Good description. I think part of the problem is the definition of 'person' - whether we are referring to a person in the philosophical sense - the abstracted agent of choice and subject of experiences, (ie a self) which is what I meant - or whether we are referring to the aggregate of ever-changing physical and mental phenomena we call a 'human being' which is what you are talking about.PeterB wrote:The person is real but transient. The person stubs her/his toe. The person loves and is aversive. The person laughs and cries. They are real.
The idea that they will have existence permanently in whole or part is the construct. Not just a mental construct but a psycho -social construct among psycho- social constructs.
What arises when you clench your hand is a fist. When you open your hand the fist does not arise. Nevertheless for the duration of your clenching the fist had reality as a fist. As that which in the English language is named "fist". Which is an action not a thing. A person is an action not a thing. It does have existence however while the conditions for its arising are present..
Otherwise I think we're in agreement.
What does not exist except as a mental construct is an ultimately real self - a fixed, agent of action and subject of experience. And only in regard to views about such a self do metaphysical questions about freewill or the lack of it make any sense.
I'm surprised that you don't know me better than to think I would claim the literal non-existence of human beings or other real phenomena Peter.