The body is
socially constructed; and in this paper we explore the various and ever-
changing
constructions of the body, and thus of the embodied self......The one word,
body,
may therefore signify
very different realities and perceptions of reality.....(Synnot 1992,
43)
It has been said that in order to understand
life and society, we as people must first
understand
ourselves. Who are we as a people? Who are we as individuals? Who are we
as humans? These questions all present themselves when
discussing a topic such as this. I
believe that it
is indeed important to ask questions such as these, and also as important to
answer them. All
of this assuming of course, that there is one specific answer.
My
problem begins
here, in that I do not believe that there is one defined answer to these
questions. As you will see, many "great philosophic
minds" have different views and
beliefs relating
to these questions, and it is my job to sort through these different beliefs
and
discover......
What it is to be
human
It seems that for ages the human body has been
studied and inspected. However,
literal
"inspection" only takes us so far.
As humans, we all know that there are parts of
our
"being" that are intangible.
Take thoughts, dreams, and things of the like. We know
they exist, yet
they are unable to be inspected scientifically (to any valuable degree at
least). The distinction between beliefs begins
here. How one views this intangible side
of
life with respect
to the tangible, is the factor that defines one's beliefs.
There are several ways in which one may view
the body. A dualist is one who
views the body
and mind, or tangible and intangible, as two separate intities existing
together to form
one being. The principle of
"Cogito, ergo sum," or in english, "I think,
therefore I
am." The "I" meaning the
mind, and "I am" meaning the body.
(Synnott 1992,
92) The tangible side of the person being bound
of course, by the laws of biomechanics
and gravity, and
the intangible being bound by nothing but the laws of reasoning.
".....the body, from its nature, is
always divisible and the mind is completely indivisible."
(Descartes 1995,
70)
Like anything, dualism comes with its pro's and
con's. Many people choose to
believe in the
idea of dualism because of its truths.
Obviously, we can all see that indeed,
the body is real
and tangible, and that the mind on the other hand is the intangible,
although it too is
real. Likewise, as evidence of dualism
we have undoubtedly felt the
physical as well
as the non-physical. The physical being,
exhaustion or heat. The non-
physical perhaps
being the "ah-ha" experience, learning something or even dreaming.
Dualism however, does have its share of
con's. Take for example, the actual
evidence of this
belief. No one has ever been able to
explain totally how the mind and the
body work
together. How can a tangible reality
coexist with an intangible one? This one
question is the
draw of most criticism of the belief, obviously because no one has been
able to answer
it. Along the same line of thinking, how
does one explain the physical
location of the
mind, without giving it a physical nature?
If I said that undoubtedly my
mind is located
in my brain, I have made it part of the brain, and thus into a physical,
tangible
intity. The same goes for wherever one
would like the mind, or "soul."
Dualism itself can be broken up into four
types. Object dualism, value dualism,
behavior dualism,
and language dualism. (Kretchmar 1994,
37) Of the four, object and
value are by far
the two most prominent. Its important to
understand that any dualist is
an object
dualist. The basis of object dualism is
that of dualism itself, the idea that the
mind and the body
are separate intities. Value dualism
however, is a bit different. A value
dualist agrees
that the mind and the body are separated, yet they value the mind over the
body. A value dualist puts emphasis on the fact
that the mind is superior to the body, and
in effect
supervises it. "The body is
distanced from the thinking person because it is less
capable." (Kretchmar 1994, 42)
The attraction of value dualism is huge. The fact is that people simply cannot trust
their senses
(their body) all of the time. Kretchmar
provides an excellent example of this:
For example,
playing center field, we see the batter take a mighty swing, hear a loud crack
of the ball
against the bat, and see the ball start on a trajectory that would take it over
our
head. We begin to run back to make the catch, but
we have been deceived. The ball
actually struck
the end of the bat, and it turns out to be a short blooper that falls in front
of
us. (Kretchmar 1994, 42)
It is facts like
this that attract people toward the idea of a separate mind that is superior to
a separate
body. It seems that logic is indeed a
better choice. Would logic have allowed
our body to make
the mistake?
The truths in dualism have allowed it to make
its way into much of our culture. In
society today, it
is very hard to escape dualistic thinking.
Take the Christian view of death
and afterlife
for example. "Does not death mean that the body comes
to exist by itself,
separated from
the soul, and that the soul exists by herself, separated from the body?
What is death but
that?" (Plato 1995, 68) Of all the
type of dualism, value dualism is the
most evident form
found all around us. For example, here
at The University of the Pacific,
the course of
study now known as "Sports Sciences," was formerly known as
"Physical
Education." Although the same course material is covered,
the name was "upgraded" due
to the fact that
society seems to place much more importance on the academic side of the
human than it
does the physical.
