Which one of the following, if true about the Classic Maya, would invalidate the purpose of the iPhone example in the passage?
Started 4 months ago by Shashank in
Explanatory Answer
The author cites the example of an iPhone to illustrate the idea that nonhuman persons did not derive their personhood simply because of their human connection or their usefulness to humans. The Maya would not have regarded the iphone as a nonhuman person; personhood would be 'activated' only when the nonhuman person experiences certain bodily needs or participates in certain social activities.
If option A were true “ if the incense burner and stone chopper were regarded as persons just because of their usefulness to humans “ then the purpose of the iPhone example would be invalidated.
All other options given do not relate to the reason why Maya categorised objects as persons. So, these are ruled out.
-
No one is replied to this question yet. Be first to reply!
