In the U.K. - correct me if I'm wrong - there is a legal definition of 'not being in possession of yourself' aka 'not being a person.' That's the fun thing: someone such as a lawyer needs to define, using some empirical signal, something supposedly transcendental like 'person,' something lawyers argue and argue about regarding, say, chimps in zoos.

In this quote, Timothy Morton is exploring the concept of personhood and how it is legally defined, particularly in the context of the U.K. law. He points out that, according to legal systems, there is a need to define something abstract and seemingly transcendental, such as the concept of a person. This process often involves using empirical signals or measurable criteria to determine who or what qualifies as a person in a legal sense.

Morton specifically refers to the situation in the U.K., where legal definitions can stipulate whether someone is "not in possession of yourself," which may imply that they are not considered a person. This reference challenges the very nature of personhood, suggesting that it is not an inherent quality, but rather something constructed through legal frameworks. The fun in the statement lies in how legal professionals must navigate this philosophical and complex issue, often focusing on legal definitions rather than the more philosophical or ethical considerations of what it truly means to be a person.

The mention of chimps in zoos highlights one of the key debates surrounding personhood, where legal experts and ethicists argue whether non-human animals, like chimpanzees, should be recognized as persons. This discussion touches on the boundaries of humanity and animal rights, raising questions about who or what deserves the legal status of being a person and what criteria should be used to define that status.

Morton's quote reflects on the absurdity and complexity of defining such a profound concept as personhood in legal terms. It underscores the gap between legal definitions and more philosophical or ethical perspectives, revealing the ongoing debates and challenges faced by those attempting to define what it means to truly be a person in both legal and moral contexts.