Is a human amputee still a biped?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
Does the term “biped” or “quadruped” refer to the incidental characteristics of a creature, or the paradigmatic characteristics of that kind of creature?
Would a human amputee be a biped because humans in general are bipeds by nature?
meaning
asked Mar 27 at 15:33
Resting in ShadeResting in Shade
27648
add a comment |
Does the term “biped” or “quadruped” refer to the incidental characteristics of a creature, or the paradigmatic characteristics of that kind of creature?
Would a human amputee be a biped because humans in general are bipeds by nature?
meaning
asked Mar 27 at 15:33
Resting in ShadeResting in Shade
27648
Is this the Riddle of the Sphinx? Isn't a human a quadruped, then a biped then a triped?
– Juhasz
Mar 27 at 15:56
Serious question.
– Resting in Shade
Mar 27 at 16:12
3
Opinion only: "biped" refers to the species, not the individual creature. "Humans are bipeds" is acceptable, "Steve is a biped" sounds downright weird.
– AndyT
Mar 27 at 16:29
2
This is much more a philosophical question than one to do with the English language. At what point does a boat (after being modified or taking damage) cease to be a boat and become just a collection of material that may or may not float?
– Jason Bassford
Mar 27 at 17:36
Also worth asking: Is a human being in a Big Bird costume a featherless biped?
– Sven Yargs
Mar 27 at 22:09
add a comment |
Does the term “biped” or “quadruped” refer to the incidental characteristics of a creature, or the paradigmatic characteristics of that kind of creature?
Would a human amputee be a biped because humans in general are bipeds by nature?
meaning
asked Mar 27 at 15:33
Resting in ShadeResting in Shade
27648
Does the term “biped” or “quadruped” refer to the incidental characteristics of a creature, or the paradigmatic characteristics of that kind of creature?
Would a human amputee be a biped because humans in general are bipeds by nature?
meaning
meaning
asked Mar 27 at 15:33
Resting in ShadeResting in Shade
27648
asked Mar 27 at 15:33
Resting in ShadeResting in Shade
27648
asked Mar 27 at 15:33
Resting in ShadeResting in Shade
27648
asked Mar 27 at 15:33
Resting in ShadeResting in Shade
27648
asked Mar 27 at 15:33
Resting in ShadeResting in Shade
27648
27648
Is this the Riddle of the Sphinx? Isn't a human a quadruped, then a biped then a triped?
– Juhasz
Mar 27 at 15:56
Serious question.
– Resting in Shade
Mar 27 at 16:12
3
Opinion only: "biped" refers to the species, not the individual creature. "Humans are bipeds" is acceptable, "Steve is a biped" sounds downright weird.
– AndyT
Mar 27 at 16:29
2
This is much more a philosophical question than one to do with the English language. At what point does a boat (after being modified or taking damage) cease to be a boat and become just a collection of material that may or may not float?
– Jason Bassford
Mar 27 at 17:36
Also worth asking: Is a human being in a Big Bird costume a featherless biped?
– Sven Yargs
Mar 27 at 22:09
add a comment |
Is this the Riddle of the Sphinx? Isn't a human a quadruped, then a biped then a triped?
– Juhasz
Mar 27 at 15:56
Serious question.
– Resting in Shade
Mar 27 at 16:12
3
Opinion only: "biped" refers to the species, not the individual creature. "Humans are bipeds" is acceptable, "Steve is a biped" sounds downright weird.
– AndyT
Mar 27 at 16:29
2
This is much more a philosophical question than one to do with the English language. At what point does a boat (after being modified or taking damage) cease to be a boat and become just a collection of material that may or may not float?
– Jason Bassford
Mar 27 at 17:36
Also worth asking: Is a human being in a Big Bird costume a featherless biped?
– Sven Yargs
Mar 27 at 22:09
Is this the Riddle of the Sphinx? Isn't a human a quadruped, then a biped then a triped?
– Juhasz
Mar 27 at 15:56
Is this the Riddle of the Sphinx? Isn't a human a quadruped, then a biped then a triped?
– Juhasz
Mar 27 at 15:56
Serious question.
– Resting in Shade
Mar 27 at 16:12
Serious question.
– Resting in Shade
Mar 27 at 16:12
3
3
Opinion only: "biped" refers to the species, not the individual creature. "Humans are bipeds" is acceptable, "Steve is a biped" sounds downright weird.
