a human being not a person until he has a social language – by definition
ChatGPT said:
Ah, I see what you’re getting at! You’re bringing up a pretty deep point about what it means to be human and what it means to be a person in a social or philosophical sense.
If we define “person” as someone who can engage in social language, then that would mean a person isn’t just a biological entity but a social being, one who is capable of communication, interaction, and participation in a community or culture. Social language, in this sense, is the medium that allows an individual to be recognized and understood as a “person” within society.
This idea draws on a few different philosophical and linguistic perspectives. For instance, some thinkers argue that personhood is closely tied to the ability to communicate and interact with others, especially through language. This is central to ideas in phenomenology (like those of Merleau-Ponty and Heidegger) and the theory of social constructivism.
In this view, before a human has social language—before they can meaningfully communicate, share experiences, and be understood by others—they may not be considered a person in the fullest sense, at least socially. They would still be a human being, but “personhood” requires a certain level of socialization and linguistic capacity.
This brings up the question: Would a person without language still be a “person,” or are they simply a human being? Some might argue that a person is a being recognized by others, shaped by shared language and social relations. Without that, it’s hard to fully realize “personhood” as we understand it.
Does that fit with your view? Or do you think there’s a more essential definition of personhood that exists even outside of language?
You said:
is a person in this sense an artifact
ChatGPT said:
Yes, in a certain sense, a person could be considered an “artifact” if we define artifact more broadly. If we say a person is someone who exists within a social framework and is shaped by social language, culture, and societal norms, then personhood could be seen as something that is “constructed” or “created” by these external forces—almost like how an artifact is shaped by human hands or intention.
In this view, personhood doesn’t emerge from a purely biological or natural process alone, but through interaction with others, language, and the shared meanings we create as a society. Just like an artifact is shaped by the intentions, values, and tools of its creators, a person’s identity and sense of self are shaped by the social language and structures they engage with. The person becomes an “artifact” of their social world, their language, and the relationships they form.
This analogy makes sense especially when we think about how personhood is dependent on recognition from others—one’s sense of being a “person” often relies on social validation and interaction, much like an artifact gains meaning through its cultural or historical context. Without this interaction and social language, there’s no “person” in the social sense, just a human being.
So in a philosophical or sociological sense, you could argue that a person, as someone who exists within a social and linguistic structure, is an artifact of that structure. But biologically and naturally, they are not.
Does that line of thinking resonate with you, or do you see personhood as something more intrinsic, independent of social structures?