Philosophy of the Body

*This thread will be an ongoing work, and will be added to as new thoughts arise.

Philosophy of the Body

Prologue

1.

Throughout the entire discourse and dialectic of humankind, there has never been an explicit philosophy of the body. Implicitly, however, every philosophy is the philosophy of the body, for every account, interpretation, argument, creation, and discussion of philosophies has been performed by, and manifested from the principle of principles, and the view points of, the body.

2.

What is a point of view? A point of view is the body, since this is the only point from which we can view from. What is an experience? An experience is the body, as it is the only entity that has ever experienced. What are the senses? The senses are the body, the how, the why, the where, the when the body senses. What are emotions? The emotions are the body reacting under the pressures of what lie outside and within it. What is the mind? The mind is the body as only the body is the element that can think and speak. What is consciousness? Consciousness is the body, for only through the body can consciousness be maintained, manipulated and discussed. What is the self? The self is the body, and everything within its boundary. What is the ego? The ego is the body maintaining an idea of itself. What is the subconscious? The subconscious is the body where it cannot force its attention upon itself. What is the spirit? The spirit is the body, as only the body can imagine, reflect upon and assert itself a spirit. What is the will? The will is the body and its capacity to exert itself and decide. What is life? Life is the body as it supports itself throughout its existence. What is death? Death is the body as it finally succumbs and bids farewell to itself.

3.

What is the philosophy of the body? The philosophy of the body is health. Health too is the body.

4.

Philosophy has left us eviscerated and torn apart into many pieces; much of us still lying on the ground at their feet. It has always been about peering within and peering without that which peers within and peers without. It has been about articulating that which articulates and discussing that which discusses. It has been about abstracting and idealizing that which abstracts and idealizes.

But lo! How they disparage that which disparages, and how they forget that which forgets! They deny that which denies in favour of anything but. Though they can speak such lies, the body nonetheless tells the truth by its very presence. It is always honest and always wise no matter what sequence of words come out of it.

5.

When the body doesn’t like itself, it loses self-confidence, and to gain it back, it thinks of itself as something other than what it is. To do so, it politicizes itself and its various drives and instincts into a sort of imaginary caste system, a sort of utopia, a sort of aristocracy, where one drive is favoured over another. Consciousness is favoured over digestion or circulation. Thought is favoured over sense and feeling. Intuition is favoured over reason and sensibility. The brain is favoured over the skeletal system and endocrine system. The heart is favoured over the liver. The spirit is favoured over the flesh. Yet, never once is this bodily society a society, and the body exerts and displays its unity at the same time it lies to and betrays itself into a plurality.

6.

Often, the body is seen as the sole source of evil, lust and greed, the “flesh”; and indeed it is, but only because the body has such a capacity. But it also has the capacity for good, benevolence and magnanimity. The body is pain, suffering, ugliness and boredom, but it is also pleasure, joy and beauty.

To not value the body is to not value another’s body. When we see another body as a bag of flesh and chemicals, or as a mere vehicle for something else, we see less in that which we behold, which is only ever a body.

7.

Look at a loved one. They too are a body. When we empathize, understand and love them, it is because we are embodied and they too are embodied. There is no soul, mind or spirit within them we can love, hold and be with. When we don’t value their body, we do not value what they are, and we choose a mere conception of what they are in favour of what they actually are.

When we hate another, we hate only our idea of them and never their body, and an idea is never the body that stands before us. In this sense, we only hate ourselves. When one kills another, one attempts to kill this idea by killing the body. Once again, idea takes precedence over that which is already a precedent. And one might claim that we cannot value a body unless it contains something sacred inside, but what is sacred is decided by bodies, thereby concluding that the author of what is sacred is more sacred than what it designates as holy. Knowing this, knowing that the body is not only the evaluator, but what is most valuable by that virtue, how can one harm another body? How can one envy another body, when the same capacity is available to all bodies? What is more sacred, that which a body calls sacred, or that which makes sacred?

Next: The Evisceration of the Body by Bodies

nice and interesting.

Is it possible to experience body without a spirit?

Is it possible for body to function without a spirit?

Without spirit, is body still Body?

excuse me but we cannot even go to the toilet without s spirit.

body alone is pile of earth, nothing.

a reply to: Aphorism

I agree that it all starts in the body, but what about physiognomy and anthroscopy, those to me seem like philosophies of the body.

When the body doesn’t like itself, it loses self-confidence, and to gain it back, it thinks of itself as something other than what it is. To do so, it politicizes itself and its various drives and instincts into a sort of imaginary caste system, a sort of utopia, a sort of aristocracy, where one drive is favoured over another.

I like that a lot. It becomes like a city.

a reply to: Aphorism

You might enjoy reading this:

www.amazon.com...