– AndyT
Mar 27 at 16:29
Opinion only: "biped" refers to the species, not the individual creature. "Humans are bipeds" is acceptable, "Steve is a biped" sounds downright weird.
– AndyT
Mar 27 at 16:29
2
2
This is much more a philosophical question than one to do with the English language. At what point does a boat (after being modified or taking damage) cease to be a boat and become just a collection of material that may or may not float?
– Jason Bassford
Mar 27 at 17:36
This is much more a philosophical question than one to do with the English language. At what point does a boat (after being modified or taking damage) cease to be a boat and become just a collection of material that may or may not float?
– Jason Bassford
Mar 27 at 17:36
Also worth asking: Is a human being in a Big Bird costume a featherless biped?
– Sven Yargs
Mar 27 at 22:09
Also worth asking: Is a human being in a Big Bird costume a featherless biped?
– Sven Yargs
Mar 27 at 22:09
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
A biped (Oxford) is An animal that uses two legs for walking. Other dictionaries use almost identical wording. An animal (human or otherwise) that lacks legs can't use them, so isn't a biped.
That seems clear enough but actually it's more of a philosophical question than a semantic one. I'd could be tempted to agree with the dictionary and go on to say your hypothetical amputee is a member of a bipedal species, but not a biped themself. But what about someone who possesses legs but has lost the use of them? Or, to take it to an extreme, even someone who's metaphorically legless - i.e. has temporarily lost the use of their legs through drinking?* Or go the other way - someone born without lower limbs.
Humans are, after all, generally defined as bipeds, and I certainly wouldn't want to make the argument that physical disability (or even drunkenness) makes someone less human.
That, even if only on the grounds of inclusion, would suggest that the question's "paradigmatic characteristics" basis would be a good one to use. Even so, would we extend these inclusive arguments to creatures incapable of understanding them - an amputee ostrich for example, or an amputee robot (autonomous or otherwise)?
I'm afraid there is no clear answer; there may be a most suitable answer for a given situation, and I hope this answer has given you some information to make that choice.
*"No longer bipedal" would actually be a nice euphemism for falling down drunk.
answered Mar 27 at 17:44
Chris HChris H
17.9k43377
And what if the potentially bipedal animal chooses not to walk - it has two legs that could be used for walking, but aren't? And what if the animal walks with two legs, but they're someone else's legs? Or what if the animal walks with two piano legs? Isn't deconstruction fun?
– Juhasz
Mar 27 at 19:29
A quadruped also uses two legs for walking. It also uses three. It also uses four. But only some of the time does it walk.
– Trevor Reid
Mar 28 at 9:15
add a comment |
As "biped" is a scientific description of a particular clade, rather than an individual, all humans are bipeds, regardless of how many feet they actually have or use.
A human being who has lost a leg would best be described as "one-legged".
answered Mar 27 at 20:37
Kenneth OdleKenneth Odle
1043
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f491596%2fis-a-human-amputee-still-a-biped%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
A biped (Oxford) is An animal that uses two legs for walking. Other dictionaries use almost identical wording. An animal (human or otherwise) that lacks legs can't use them, so isn't a biped.
That seems clear enough but actually it's more of a philosophical question than a semantic one. I'd could be tempted to agree with the dictionary and go on to say your hypothetical amputee is a member of a bipedal species, but not a biped themself. But what about someone who possesses legs but has lost the use of them? Or, to take it to an extreme, even someone who's metaphorically legless - i.e. has temporarily lost the use of their legs through drinking?* Or go the other way - someone born without lower limbs.
Humans are, after all, generally defined as bipeds, and I certainly wouldn't want to make the argument that physical disability (or even drunkenness) makes someone less human.
That, even if only on the grounds of inclusion, would suggest that the question's "paradigmatic characteristics" basis would be a good one to use. Even so, would we extend these inclusive arguments to creatures incapable of understanding them - an amputee ostrich for example, or an amputee robot (autonomous or otherwise)?
I'm afraid there is no clear answer; there may be a most suitable answer for a given situation, and I hope this answer has given you some information to make that choice.
*"No longer bipedal" would actually be a nice euphemism for falling down drunk.
answered Mar 27 at 17:44
Chris HChris H
17.9k43377
And what if the potentially bipedal animal chooses not to walk - it has two legs that could be used for walking, but aren't? And what if the animal walks with two legs, but they're someone else's legs? Or what if the animal walks with two piano legs? Isn't deconstruction fun?
