I had not quite mastered my sweet tooth, I used to say to myself, "Mr. Pig, you are not in charge here, _*I*_ am!" And occasionally I would go on a fast to clinch who was boss (the Lord enabling me). (Would you believe, I had first written "feast" instead of "fast"! I think Mr. Pig still is around, but he doesn't surface _too_ often.)

Back to the OP: I think the Gadarene demoniac is a case in point, and I think such an occurrence, or something similar, possible today. I don't have a high regard for the DSM IV, seeing it as the "counsel of the ungodly" (Ps 1:1), although it may have its uses. Humanistic psychology – even the "Christian" varieties – may be able classify behaviors, but cannot well treat them, seeing as it does not account for spiritual realities, such as God, sin, guilt, forgiveness, the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit, etc etc. With the "Christian varieties", their being generally client-centered rather than Christ-centered, are dangerous.


----------



## ddharr

I have been a psychiatric nurse for 8 years. Any personality disorder requires much prayer. I also believe we all have a duel nature which affects our whole being Paul describes it best

For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. 16If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. 17Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.


----------



## jwright82

John Bunyan said:


> There is no definition of person, then, or is person just other way of saying "intelligent"? Like, angels and humans are persons, and they are intelligent. You're saying that there is no definition of person or simply that we don't need to have something in us to "person" to make sense? Is person a primitive concept?



Think of the ways you use the word in everyday life. Is a human being who is asleep a person? If we define person by “intelligence” than how can we say that the human being who is sleeping is intelligent? So when we try to pin down an exact definition or essence of what a person is than we will always be able to find some group out there of human beings who don’t qualify under that definition. In short a person is a word that we use to refer to human beings, what is a human being that specially created creature who is alone made in the image of God. But we use the word person in so many different contexts that it is hard to force them all into one definition of “you are a person if you posses qualities x, y, z, a, b, c.” 




py3ak said:


> James, perhaps I'm not understanding you very clearly, but your words do have a referential meaning: there is an idea of Mr. Hand to which your words refer - you and your daughter share a conceptual construct. Mr. Hand's substance is that of mental fiction - but mental fiction has a reality and existence on its own terms: Uncle Toby is a real invention, even though he exists only in the words of Tristram Shandy. It seems to unlettered me that denying referentiality is contrary to the usage of ordinary language, not to mention common sense.
> 
> By the way, I am delighted to make Mr. Hand's acquaintance, and if he did not think it improper would gladly shake him, given the opportunity.



They do refer to something it’s just not an essence or substance in my hand or whatever that they must refer to. Sure they refer to my mental fictional construction as well as the social game that my daughter and I play but there is no essence that they must refer to in order to be meaningful. As long as she and I both understand what’s being said and the rules of the “game” than that is all we need to have a meaningful discussion with Mr. Hand. 

In the context of this discussion we don’t have to posses some essence of personhood in order for our statements about persons to be meaningful. As long as you understand what I am saying with the statement “that person with the green hat stole my car” than that is all we need to make sense. You see in times past it was thought that our words must be grounded in some essence or idea somewhere to be meaningful we now know that that is not the case. 

If you say well aren’t your words grounded in own ideas, sure they are but here’s the kicker. Do you ever think in a non-language? Or is it always the case that your “thoughts” are themselves always in English or whatever? And where did you learn the language that you think in? From your parents probably and they taught you an established social linguistic pattern that as you matured and learned the meaning of words and there uses your conceptual scheme, or worldview could appropriate here as well, grew and grew. The more you could talk the more you could think. 

Again we use the word “person” to refer to human beings and all that they do. If were to point to a computer and say that “that person stole my PDF file” you would be confused. 

Mr. Hand would be delighted to meet you but he is scared of bats so I wouldn’t mention the whole Batman thing.


----------



## py3ak

James, perhaps this is not the thread to discuss the matter fully, but I have to admit your words are making my sceptical senses tingle and my implausibility meter beep.