I'm glad you made this thread. I look forward to your further thoughts.

Just a quick question to start my dissection of your OP. In the case of people with multiple personalities, is the body simply maintaining multiple ideas of itself, or points of view?

a reply to: demus

nice and interesting.

Is it possible to experience body without a spirit?

Is it possible for body to function without a spirit?

Without spirit, is body still Body?

excuse me but we cannot even go to the toilet without s spirit.

body alone is pile of earth, nothing.

How can you see value in another if you see them as a pile of earth, nothing?

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: demus

nice and interesting.

Is it possible to experience body without a spirit?

Is it possible for body to function without a spirit?

Without spirit, is body still Body?

excuse me but we cannot even go to the toilet without s spirit.

body alone is pile of earth, nothing.

How can you see value in another if you see them as a pile of earth, nothing?

I believe that's the point being made. Without the spirit, the body has no value, just as an empty red solo cup has no value. Or so some philosophies dictate.

a reply to: Bybyots

I agree thnat it all starts in the body, but what about physiognomy and anthroscopy, those to me seem like philosophies of the body.

They sound too abstract. The idea that one can determine a "personality" through facial features sounds like determining a soul through posture.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

I believe that's the point being made. Without the spirit, the body has no value, just as an empty red solo cup has no value. Or so some philosophies dictate.

Philosophers, including the Biblical philosophers, seem to point this out. But, as we know, the body is not a vessel for anything else but itself. It's like valuing music over the instrument that plays it. The music simply doesn't appear on its own.

a reply to: BlueMule

Just a quick question to start my dissection of your OP. In the case of people with multiple personalities, is the body simply maintaining multiple ideas of itself, or points of view?

Many ideas can be held at one time. Although I've never experienced multiple personalities, it seems that though each personality may differ, the body nonetheless stays the same. The body can think about itself and call itself what it pleases.

Do you have any experience with multiple personalities?

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: AfterInfinity

I believe that's the point being made. Without the spirit, the body has no value, just as an empty red solo cup has no value. Or so some philosophies dictate.

Philosophers, including the Biblical philosophers, seem to point this out. But, as we know, the body is not a vessel for anything else but itself. It's like valuing music over the instrument that plays it. The music simply doesn't appear on its own.

Ah, but the music is what makes the instrument special. Otherwise, it's furniture. Or firewood. The difference between the Prince and the Pauper.

originally posted by: Aphorism

It's like valuing music over the instrument that plays it. The music simply doesn't appear on its own.

I'm glad you used that metaphor. It opens a door for me. For my first step through, may I present for your consideration a little bit of The Silent Flute.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

Ah, but the music is what makes the instrument special. Otherwise, it's furniture. Or firewood. The difference between the Prince and the Pauper.

Yes you can call it what you wish. But that doesn't change it or what is possible to come out of it. One need only pick it up and start playing.

a reply to: BlueMule

Nice clip. An excellent note to keep in mind throughout this discussion.

a reply to: BlueMule

Excellent movie. I haven't seen it in a while.

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: BlueMule

Just a quick question to start my dissection of your OP. In the case of people with multiple personalities, is the body simply maintaining multiple ideas of itself, or points of view?

Many ideas can be held at one time. Although I've never experienced multiple personalities, it seems that though each personality may differ, the body nonetheless stays the same. The body can think about itself and call itself what it pleases.

If the body stays the same, why does one personality have an allergic reaction to X, where another will not? Why does one personality speak a language that another cannot?

Do you have any experience with multiple personalities?

Does Clark Kent?

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: AfterInfinity

Ah, but the music is what makes the instrument special. Otherwise, it's furniture. Or firewood. The difference between the Prince and the Pauper.

Yes you can call it what you wish. But that doesn't change it or what is possible to come out of it. One need only pick it up and start playing.

A shift in perspective can change many things. Application is not synonymous with limitation.

a reply to: BlueMule

If the body stays the same, why does one personality have an allergic reaction to X, where another will not? Why does one personality speak a language that another cannot?

I would wager the same reason one can take a placebo and get better. Although nothing actually occurs beyond the ingesting of sugar, the belief can push the body to make necessary changes. Anyone can speak many languages.

Does Clark Kent?

I think you mean Kal-el.

a reply to: BlueMule

Does Clark Kent?

What does Superman have to do with any of this?

a reply to: AfterInfinity

A shift in perspective can change many things. Application is not synonymous with limitation.

A shift in perspective is what I'm asking for. Application is infinite once limitations are discovered. There are an infinite number of songs that can arise from a single violin.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

What does Superman have to do with any of this?

I think he has it in his mind that I am a Clark Kent archetype, yet who doesn't yet realize he is a superman. I humour him.