Why should we think of plants as persons? Can't we just be nice to them?
We should think of plants as persons because, from my perspective, it is the most accurate way to think of them, with person serving as an ontological category that can contain all kinds of things, whether they are animal, vegetable or mineral, to use a trinity from a guessing game I used to play as a child.
This ides of course calls for a conception of the word 'person' that lies outside of its usual everyday meaning of 'human'. So cutting any kind of exclusive link between the idea of 'person' and that of 'human' is a great place to start.
What then, exactly, is a person? I would say that it is an entity that has an agenda, with the idea of agenda being very largely construed. Does a dog have an agenda? I think most people would agree that it undoubtedly does. Birds, fish and spiders? Of course. Plants? Yes. Fungi and bacteria? Clearly. Rocks? Rrrrrhhh! (That's the sound of brakes squealing).
Does a rock want to do something? Of course. It 'wants' to do things in accordance with an ontology that is bounded by the physical and chemical parameters of minerals just as plants and animals want to do things within the confines of their biological ontologies. I understand that some may quibble with my use of the word 'want' here, but since an aim of this blog is to emphasize similarity rather than difference across ontological forms, I use the word in an open way. After all, not all wants are intentional. I do not think my hunger into being, it merely appears through no conscious effort on my own, as a condition of the nature of my beings. Similarly, a rock that is exposed to the serial effects of rain and sun wants to break so as to conform to its ecological conditions. Similarly, a mason or carpenter would say that a particular stone or piece of wood 'wants' to break or separate along its grain. In this way, even inanimate things exert their will upon society, shaping our art and architecture and, in a more fundamental sense, transforming the ground we stand upon.
In this sense, dogs, birds, fish, plants and rocks are all entities with agendas, and are therefore persons. Now, we can also say that groups of dogs, birds, fish, plants and rocks behave in ways that are both similar to and different from those of their singular forms, but that, that idea of collective agency and collective persons, with collective agendas, note the interesting connection between the words 'agency' and 'agenda', shall be a topic for another post.
We should think of plants as persons because, from my perspective, it is the most accurate way to think of them, with person serving as an ontological category that can contain all kinds of things, whether they are animal, vegetable or mineral, to use a trinity from a guessing game I used to play as a child.
This ides of course calls for a conception of the word 'person' that lies outside of its usual everyday meaning of 'human'. So cutting any kind of exclusive link between the idea of 'person' and that of 'human' is a great place to start.
What then, exactly, is a person? I would say that it is an entity that has an agenda, with the idea of agenda being very largely construed. Does a dog have an agenda? I think most people would agree that it undoubtedly does. Birds, fish and spiders? Of course. Plants? Yes. Fungi and bacteria? Clearly. Rocks? Rrrrrhhh! (That's the sound of brakes squealing).
Does a rock want to do something? Of course. It 'wants' to do things in accordance with an ontology that is bounded by the physical and chemical parameters of minerals just as plants and animals want to do things within the confines of their biological ontologies. I understand that some may quibble with my use of the word 'want' here, but since an aim of this blog is to emphasize similarity rather than difference across ontological forms, I use the word in an open way. After all, not all wants are intentional. I do not think my hunger into being, it merely appears through no conscious effort on my own, as a condition of the nature of my beings. Similarly, a rock that is exposed to the serial effects of rain and sun wants to break so as to conform to its ecological conditions. Similarly, a mason or carpenter would say that a particular stone or piece of wood 'wants' to break or separate along its grain. In this way, even inanimate things exert their will upon society, shaping our art and architecture and, in a more fundamental sense, transforming the ground we stand upon.
In this sense, dogs, birds, fish, plants and rocks are all entities with agendas, and are therefore persons. Now, we can also say that groups of dogs, birds, fish, plants and rocks behave in ways that are both similar to and different from those of their singular forms, but that, that idea of collective agency and collective persons, with collective agendas, note the interesting connection between the words 'agency' and 'agenda', shall be a topic for another post.
No comments:
Post a Comment