For one thing, when you say "we now know," that raises a red flag. Obviously in the long history of philosophy fictional characters (and counterfactual hypotheticals, and other ideas which would raise the same difficulties) came up for discussion before recent times, along with the fact that we can discuss them meaningfully and yet they don't exist in the same way that the author who invented them did. If you haven't read it, I would very strongly recommend the essay "Bluspels and Flalansferes" by C.S. Lewis.

It is one thing to say that the ability to have a meaningful conversation about something doesn't mean that it has an essence; it is another thing to move from that to say that the idea of essence is itself meaningless. To take your example of a person sleeping, apart from the fact of dreaming, the continuity between his intelligence before he fell asleep and after he woke up seems to show that there was something in which that intelligence inhered: though the exercise of the faculty was in abeyance, yet it was somewhere preserved in latency - if not by inhering in something continuously subsistent, it is difficult to say where.


----------



## a mere housewife

Ruben, perhaps this is not the thread to discuss the matter fully, but regarding your new signature quote, "You are far from being a bad man. Go and reform." (-Mark Twain, or if quotes are attributable to fictional characters, the man that corrupted Hadleyburg)


----------



## jwright82

py3ak said:


> James, perhaps this is not the thread to discuss the matter fully, but I have to admit your words are making my sceptical senses tingle and my implausibility meter beep.





py3ak said:


> It is one thing to say that the ability to have a meaningful conversation about something doesn't mean that it has an essence; it is another thing to move from that to say that the idea of essence is itself meaningless.



Well essence is a very meaningful logical category to have to make sense of things. But not everything has to have an essence somewhere out there, or in here, that all of our words must correspond to. You see it is not essences per se that is wrong it is a view of metaphysics that is in view here. It is pertinent to this discussion because the original post presupposed that there is some essence of personhood that we must discover and then we can answer this sort of question. But we use the word person for so much that you could never pin it down in an exact fashion. The essence of personhood is being human. We never use the word person to refer to anything other than human beings.




py3ak said:


> For one thing, when you say "we now know," that raises a red flag.



We now know means that philosophy has, despite many objectors, made progress in its own field. We have tools now to deal with certain philosophical problems that we didn’t have before. Some problems are in essence solved. My point is that despite the highly original nature of this question, which it is John and thank you for asking it (you clearly have a very keen mind so keep up the good work), we have the tools to resolve it.




py3ak said:


> To take your example of a person sleeping, apart from the fact of dreaming, the continuity between his intelligence before he fell asleep and after he woke up seems to show that there was something in which that intelligence inhered: though the exercise of the faculty was in abeyance, yet it was somewhere preserved in latency - if not by inhering in something continuously subsistent, it is difficult to say where.



The problem is that abortion and animal right activists love talking about the essence of personhood because they know that whatever definition we come up with they can under mind and support their cause. Because we use the word “person” to refer to so many different types of human behavior it is hard to define. Peter Singer gets it when he ironically responds that the best argument against pro-life groups is to call into question the presupposition of the sanctity of human life. Once you do that you are forced into a presuppositional battle that can be resolved only by presupposing that persons are image bearers of God and by pointing out the essence of persons as human beings.


----------



## py3ak

jwright82 said:


> Well essence is a very meaningful logical category to have to make sense of things. But not everything has to have an essence somewhere out there, or in here, that all of our words must correspond to. You see it is not essences per se that is wrong it is a view of metaphysics that is in view here. It is pertinent to this discussion because the original post presupposed that there is some essence of personhood that we must discover and then we can answer this sort of question. But we use the word person for so much that you could never pin it down in an exact fashion. The essence of personhood is being human. We never use the word person to refer to anything other than human beings.