– Juhasz
Mar 27 at 19:29
A quadruped also uses two legs for walking. It also uses three. It also uses four. But only some of the time does it walk.
– Trevor Reid
Mar 28 at 9:15
add a comment |
A biped (Oxford) is An animal that uses two legs for walking. Other dictionaries use almost identical wording. An animal (human or otherwise) that lacks legs can't use them, so isn't a biped.
That seems clear enough but actually it's more of a philosophical question than a semantic one. I'd could be tempted to agree with the dictionary and go on to say your hypothetical amputee is a member of a bipedal species, but not a biped themself. But what about someone who possesses legs but has lost the use of them? Or, to take it to an extreme, even someone who's metaphorically legless - i.e. has temporarily lost the use of their legs through drinking?* Or go the other way - someone born without lower limbs.
Humans are, after all, generally defined as bipeds, and I certainly wouldn't want to make the argument that physical disability (or even drunkenness) makes someone less human.
That, even if only on the grounds of inclusion, would suggest that the question's "paradigmatic characteristics" basis would be a good one to use. Even so, would we extend these inclusive arguments to creatures incapable of understanding them - an amputee ostrich for example, or an amputee robot (autonomous or otherwise)?
I'm afraid there is no clear answer; there may be a most suitable answer for a given situation, and I hope this answer has given you some information to make that choice.
*"No longer bipedal" would actually be a nice euphemism for falling down drunk.
answered Mar 27 at 17:44
Chris HChris H
17.9k43377
And what if the potentially bipedal animal chooses not to walk - it has two legs that could be used for walking, but aren't? And what if the animal walks with two legs, but they're someone else's legs? Or what if the animal walks with two piano legs? Isn't deconstruction fun?
– Juhasz
Mar 27 at 19:29
A quadruped also uses two legs for walking. It also uses three. It also uses four. But only some of the time does it walk.
– Trevor Reid
Mar 28 at 9:15
add a comment |
A biped (Oxford) is An animal that uses two legs for walking. Other dictionaries use almost identical wording. An animal (human or otherwise) that lacks legs can't use them, so isn't a biped.
That seems clear enough but actually it's more of a philosophical question than a semantic one. I'd could be tempted to agree with the dictionary and go on to say your hypothetical amputee is a member of a bipedal species, but not a biped themself. But what about someone who possesses legs but has lost the use of them? Or, to take it to an extreme, even someone who's metaphorically legless - i.e. has temporarily lost the use of their legs through drinking?* Or go the other way - someone born without lower limbs.
Humans are, after all, generally defined as bipeds, and I certainly wouldn't want to make the argument that physical disability (or even drunkenness) makes someone less human.
That, even if only on the grounds of inclusion, would suggest that the question's "paradigmatic characteristics" basis would be a good one to use. Even so, would we extend these inclusive arguments to creatures incapable of understanding them - an amputee ostrich for example, or an amputee robot (autonomous or otherwise)?
I'm afraid there is no clear answer; there may be a most suitable answer for a given situation, and I hope this answer has given you some information to make that choice.
*"No longer bipedal" would actually be a nice euphemism for falling down drunk.
answered Mar 27 at 17:44
Chris HChris H
17.9k43377
A biped (Oxford) is An animal that uses two legs for walking. Other dictionaries use almost identical wording. An animal (human or otherwise) that lacks legs can't use them, so isn't a biped.
That seems clear enough but actually it's more of a philosophical question than a semantic one. I'd could be tempted to agree with the dictionary and go on to say your hypothetical amputee is a member of a bipedal species, but not a biped themself. But what about someone who possesses legs but has lost the use of them? Or, to take it to an extreme, even someone who's metaphorically legless - i.e. has temporarily lost the use of their legs through drinking?* Or go the other way - someone born without lower limbs.
Humans are, after all, generally defined as bipeds, and I certainly wouldn't want to make the argument that physical disability (or even drunkenness) makes someone less human.
That, even if only on the grounds of inclusion, would suggest that the question's "paradigmatic characteristics" basis would be a good one to use. Even so, would we extend these inclusive arguments to creatures incapable of understanding them - an amputee ostrich for example, or an amputee robot (autonomous or otherwise)?
