Jon, first: I insist that you are a philosopher, maybe not professionally, but from what I know of you all that means is that you don't charge people a fee when you give them truth. Philo (lover) + Sophist (of Wisdom). That you are.
Second. Now we are cooking with gas! No, I am not thinking specifically of the spirit in me. Your question brings up a big issue, but one that need not concern the abortion debate as I perceive it. Just one more useless sidetrack, rather. However, I think your question belies a bit of a conflation of two ideas which we may as well talk about to be clear.
One: The "me of me" which you suggest we may not be able to even talk about could simply be "Todd" or "Jon" as conceived in the mind of God, which is to say, there never has been a time when we were not on His mind, as He can never have a new idea. I think that is what you mean when you say the "me of me". Is that right?
Second: The spirit is an altogether different thing, though. Surely the spirit is a created thing, is it not, at some point in time, unlike the idea of me, described above. How it becomes part of the flesh, who knows? The precise nature of man's dual nature is a mystery. Whatever we are, I do not think we are simply a spirit poured into an empty shell. But neither is my spirit cemented to my flesh, at least not forever.
So, back to the Debate. I don't see how getting into an argument about the spirit can help when, apparently, many people who say they believe in a spirit, or something in man which is immortal, will still argue that a woman should be permitted to kill the fetus is she chooses. They say it's not a person, therefore, it has no spirit. A sound argument for sure.
And so, we argue, "oh, but it is," or, alternatively, "it surely COULD be." We start with a definition of what a person is and go from there.
I like your syllogism. "My spirit is in my DNA?". This makes me think of something along similar lines; the argument that the fetus is just "part of the mother". If that is true, it follows that if the fetus is male, then the mother has four kidneys, eight limbs, and a penis.
Does this get us away from the spirit questions as far as this debate is concerned?
Lastly, does it bug anyone that I hog up space by making these posts instead of just comments? I tend to get lost down there in the comments section.
Second. Now we are cooking with gas! No, I am not thinking specifically of the spirit in me. Your question brings up a big issue, but one that need not concern the abortion debate as I perceive it. Just one more useless sidetrack, rather. However, I think your question belies a bit of a conflation of two ideas which we may as well talk about to be clear.
One: The "me of me" which you suggest we may not be able to even talk about could simply be "Todd" or "Jon" as conceived in the mind of God, which is to say, there never has been a time when we were not on His mind, as He can never have a new idea. I think that is what you mean when you say the "me of me". Is that right?
Second: The spirit is an altogether different thing, though. Surely the spirit is a created thing, is it not, at some point in time, unlike the idea of me, described above. How it becomes part of the flesh, who knows? The precise nature of man's dual nature is a mystery. Whatever we are, I do not think we are simply a spirit poured into an empty shell. But neither is my spirit cemented to my flesh, at least not forever.
So, back to the Debate. I don't see how getting into an argument about the spirit can help when, apparently, many people who say they believe in a spirit, or something in man which is immortal, will still argue that a woman should be permitted to kill the fetus is she chooses. They say it's not a person, therefore, it has no spirit. A sound argument for sure.
And so, we argue, "oh, but it is," or, alternatively, "it surely COULD be." We start with a definition of what a person is and go from there.
I like your syllogism. "My spirit is in my DNA?". This makes me think of something along similar lines; the argument that the fetus is just "part of the mother". If that is true, it follows that if the fetus is male, then the mother has four kidneys, eight limbs, and a penis.
Does this get us away from the spirit questions as far as this debate is concerned?
Lastly, does it bug anyone that I hog up space by making these posts instead of just comments? I tend to get lost down there in the comments section.
3 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
My conception of "spirit" or "soul" is different from that of most modern thinkers. I believe my idea hearkens (harkens?) back to the ancient Hebrew idea, rather than the Greek that is so dominant in our society. You see, the Greek word psyche is the root of our conception of the soul, which is thought of as a separate part of the whole of the human. The Hebrews had no word for "soul." It seems to me that they would more accurately think of "life" as being the closest thing, and "life" was breathed into Adam by God, and is perpetuated from that point, so that any human with "life" would be a person. (This is also supported by the observations that Elijah and Moses were taken up into heaven bodily, so that they could continue life in heaven--and they were the ones seen at Jesus' transfiguration.) So, from a purely ancient Hebrew point of view, there is no separate "soul" but there is "life," which is from God, and so can not be fully extinguished.
With this conception of the soul/spirit in mind, it is fruitless for me to look to when the soul is created or becomes part of the body to find the point at which a person comes into being. (You can see how this would be a circular argument.)
The way I see it, it is just as difficult to pinpoint when a "soul" begins as it is when "life" begins, because both are circular and part of the same cycle of birth-life-death. Once again, I come to the same conclusion: life (or a person) begins at the point of zygote creation. No other argument makes sense.
As a side argument, when would a pro-choice activist say that a Person With Rights begins? Do they pick birth? Do they actually believe that some abstract point of "viability" begins a "person"? This seems to be a self-serving argument.
And yes, Todd, you are the most pathological person I know. :) Or perhaps you just don't realize that you can click the little pencil icon on the main page to edit your own post (I think).
I just realized that we can't edit posts on this blog. Weird. Now I'm double-posting again.
Post a Comment
<< Home