James, that last line is simply false: we speak constantly of the Persons of the Trinity. I am glad you don't deny that there is such a thing as essence; but if you don't, then you need to have a criteria for distinguishing between what does and what doesn't. There is a quiddity proper even to conceptual constructs with no other form of existence.



jwright82 said:


> We now know means that philosophy has, despite many objectors, made progress in its own field. We have tools now to deal with certain philosophical problems that we didn’t have before. Some problems are in essence solved. My point is that despite the highly original nature of this question, which it is John and thank you for asking it (you clearly have a very keen mind so keep up the good work), we have the tools to resolve it.
> 
> The problem is that abortion and animal right activists love talking about the essence of personhood because they know that whatever definition we come up with they can under mind and support their cause. Because we use the word “person” to refer to so many different types of human behavior it is hard to define. Peter Singer gets it when he ironically responds that the best argument against pro-life groups is to call into question the presupposition of the sanctity of human life. Once you do that you are forced into a presuppositional battle that can be resolved only by presupposing that persons are image bearers of God and by pointing out the essence of persons as human beings.



If the solution to the problem of essence is to deny that there is such a thing, that hardly seems like a "solution." 
You may not mean this, but your final paragraph sounds as though the fact that people can turn a difficulty in a position against us means the position ought to be abandoned; that's essentially (notice how hard it is to avoid that word?) allowing them to dictate the agenda. I don't think theology or philosophy should be advanced according to what is polemically convenient: adversaries change, and what was polemically convenient because polemically awkward.


----------



## a mere housewife

Joshua said:


> All Who Care, perhaps this is not the thread fully to discuss the matter, but I use cologne and bathe at least once a month.



Joshua, this is neither the time nor the place for such an irrelevant observation.


----------



## BobVigneault

Let me offer another perspective. I have several special needs kids and they all came with a list of labels given them by a conference of psychologists. These labels are simply arbitrary names given to a person who shows leanings toward a certain list of patterns of behavior. The lines between these patterns are not neat and clear and rely more on a subjective observation than any kind of scientific assessment or check list. MPD and DID are just two more labels that give a shorthand to describing but not explaining a pattern of behaviors.

Now, consider this. We all, this side of the Fall, have more than one personality and it is only the severity of the fracture that sets us apart. A husband who views p0rn and then goes and greets his wife with a loving embrace is TWO persons. A person who shows care and love for a friend and then gossips behind his or her back is TWO persons. We were created to be fully dependent on God and we retain part of our primal personhood when we humbly depend on the Father, (as Christ did every moment), however, to the extent we attempt to live life apart from dependence on the Father, we fracture our personality. 

Our 'sense of self' is a result of the fall. Jesus, the second Adam, had no sense of independent self. He spoke what the Father spoke, he did what the Father did, "I and the Father are one." Our sense of self is simply an acknowledgment that we possess a fractured personality. Romans 7 describes the "wretched" battle between these multiple persons.

Only the Gospel can restore this fracture. In prayer we unite with Christ and express our dependence on the Father. In thanksgiving we lower our pride filled, independent self and unite with our humbled dependent self. The "clinical" DIDs and MPDs that we see in society are simply more severe 'fracturings' that we have brought on ourselves in response to horrible trauma, pain and suffering. Finding ourselves in the valley of the shadow of death without the shepherd is a terrifying experience.


----------



## jwright82

py3ak said:


> James, that last line is simply false: we speak constantly of the Persons of the Trinity. I am glad you don't deny that there is such a thing as essence; but if you don't, then you need to have a criteria for distinguishing between what does and what doesn't. There is a quiddity proper even to conceptual constructs with no other form of existence.



On a creaturely level this is true. But we are made in the image of God hence that is the basis for us analogically being able to ascribe to God “personhood”. I’ll start another thread on my views on essence and substance because to enter into that here would take this talk off course. 




py3ak said:


> If the solution to the problem of essence is to deny that there is such a thing, that hardly seems like a "solution."
> You may not mean this, but your final paragraph sounds as though the fact that people can turn a difficulty in a position against us means the position ought to be abandoned; that's essentially (notice how hard it is to avoid that word?) allowing them to dictate the agenda. I don't think theology or philosophy should be advanced according to what is polemically convenient: adversaries change, and what was polemically convenient because polemically awkward.



