Personhood has obviously applied to humans across languages for millennia. I’m not arguing that usage doesn’t predate corporate personhood in English; I’m saying many common uses of person today post-date corporate personhood.
Corporate personhood, and the referring of entities as persons, goes back to ancient Latin and multiple Indian languages for a reason: it’s a natural consequence of (a) collective rights and (b) polytheistic vesting, whereby “personhood” was understood in a broader context than even today [1]. (See: any spiritual practice that vests inanimate objects with a will and thus, in a sense or directly, personhood.)
> certainly argue that today, the idea that a corporation can be referred to as a 'person' is very much a specialists' usage
Agree. But that doesn’t make it wrong. When you look at why it has that specialist usage, suspending the use makes zero sense. (It also doesn’t mean we shouldn’t debate its use.)
I have to admit I find it a little hard to understand what you're trying to say. It seems to me like you're mixing up a few things. In everyday English, the word 'person' primarily refers to an individual human. This is distinct from and (at least in my view of semantics) comes before philosophical and religious discussions about what it might mean to be human; and also distinct from discussions of the legal rights and duties that persons are given which might also be conferred upon non-humans. Even if these give rise to derived (polysemous) usages of the word person.
Corporate personhood, and the referring of entities as persons, goes back to ancient Latin and multiple Indian languages for a reason: it’s a natural consequence of (a) collective rights and (b) polytheistic vesting, whereby “personhood” was understood in a broader context than even today [1]. (See: any spiritual practice that vests inanimate objects with a will and thus, in a sense or directly, personhood.)
> certainly argue that today, the idea that a corporation can be referred to as a 'person' is very much a specialists' usage
Agree. But that doesn’t make it wrong. When you look at why it has that specialist usage, suspending the use makes zero sense. (It also doesn’t mean we shouldn’t debate its use.)
[1] https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/publishing/journal-briti...