Funkyterrance wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:I never really understood how the life of a human being begins at the stage of conception. (a) Why not before?
Cuz without fertilization the egg will never be anything more than an egg. After fertilization the egg starts the process of creating a future human being. It seems a logical starting point to me since before that point in time there is only the potentiality of a human being and after there is a very good possibility, considering everything goes without a hitch. To me its about potentiality versus actuality.
AH! A
Process of a
Future human being.
Still isn't a human being though... :p
Yeah, I'm familiar with the potentiality --> actuality argument, but that ain't this thread.
This is not an argument I've plucked from somewhere else, it's my own but w/e. Of course its not a little miniature guy/girl swimming around in the egg but its something that will eventually be a little guy/girl. Why doesn't the aspect of time enter into the question?
Or are you arguing that an egg is the same thing as a chicken?
But ideas can be legendary. The potentiality--> actuality approach stems from Aristotle and perhaps before him. He was using it (in Posterior Analytics, I think) to describe the process of a "thing becoming to be" and a "thing not becoming to be" in order to explain first what the thing is. In other words, in some cases, we examine the actuality (i.e. outcome) in order to explain what it is--from before. Thus, it's about using posterior analysis to explain prior things. (IIRC).
Our language is embedded, and so are 'one's own' ideas, so I'm hesitant whenever I claim that "this argument is my own." Of course, new ideas can be forged, but in only in reference to prior ideas because a self-contained language free of others' influence (private language) would no longer become a public language (English, and all the ideas in which it encompasses). In other words, a private language cannot be discernible if it does not relate to a public language. You'd have to use a private language to justify that an idea/argument is 100% your own, but in doing so, you must admit that you would not be able to articulate your idea without the influence of your use of the public language. In turn, your own argument/idea can't be 100% your own.
For example, the first paragraph I got mainly from Aristotle, but also from my interpretation and also other people's interpretations of Aristotle (remix). The second paragraph I recall from mainly Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, and the rest of it, I'm not sure. In the context of our discussion, since one's language is not really one's own, then one's ideas can't really be one's own.
Does the development or remix of prior ideas lead to the actualization of an 'original' idea? In this sense, is 'your' idea actually original? Yes and no. Sometimes, an original idea can be created independently by two separated persons, but who's to say that the role of the same set of past ideas both influenced them toward that same outcome? So, in this sense, it's not original, and not one's own argument. There's this ambiguity here...
Anyway, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!! we're talking about the "stage of conception = human life" argument. We'll deal with the potentiality argument later (perhaps in this thread if no challenger approaches to defend the "SoC = HL" argument).
