ould be amazing to see a group of rocks sitting in a circle playing a mean game of Uno. As suggested by Taylor, when I identify a particular person, what I am doing is identifying them with their bodies, as others undoubtedly identify me with my 5’6” frame. To regress slightly, I stated that my mind allows me to solve integrals. However, what is the good in being able to solve the problem with my mind if I had no body with which to relay the answer to others? Without this body, I could not be seen, nor could I write down my thoughts. In general, I could not do the things that a “person” is thought to have the abilities to do. From this, it appears to me that a person is not a purely mental thing, and nor is it simply a physical body. I feel confident to assert that a person is an inextricably intertwined fusion of the two. To claim that a person is merely physical or mental is to be met with immediate and undeniable contradiction. I believe that the complexity of human beings and their nature explicitly implies that their description is one that is meant to defy the simplicity of both the materialistic and mentalistic view. If one had to draw a diagram showing the relationships between the person, mind, and body, a triangle would appropriately illustrate that relationship, because each item is connected to the other two. To sever a side between any of the two would be to destroy the triangle, and all that would be left are useless, insignificant pieces. While it is true that certain actions apply to only the mind or the body, the fact that a person is able to perform them all illuminates the fact the mind and body make up their whole. As when dealing with almost any area of philosophical inquiry, I realize that there are some people who will disagree with what I have written. In my mind, there are three responses that will be prominent: (1) a materialist will still insist that a person is made up of...
