Human Embodiment

“My Body”

Who am I?

An important aspect in answering this question in the experience of my body.

If I were asked about myself, my answers inescapably have reference to my body.

Ako si Juan dela Cruz. Ang kulay ko ay kayumanggi. Hindi ako gaanong kataasan at kulot ang aking buhok…

Thus, I cannot separate myself from my body; I am my body.

I am a human person because I have an understanding and mind of the human person.

I am more than my body.

On the one hand, I recognize an intimate relation of myself with my body, and thus truly say: I am my body.

On the other hand, I also know that I cannot reduce my whole humanity to my body. I am also a spirit who has intellect and will, and my body is only something I have: I have my body.

What is the meaning of this paradox?

Some Answers from the History of

Philosophy

Plato (430 – 350 BC) Man is his soul. Soul is the essence of man’s humanity and the

source of all his activities. Plato uses the following metaphor: The soul is

the charioteer of the two-winged horses. One is sensible and flies high to the heavens to reach the light of truth and goodness. The other comes from a bad breed and because of neglect and sinfulness, had lost his wings and fallen to earth to assume human form.

Human body is an unfortunate accident and a cruel imprisonment of the free and pure soul.

In death, the true man is freed from his imprisonment.

Aristotle (304 – 322 BC) Man is the whole of his body and

soul. The relation of the body to the

soul is the relation of matter to form.

There is no matter that is not informed by form, and no form that is not the form of matter.

St. Augustine (354 – 430 CE) Man can be divided into body and soul, and

no doubt the soul is more real and important.

It is not possible, however, that only the soul is man since a soul cannot become a soul if it is not a soul of the body.

Moreover, it is not possible that only the body is man because a body is not a body if it is not a body of the soul.

Therefore, man is still a unity of body and soul.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1226 – 1274) Like Aristotle, St. Thomas affirms the

unity of body and soul in man. Unlike Aristotle, St. Thomas contends

that man is not only a rational animal but an embodied spirit.

The soul of man is not like the soul of any animal.

By virtue of man’s spiritual faculties – intellect and will – which inhere in man’s soul, human soul, then, is spiritual and can exist without matter.

Nevertheless, while St. Thomas was affirming that man’s spiritual soul can exist without matter, he also affirmed that this soul cannot do its operation without the body.

Body and soul are inherently united. They form a one substance, a unity, and not a couple. This unity is the human person.

Rene Descartes (1596 – 1650) He was the father of modern philosophy and

analytic geometry. He contended that all extended beings

(meaning, bodily beings) including man’s body, are subject to change and hence, uncertain.

To get rid of illusion in order to secure that which is certain as the foundation of any inquiry, he introduced a methodic doubt in which he subject every extended being into doubt and claimed that whatever is that which will pass the test shall be held as certain and real.

He realized that even if almost everything can be doubted, there is one thing that he cannot doubt – the fact that he is doubting.

And is he is doubting, then he is thinking. Thinking, then, is something that is

indubitable, and it is through which we can know ourselves and the fact of our existence. Cogito, ergo sum. I think, therefore I am.

He could not imagine himself without thinking while he could imagine himself without the body.

Man, therefore, is independent of the body. Man is a res cogitans, a thinking being and not

a bodily being. Body is not man. Man is his soul, the soul

which thinks, affirms, denies, and wills. Nevertheless, Descartes has been inconsistent

with his contention. In the latter part of his writings, he also affirmed that there is substantial unity of body and soul in man. However, he claimed that the inquiry into the nature of the soul is rather complicated and is beyond the reach of reason.

Gabriel Marcel (1889 – 1973) Many philosophers specifically

phenomenologists in the contemporary period criticized Descartes’ conception of the human person. One of those is Gabriel Marcel, a French phenomenologist who is also a playwright and musician.

Marcel disagrees how Descartes and some other mathematicians and scientists look at the body of man as merely a machine.

In Marcel’s philosophy, man’s embodiment is not simply a datum alongside other data but the primary datum that is the starting point and basis of any philosophical reflection.

This means that knowing and investigating man is not the same as knowing and investigating things, for man is not merely a body but an embodied spirit.

Primary and Secondary Reflection There are two levels in the act of knowing

according to Marcel: primary and secondary reflection.

Primary reflection is when we look at a particular thing objectively (ob-jectum – thrown in front).

In this kind of reflection, I place myself outside the thing I am investigating. It has nothing to do with me nor do I have anything to do with it.

In this manner, the body studied in primary reflection is no longer my body but “a body”.

“A body is an objective idea apart from me; I have nothing to do with it nor does it have anything to do with me.”

This is the body talked about in anatomy, physiology and other sciences.

Because this is an objective and universal idea, this can be the body of anybody else, and consequently, of nobody.