I'm afraid there is no clear answer; there may be a most suitable answer for a given situation, and I hope this answer has given you some information to make that choice.
*"No longer bipedal" would actually be a nice euphemism for falling down drunk.
answered Mar 27 at 17:44
Chris HChris H
17.9k43377
answered Mar 27 at 17:44
Chris HChris H
17.9k43377
answered Mar 27 at 17:44
Chris HChris H
17.9k43377
answered Mar 27 at 17:44
Chris HChris H
17.9k43377
17.9k43377
And what if the potentially bipedal animal chooses not to walk - it has two legs that could be used for walking, but aren't? And what if the animal walks with two legs, but they're someone else's legs? Or what if the animal walks with two piano legs? Isn't deconstruction fun?
– Juhasz
Mar 27 at 19:29
A quadruped also uses two legs for walking. It also uses three. It also uses four. But only some of the time does it walk.
– Trevor Reid
Mar 28 at 9:15
add a comment |
And what if the potentially bipedal animal chooses not to walk - it has two legs that could be used for walking, but aren't? And what if the animal walks with two legs, but they're someone else's legs? Or what if the animal walks with two piano legs? Isn't deconstruction fun?
– Juhasz
Mar 27 at 19:29
A quadruped also uses two legs for walking. It also uses three. It also uses four. But only some of the time does it walk.
– Trevor Reid
Mar 28 at 9:15
And what if the potentially bipedal animal chooses not to walk - it has two legs that could be used for walking, but aren't? And what if the animal walks with two legs, but they're someone else's legs? Or what if the animal walks with two piano legs? Isn't deconstruction fun?
– Juhasz
Mar 27 at 19:29
And what if the potentially bipedal animal chooses not to walk - it has two legs that could be used for walking, but aren't? And what if the animal walks with two legs, but they're someone else's legs? Or what if the animal walks with two piano legs? Isn't deconstruction fun?
– Juhasz
Mar 27 at 19:29
A quadruped also uses two legs for walking. It also uses three. It also uses four. But only some of the time does it walk.
– Trevor Reid
Mar 28 at 9:15
A quadruped also uses two legs for walking. It also uses three. It also uses four. But only some of the time does it walk.
– Trevor Reid
Mar 28 at 9:15
add a comment |
As "biped" is a scientific description of a particular clade, rather than an individual, all humans are bipeds, regardless of how many feet they actually have or use.
A human being who has lost a leg would best be described as "one-legged".
answered Mar 27 at 20:37
Kenneth OdleKenneth Odle
1043
add a comment |
As "biped" is a scientific description of a particular clade, rather than an individual, all humans are bipeds, regardless of how many feet they actually have or use.
A human being who has lost a leg would best be described as "one-legged".
answered Mar 27 at 20:37
Kenneth OdleKenneth Odle
1043
add a comment |
As "biped" is a scientific description of a particular clade, rather than an individual, all humans are bipeds, regardless of how many feet they actually have or use.
A human being who has lost a leg would best be described as "one-legged".
answered Mar 27 at 20:37
Kenneth OdleKenneth Odle
1043
As "biped" is a scientific description of a particular clade, rather than an individual, all humans are bipeds, regardless of how many feet they actually have or use.
A human being who has lost a leg would best be described as "one-legged".
answered Mar 27 at 20:37
Kenneth OdleKenneth Odle
1043
answered Mar 27 at 20:37
Kenneth OdleKenneth Odle
1043
answered Mar 27 at 20:37
Kenneth OdleKenneth Odle
1043
answered Mar 27 at 20:37
Kenneth OdleKenneth Odle
1043
1043
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f491596%2fis-a-human-amputee-still-a-biped%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Is this the Riddle of the Sphinx? Isn't a human a quadruped, then a biped then a triped?
– Juhasz
Mar 27 at 15:56
Serious question.
– Resting in Shade
Mar 27 at 16:12
3
Opinion only: "biped" refers to the species, not the individual creature. "Humans are bipeds" is acceptable, "Steve is a biped" sounds downright weird.
– AndyT
Mar 27 at 16:29
2
This is much more a philosophical question than one to do with the English language. At what point does a boat (after being modified or taking damage) cease to be a boat and become just a collection of material that may or may not float?
– Jason Bassford
Mar 27 at 17:36
Also worth asking: Is a human being in a Big Bird costume a featherless biped?
– Sven Yargs
Mar 27 at 22:09