One person can be an engineer, a father and a member of Mensa. There is no contradiction in using different descriptors to describe a single ontological reality. Babies are human (what else would they be?), and persons.
but the thing is not, and we're talkin' about the thing not the placeholderSkepdick wrote:Language is abstract. All of it.
Well, you answered your own questions. What else could babies be.... human. And Persons.
The THING is not the placeholder, but "baby" is a placeholder. "Human" is a placeholder. "Person" is a placeholder.
No, you are just being ignorant.
Dimwit. If there is only ONE True Ontological Reality, then the thing has only ONE True Ontological Nature. That nature is either a baby, a human or a person, but it's not all three.
I've never been koi about it - my game is to demonstrate your ignorance. Success. Again.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2019 4:11 amNo, linguistically speaking, it would mean we lacked a word to explain the thing we were observing, a baby. Ontologically speaking, it would make no difference at all: it would not mean we lacked a baby.
Have you considered the fact that I understand the theory way better than you do?Dachshund wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2019 1:27 pm IC is talking about SUBSTANCE ontology. You need to do some reading about it Skeptic to get on the same page.
An ontological SUBSTANCE is not a form of "stuff" like: salt or gasoline or toothpaste.
Here are FOUR good examples of (ontological) SUBSTANCES: (1) my pet Dachshund dog; (2) a shark and (3) My sister's horse, " Lucy", the grey mare, and (4) YOU (Skeptic) the individual living thing that is reading this post right now
See? Arguin' just to argue, and arguin' about sumthin' that ain't got nuthin' to do with the issue (is personhood intrinsic or bestowed?). There's a lotta ground to cover there, but you wanna dick around with placeholders.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2019 4:33 amThe THING is not the placeholder, but "baby" is a placeholder. "Human" is a placeholder. "Person" is a placeholder.
THREE DIFFERENT PLACEHOLDERS for ONE THING.
Why do you need so many? Just call it what it is!
Henry, if personhood is "intrinsic" to the thing, then that thing is INTRINSICALLY a person.
Provisional list of socially defined words:Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:10 pmRight. Well, the ontological status of a human being is not socially defined. That's what I'm pointing out. The "social definition" idea isn't sensible. In fact, all it does is open the door to abuses. That's all it has ever done.