Nevertheless, primary reflection about the body is important.

Had it not because of primary reflection, there could have never been any development in medicine and in other sciences as well.

However, Marcel contends that looking at the body in a primary reflection is not the whole truth. And indeed, there could be a danger if I treat my body as separate from me. I need to transcend beyond primary reflection and go back to the concrete experience of my body where the whole truth about my body is rooted.

I have to enter into the level of secondary reflection.

In this kind of reflection, I recognize that I am part of the thing I am investigating, and therefore my discussion is subjective (“thrown beneath”).

I have something to do with it and it has something to do with me. Because I participate in the thing, I cannot tear it apart into clear and fixed ideas.

In using secondary reflection, I discover that what exists is not “a body” but “my body” – my body that is uniquely mine.

My Body Marcel’s philosophy of the body is an

inquiry on the meaning of the experience of my body.

“My Body” has two possible connotations: I have my body and I am my body

To say that I have my body is to imply that I possess or own it just as I own things.

My Body First reason is that my body is mine and

mine alone. It cannot be the body of someone else.

Second is because I have a responsibility over my body. It is I who must take care of it.

And lastly, I can say that I have my body because I have a control over it.

If I look at my body this way, I can say that my body is an instrument or an extension of myself, just as my dress is an extension of my skin.

Marcel claims that understanding the body in this manner is the product of primary reflection in which we objectify our body and make it apart from us.

If I understand my body as merely a possession, then it’s being mine loses its meaning.

It can be used, disposed and abused by anybody else.

Upon consideration of secondary reflection, it does not make sense to treat our body as an instrument.

For Marcel, the experience of my body is the experience of the I-Body. Here secondary reflection recuperates and states that there is no gap between me and my body. In other words, I am my body.

If I say I am my body, this does not imply that I am the body that is objectified by others, the body seen, touched, felt by others. This interpretation of my body only implies that my being as a human person is reduced into my body, instead to exalting my body as a manifestation of my being a human person.

I am my body simply states that I cannot separate myself from my body. I am an embodied spirit. “I”, being subject, makes my body an expression of my subjectivity also. Hence, I cannot simply objectify my body just as others cannot objectify me through my body.

What happens to my body happens to me; what is inflicted to my body inflicts me also. What is being said about my body is said about me.

Kapag ginawang katuwaan ang aking panlabas na anyo, ang dignidad ko bilang tao ay tinapakan na rin.

Marcel admits that it is difficult to conceive of this experience of “my body” in a clear and distinct manner.

Thinking involves making use of ideas or concepts. However, the experience of my body is not an idea. Even an idea could not express this mysterious relationship between me and my body.

I do not think of my body; I feel it.

If we want our thinking to be faithful to experience, we need to use concepts that point to this feeling. And this can be fulfilled only if we enter into secondary reflection and humbly return to the experienced reality of ordinary life.

Such is the reason why description is recognized to be more appropriate in expressing experience than definition.

The Life of Embodied Spirit

Our reflection on the experience of my body exposes its paradoxical character: On the one hand, I cannot detach my body from myself: I am my body. On the other hand, I cannot reduce myself to my body. I also experience myself as an I – a spirit with intellect and will, that can never be imprisoned in my flesh and bones. Hence, the body becomes only an extension of myself: I have my body.

A. THE BODY AS INTERMEDIARY

I experience myself as being-in-the-world through my body. My body acts the intermediary between the self or subject and the world.

Intermediary connotes two meanings: as a bridge and as wall

When I say my body is the intermediary between myself and the world, I refer to two meanings.

On one hand, because of my body, an encounter and agreement occur between myself and the world. Through my body, my subjectivity is opened to the world and the world is opened to me.

On the other hand, because also of my body, I experience the world as separate from me. I am hidden from the world, and the world is hidden from me.

B. The body in intersubjectivity My body is not only an intermediary between

me and the world but also between me and others.

Through my body, I show myself to others and the others, through their body, show themselves to me.

Yet, it is also though my body that I hide myself from them, and they hide themselves from me.

Dahil sa aking panlabas na anyo, nakakapiling ko  ang  iba,  ngunit  dahil  rin  dito  kaya’t nawawalay ako sa kanila.

Ang pagkakaroon ko ng katawan ay isang napakagandang pangyayari sa aking pagkatao. Dahil

dito’y nakikita ako at nakikita ko rin ang iba. Gayunpaman, ito rin ay isang napakasalimuot kong

hantungan. Dahil dito’y tinatago ako, at sila’y tinatago rin mula sa akin.

C. The value of my body As the appearance and expression

of my subjectivity, my body has a unique value and dignity. It directs me not only to the world and to others but also to God.