It’s a problem because both questions assume a certain view of things that isn’t totally true. When I said that the definition of person is human being what that means is that on a creaturely level, I didn’t emphasize this before thanks for pointing that out to me, all true propositions about persons are true propositions about human beings and vice versa. So yes someone (a synonymous term for person) with multiple personality disorder is a person because they are human. Just how hard is it to phrase the question without referring to them as a person in some way shape or form? 

But if we ask the question what is the essence of a person than we have to make some list that captures personhood in some abstract way that would conflict with the ways ordinary people use the term person. For some, not all, metaphysical problems the only reason there is a problem is the fact that you are asking it in the first place. There are all sorts of paradoxes out there that we can solve by simply showing that we are misusing language and that is why we have a problem.


----------



## py3ak

Bob, I think saying "no sense of self" may be an overstatement - there is clearly a consciousness of distinct identity.

James, I don't see how it's helpful in an analysis of ordinary language to dismiss one category of usage because of an analogical relationship between them. The analogical use is a category of ordinary language. Also, one would have no hesitation in speaking of different angels as different persons: Lucifer is not Gabriel.

It is certainly true that many questions ultimately wind up being nonsense - a use of words that is simply, in Lewis' phrase, "playing with counters". That is true in theology, in politics, criticism, etc. But it can also be that stating it's just a nonsense question is simply a way to sidestep an inconvenient issue, and so there has to be some way to distinguish, some rationale offered for _why_ something is nonsense. For instance, it increasingly seems to me like "premillenialism" is not only the wrong answer to a question, it's an answer to a wrong question. It presupposes a way of reading an apocalypse that is not at all in keeping with the nature of the Apocalypse, nor with its role as the confirmation and conclusion of prophesy. But I have to admit that _in history_ there will eventually be an answer to the question, "Is there a golden age for the church and the world, and does it precede, coincide with, or follow, the return of Christ." So even though I think terms like premillenialism and postmillenialism often betray a wrongheaded approach to Revelation, considered abstractly the question is reasonable enough. And in the same way, asking about the "essence" of humanity or personhood or what have you may assume an approach to the question that is wrongheaded, yet that cannot be used simply to sidestep the question of what it is that makes Peter and John and James to be the same sort of thing, though being at the same time distinct.


----------



## jwright82

py3ak said:


> Bob, I think saying "no sense of self" may be an overstatement - there is clearly a consciousness of distinct identity.
> 
> James, I don't see how it's helpful in an analysis of ordinary language to dismiss one category of usage because of an analogical relationship between them. The analogical use is a category of ordinary language. Also, one would have no hesitation in speaking of different angels as different persons: Lucifer is not Gabriel.
> 
> It is certainly true that many questions ultimately wind up being nonsense - a use of words that is simply, in Lewis' phrase, "playing with counters". That is true in theology, in politics, criticism, etc. But it can also be that stating it's just a nonsense question is simply a way to sidestep an inconvenient issue, and so there has to be some way to distinguish, some rationale offered for _why_ something is nonsense. For instance, it increasingly seems to me like "premillenialism" is not only the wrong answer to a question, it's an answer to a wrong question. It presupposes a way of reading an apocalypse that is not at all in keeping with the nature of the Apocalypse, nor with its role as the confirmation and conclusion of prophesy. But I have to admit that _in history_ there will eventually be an answer to the question, "Is there a golden age for the church and the world, and does it precede, coincide with, or follow, the return of Christ." So even though I think terms like premillenialism and postmillenialism often betray a wrongheaded approach to Revelation, considered abstractly the question is reasonable enough. And in the same way, asking about the "essence" of humanity or personhood or what have you may assume an approach to the question that is wrongheaded, yet that cannot be used simply to sidestep the question of what it is that makes Peter and John and James to be the same sort of thing, though being at the same time distinct.



Well by nonsense I mean that any attempt to define the essence of a person to settle this question will end up in absurdity. Take an example intellect, emotion, and will are all 3 things that persons have. Well animals certainly it could be argued think, feel, and choose to do stuff. Therefore they are persons but we naturally object that they are persons, why? Well because they are not us. Does a person sleeping have intellect, feel, and choose? Or someone who is in a coma? What about a baby? In all 3 questions our inclination is to say “yes”. But why do we say that? Because in all 3 examples it is a human being that is in view. 

