mnkbdky

This is the begining of an article idea--it is not yet finished. If anyone has some ideas or criticism they care to offer me, please feel free. Thanks

--mnkbdky

Questioning P-ness

Personhood (from here on, P) is a hard thing to define. However, P does seem to have essential, that is to say necessary properties�perhaps even eternal. The purpose of this study will be to articulate the essence or necessary properties of P. Simply put, I will be probing the depths of P-ness. Now, since I am most familiar with myself as a P it makes sense that I should be the subject of this inquiry. Therefore, I will be specifically attempting to grasp my P-ness. In fact, it seems to me that there are essential qualities to every P that are only accessible to that particular P. Thus, it is only through introspection that someone, including myself, can discover the necessary qualities of their particular P-ness. Before I may start grappling with my own P-ness, though, I must make a fundamental distinction about necessity.

Aristotle in his Prior Analytics, i.9 makes a distinction between de dicto modality and de re modality, which can be directly applied to the necessity of my P-ness. Modality de dicto is attributing a necessary property to a proposition or dictum, where as modality de re is attributing a necessary property to the object itself. The question becomes, then, Is the necessity of my P-ness de dicto or de re? For simplicity, let us refer to P-ness de re as hard P-ness and P-ness de dicto as soft P-ness. To restate the question, then, Is my P-ness hard or soft?

JP2

So your existential qualification can be defined by the strength of your P-ness?

Freud would have a field day.

mnkbdky

Here is another idea I just though of.

Perhaps, though, I am approaching this matter from the wrong perspective. Martin Heidegger believed that the whole approach of western metaphysical substantive P-ness was pre-mature. Instead he suggested that we could not even understand the substantive P-ness without first understanding the pre-ontological/background/fore-structure of P-ness. He began to look at P-ness phenomenologically. Perhaps, then, I should be looking at my P-ness phenomenologically. As Marty would put, I am a Dasein or a P-ness-in-the-world. This means that I have first and foremost a primordial P-ness. My ontic or secondary P-ness is only revealed through the possibility or being-able-to of my P-ness, especially through the possibility or being-able-to of my P-ness not to be. The possibility of my P-ness not existing places me into a mood (Stimmung) of dread (Angst). This angst then reveals my care (Sorge) for my P-ness, which allows me to reflect upon it and know it as a substantive or ontic P-ness.

mnkbdky

If you are not getting the joke, then try reading it aloud. Here is a newer version:

Personhood (from here on, P) is a hard thing to define. However, P does seem to have essential, that is to say necessary properties�perhaps even eternal. Because I am most familiar with myself as a P it makes sense that I should be the subject of this inquiry. Therefore, I will be specifically attempting to grasp my P-ness. In fact, it seems to me that there are essential qualities to every P that are only accessible to that particular P. Thus, it is only through introspection that someone, including myself, can discover the necessary qualities of their particular P-ness. The purpose of this essay, however, is not to lay down any definite answer as to the nature of my P-ness. Rather, it is a mere meditation on the possible ways in which I might approach the understanding of my P-ness. Let me begin grappling with my own P-ness by making a fundamental distinction about necessity.

Aristotle in his Prior Analytics, i.9 makes a distinction between de dicto modality and de re modality, which can be directly applied to the necessity of my P-ness. Modality de dicto is attributing a necessary property to a proposition or dictum, where as modality de re is attributing a necessary property to the object itself. The question becomes, then, Is the necessity of my P-ness de dicto or de re? For simplicity, let us refer to P-ness de re as hard P-ness and P-ness de dicto as soft P-ness. To restate the question, then, Is my P-ness hard or soft?

Perhaps, though, I am approaching this matter from the wrong perspective. Martin Heidegger believed that the whole approach of western metaphysical substantive P-ness was pre-mature. Instead he suggested that we could not even understand the substantive P-ness without first understanding the pre-ontological/background/fore-structure of P-ness. He began to look at P-ness phenomenologically. Perhaps, then, I should be looking at my P-ness phenomenologically.

As Marty would put, I am a Dasein or a P-ness-in-the-world. This means that my P-ness, first and foremost, has its being-in-the-world, a primordial P-ness. I come to understand my P-ness as ready-at-hand. That is, I first relate to my P-ness as a tool, something I use and become familiar with to the point that I am not even aware of it as being separate for its use. My P-ness is not present-at-hand. That is, it is not an isolated subtantive object cut off from everything else.

In a Heideggerian sense, then, my P-ness can only be understood in relation to the totality of its function, its existential relatedness. My ontic or secondary P-ness is only revealed through the possibility or being-able-to of my P-ness, especially through the possibility or being-able-to of my P-ness not to be. The possibility of my P-ness not existing places me into a mood (Stimmung) of dread (Angst). This angst then reveals my care (Sorge) for my P-ness, which allows me to reflect upon it and know it as a substantive or ontic P-ness.

ieyeasu

I have fully grasped my P-ness, and I must say that the internet was a great help in this process.

Godot

I sincerely hope that you can come to terms with your P-ness, mnkbdky. Having both a primary and secondary P-ness must certainly make for a neat party trick.

Paperstreet

So everything you said was BS? It was starting to make sense to me actually. Anyway I got the joke. (took me a little while though)

mnkbdky

Actually, no. Everything I said was not BS. It is real philosophy. That is a real metaphysical distinction that Aristotles makes and that is Heidegger's philosophy as found in his being and time. I merely applied them to my P-ness.

As Homer would say, "Its funny because it true."

mnkbdky

We must be cautious, though, that we do not focus too much on the P-ness so as to exclude an-other (from here on, A), but that's is a different article.

John Page

I conclude that you are definitely a de dicto P-ness-in-the-world.

Cheers, John