What would it be like if the physical were
valued as much as the mental? Well
thankfully there
is a system of viewing the body that allows this mutual, equal importance
to occur. Holism is a school of thought that views the
mental and the physical on the
same level. Holism actually incorporates four basic
ideas, two stemming from the body,
two stemming from
the mind, all linking together. (Sverduk
lecture 1996) The idea of
holism is a
defeat to the idea of mechanistic thinking which evolved between 500BC and
1300AD. (Sverduk lecture 1996)
The idea of mechanistic thinking is that
everything on earth can be explained by
breaking it down
and examining its parts. It is evident
how often the body itself is taken in
a mechanistic
view, and indeed many are treated as if their body is a machine, doing
anything to make
it better, bigger, faster, and more efficient.
With the mechanistic view of
the body comes
many methods of which to enhance it.
"This obsession with body image
has led to
exponential increases in cosmetic surgery, weight-loss fads, muscle building,
and even
disturbing uses of new genetic engineering techniques." (Kimbrell 1992, 52)
This view of the
body even brings on several dualistic notions.
The idea that we are
"ghosts
caught in machines." (Kimbrell
1992, 59) Obviously this notion is a
harmful one,
"Much of the
stress and illness caused by the modern workplace is due to the fact that man
is not
machine." (Kimbrell 1992, 59)
Holism, as I mentioned earlier, is a defeat to
this mechanistic line of thinking. The
basic idea is
that the body is made from a little bit of a wide variety of things. Feelings,
emotions,
biomechanics, kinesiology, phyco-social aspects of activity, etc.. These factors
can be set up
into a quadrant system, allowing us to
view them all separately.
Being viewed
separately, these things become "holons," each existing alone, while
simultaneously
existing as part of another. (Sverduke
lecture 1996) All of these, along
with many more
things, make up the human.
Take for example the action of
weightlifting. On one hand, the lifter
feels the hate,
disgust, or
confidence brought about by his action.
This aspect falling into the upper-left
quadrant. The athlete also feels the laws of
biomechanics. Things like gravity and
the
laws of
motion. All of these falling into the
upper-right quadrant. Phyco-social
aspects
also enter into
the lower-left hand quadrant. These are
things like values and questions as
to why the lifter
is lifting (i.e.: to impress others, or
for his own health). The last
quadrant is
reserved for the actual kinesiology of the lifter. He can feel his heart rate
increase, his
breathing increase, etc. A holistic view
incorporates all four quadrants into
the
"complete" person. It is all
of these "truths" that draw people to the idea of holism.
For a holist, physical education is just as
important as mental education. It is
just
as important to
move intelligently as it is to think intelligently. Holism is a bit like a piece
of paper. You cannot have a piece of paper with only
one side. Each side is separate, yet
each are
essential to forming one total piece of paper.
(Beal lecture 1996)
Taking into consideration all of this
information, I am now able to create my own
personal
philosophy as to what it is to be human.
It is a very difficult task indeed, to sit
and think solely
about what comprises my human presence.
To do so, one must consider
values, ethics,
and their beliefs. To be human, in my
mind, is much more than merely the
mind and the
body. It seems strange to me that such a
complex being could be explained
by a school of
thought such as dualism. Dualism seems a
bit too vague.
I believe that I would take a more holist
approach to this question. Perhaps this
is
due to the fact
that I can relate to all the sub-groups in a holistic approach. I have felt all
of these areas,
and therefore seem to believe a bit more in this idea. To me, the human is a
being comprised
of a mind that takes into consideration time and space, as well as
emotions and
feelings, and a body that exists kinetically and spiritually. The physical
aspect of life is
just as important as the mental one. A
human is a being that experiences
life with respect
to all these areas, and works throughout there lives to create the best life
they can. The human searches for, and completely
defines his beliefs. I believe in the
existential idea
of existence proceeding essence.
"....first of all, man exists, turns up,
appears on the
scene, and, only afterwards defines himself." (Vanderzwagg 1969, 48) I
do not believe
that the human is born "into" a life, but works to create one.
Whatever the human may be comprised of, it is
no doubt that it is a difficult
question to
answer. Different people believe
different things. I am in no way to make
the
decision that
tells specifically what the human is, but perhaps neither is anyone else.
Maybe the
important thing is that we answer the question individually, each coming to our
own beliefs and
understandings.
No comments:
Post a Comment