Oh thanks for pointing out the angel part I missed that. But why do we ascribe personhood to them? Pointing out that God is a person or that we may ascribe personhood to angels doesn’t change the general use of the word or the problems with an exact essence of what is or isn’t a person because ascribing personal attributes only makes sense because I know what those words mean by observing other humans perform them.

Even if we say that a person is someone who has rational faculties. Well that still doesn’t answer the 3 questions above because how do you know if a being posses rational faculties? You observed humans behaving in ways that we describe as rational or that it results from possessing rational faculties.


----------



## py3ak

James, are you saying that the definition is circular? We start with ourselves, describe ourselves, and then insist that we are distinct, even though the terms we used to describe ourselves are applicable to other beings? I'm sorry if that is miles away from your position - I feel I'm not understanding something in your post, but I'm not sure what!


----------



## BobVigneault

Thanks Ruben, I should have said "an independent self".


----------



## jwright82

py3ak said:


> James, are you saying that the definition is circular? We start with ourselves, describe ourselves, and then insist that we are distinct, even though the terms we used to describe ourselves are applicable to other beings? I'm sorry if that is miles away from your position - I feel I'm not understanding something in your post, but I'm not sure what!



No Ruben I am probably not describing myself very well, sorry for that. I guess circular might be a good way to describe it. We as humans ask what a person is and we try to hatch out whatever the essence of person is but we will always end up talking about ourselves in some way. But the meaning of whatever attributes we come up with are essential to being human will always have been learned by watching humans and our experience as a human. 

Even if we ascribe these attributes to other things (angels) we still learned the meanings of the words from being human and observing humans. Or else we would not know what they were. Would we be able to understand as creatures on a creaturely level what God’s anger was unless we experienced anger? No, we need the human element to make sense of those things. I hope this is better than my previous posts in explaining things. 

Oh totally off topic but not only is there Mr. Hand but my right foot is Mr. Foot. He is a Hispanic person who speaks a mixture of Spanish and English (because I only know so many Spanish words) but denies that he can speak English despite saying that in English. My daughter tries to convince of it but he stubborn. Apparently hands and feet have a rivalry against one another; hands think that they are better than feet and vice versa. That is why they are so far apart on the body because if they were closer than they would fight. My daughter has been trying in vain to get them both to see that hands and feet are not so different and they should get along. She is coming over this weekend so you can imagine that tomorrow afternoon I will be playing three different people in the water with her.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

An attempt to define person or personhood: a person is a sentient being aware of its individual identity. Identity is the distinguishing character of a unique sentient being. Personhood is the quality or condition of being an individual person. (latter sentence taken from a dict. – couldn't improve on it )


----------



## py3ak

jwright82 said:


> No Ruben I am probably not describing myself very well, sorry for that. I guess circular might be a good way to describe it. We as humans ask what a person is and we try to hatch out whatever the essence of person is but we will always end up talking about ourselves in some way. But the meaning of whatever attributes we come up with are essential to being human will always have been learned by watching humans and our experience as a human.
> 
> Even if we ascribe these attributes to other things (angels) we still learned the meanings of the words from being human and observing humans. Or else we would not know what they were. Would we be able to understand as creatures on a creaturely level what God’s anger was unless we experienced anger? No, we need the human element to make sense of those things. I hope this is better than my previous posts in explaining things.



Thanks, James, that does clear almost everything up - except how it militates against there being a human essence. 



jwright82 said:


> Oh totally off topic but not only is there Mr. Hand but my right foot is Mr. Foot. He is a Hispanic person who speaks a mixture of Spanish and English (because I only know so many Spanish words) but denies that he can speak English despite saying that in English. My daughter tries to convince of it but he stubborn. Apparently hands and feet have a rivalry against one another; hands think that they are better than feet and vice versa. That is why they are so far apart on the body because if they were closer than they would fight. My daughter has been trying in vain to get them both to see that hands and feet are not so different and they should get along. She is coming over this weekend so you can imagine that tomorrow afternoon I will be playing three different people in the water with her.



You have too good an imagination to waste on philosophy. You should develop a puppet show with absurd humor instead. I know I would laugh immoderately if it were along these lines. You have no idea how happy the idea of a person who speaks Spanglish and is convinced he speaks no English makes me.


----------



## jwright82

> Thanks, James, that does clear almost everything up - except how it militates against there being a human essence.



Yeah, I would say that we can nail down what the essence of being human, the only creature made in God’s image. Which because angels have many of the same abilities that we do (reason, linguistic capabilities, etc.) we must say that being a person is not exclusive to us as humans but that my whole point is that someone who is sleeping is no less of a person than someone who is awake, which is what I fear could be the end result of trying to define what a person is away from how we ordinarily use the term. 

Also mowing the lawn or talking on cell phones is no less “essential” to being human than being able to reason. Now obviously people who never had cell phones are no less human than those who do but we shouldn’t adopt the substance type view of metaphysics and call those sorts of things mere accidents attached to our essence. And thus on one level unimportant. But the unfolding of that essence in new ways that become concrete examples of our essence. As we unfold ourselves within the various law spheres of creation we take new examples of what it means to be human and all of them are as important as the rest. 



> You have too good an imagination to waste on philosophy. You should develop a puppet show with absurd humor instead. I know I would laugh immoderately if it were along these lines. You have no idea how happy the idea of a person who speaks Spanglish and is convinced he speaks no English makes me.



Oh thank you Ruben you are too kind. The only other character I have is guard dog, my left hand. He guards wherever he is whether he lives there or not. He clearly has anger management issues and my daughter is working with him on calming down and resolving his “issues” with trespassers in a kinder and gentler way. He is a work in progress.


----------



## py3ak

I'm not sure I'm ready to discard the distinction between substance and accident: it is useful to have a way to say "doing this is human, but not doing it in no way makes you less human."

It sounds like you have the nucleus for an amazing series of hilarious adventures, James. The psychological quirks make rich material for endearing comedy, and I'm sure your daughter is becoming quite the therapist.


----------



## John Bunyan

I thought this topic had died long ago. Since it didn't, what about these 3 definitions?
(I) A person is a being created in the image of God.
(II) A person is a being whose nature possesses the properties of setience and the ability to reason.
(III) A person is a being with the capacity of having a "center of consciousness".
is obvious to me that (I) isn't good enough, for it applies only to creatures. But we could add an "or a divine consciousness" after it - is this a proper definition of the persons of the Trinity? (II) and (III) seems to apply to all human and angelic beings, however, and to God - but there are good chances that I commited a mistake in both of them. Someone please point the errors, if they exist.


----------



## jwright82

py3ak said:


> I'm not sure I'm ready to discard the distinction between substance and accident: it is useful to have a way to say "doing this is human, but not doing it in no way makes you less human."
> 
> It sounds like you have the nucleus for an amazing series of hilarious adventures, James. The psychological quirks make rich material for endearing comedy, and I'm sure your daughter is becoming quite the therapist.



I don't object to that at all. Yeah my daughter just loves to help people. 



> I thought this topic had died long ago. Since it didn't, what about these 3 definitions?
> (I) A person is a being created in the image of God.
> (II) A person is a being whose nature possesses the properties of setience and the ability to reason.
> (III) A person is a being with the capacity of having a "center of consciousness".
> is obvious to me that (I) isn't good enough, for it applies only to creatures. But we could add an "or a divine consciousness" after it - is this a proper definition of the persons of the Trinity? (II) and (III) seems to apply to all human and angelic beings, however, and to God - but there are good chances that I commited a mistake in both of them. Someone please point the errors, if they exist.



But this is the problem because 2 and 3 can be argued to apply to animals as well. How you define those terms can be applied or not applied to babies or animals.


----------



## John Bunyan

jwright82 said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I'm ready to discard the distinction between substance and accident: it is useful to have a way to say "doing this is human, but not doing it in no way makes you less human."
> 
> It sounds like you have the nucleus for an amazing series of hilarious adventures, James. The psychological quirks make rich material for endearing comedy, and I'm sure your daughter is becoming quite the therapist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't object to that at all. Yeah my daughter just loves to help people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought this topic had died long ago. Since it didn't, what about these 3 definitions?
> (I) A person is a being created in the image of God.
> (II) A person is a being whose nature possesses the properties of setience and the ability to reason.
> (III) A person is a being with the capacity of having a "center of consciousness".
> is obvious to me that (I) isn't good enough, for it applies only to creatures. But we could add an "or a divine consciousness" after it - is this a proper definition of the persons of the Trinity? (II) and (III) seems to apply to all human and angelic beings, however, and to God - but there are good chances that I commited a mistake in both of them. Someone please point the errors, if they exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But this is the problem because 2 and 3 can be argued to apply to animals as well. How you define those terms can be applied or not applied to babies or animals.
Click to expand...


Ain't reason a distinctive human characteristic? By reason I mean the ability to know and to know that you know, and by sentience the ability to feel and know that you feel. I thought these excluded animals - even the most radical animal rights activists seem to dispute that animals don't posess sentience and the ability to reason as I have defined it.
I tried to include every human in my definitions, matter fact I was thinking about babies when I wrote "whose nature possesses" or "with the capacity to"; don't want to exclude human beings in their early existence nor defficient people like abortionists and nazis.
What about (IV) "A person is a being with a soul"?


----------



## jwright82

John Bunyan said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I'm ready to discard the distinction between substance and accident: it is useful to have a way to say "doing this is human, but not doing it in no way makes you less human."
> 
> It sounds like you have the nucleus for an amazing series of hilarious adventures, James. The psychological quirks make rich material for endearing comedy, and I'm sure your daughter is becoming quite the therapist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't object to that at all. Yeah my daughter just loves to help people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought this topic had died long ago. Since it didn't, what about these 3 definitions?
> (I) A person is a being created in the image of God.
> (II) A person is a being whose nature possesses the properties of setience and the ability to reason.
> (III) A person is a being with the capacity of having a "center of consciousness".
> is obvious to me that (I) isn't good enough, for it applies only to creatures. But we could add an "or a divine consciousness" after it - is this a proper definition of the persons of the Trinity? (II) and (III) seems to apply to all human and angelic beings, however, and to God - but there are good chances that I commited a mistake in both of them. Someone please point the errors, if they exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But this is the problem because 2 and 3 can be argued to apply to animals as well. How you define those terms can be applied or not applied to babies or animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ain't reason a distinctive human characteristic? By reason I mean the ability to know and to know that you know, and by sentience the ability to feel and know that you feel. I thought these excluded animals - even the most radical animal rights activists seem to dispute that animals don't posess sentience and the ability to reason as I have defined it.
> I tried to include every human in my definitions, matter fact I was thinking about babies when I wrote "whose nature possesses" or "with the capacity to"; don't want to exclude human beings in their early existence nor defficient people like abortionists and nazis.
> What about (IV) "A person is a being with a soul"?
Click to expand...


But how do you know a being or person is sentient? How do you someone is being rational? It is certain behaviors that they exhibit that you interpret as being sentient or rational. But how do you know that an animal does not posses these same properties on some lesser level? Note that I do not doubt that your definitions of what a person are wrong just that when we try to boil it down to an exact definition than you run into trouble.


----------



## crixus

Are they more than one person, definitely not. But I do think that God takes in account the actions of the mentally ill. I mean the seriously mentally ill that have no control of themselves. I feel bad for anyone in pain whether it's physical, emotional or mental. But unfortunately there's still a stigma against the mentally ill in our society. But I guess it's just natural to be weary or frightened of what we don't understand? I do admit that I've felt _uneasy_ at times when approached by people that have an obvious mental illness, but I try to be compassionate and helpful whenever possible.


----------

