Somewhere I came across this quotation from the Scottish
philosopher Thomas Reid (1710 - 1796):
Though man knew that
his life must be supported by eating, reason could not direct him when to eat,
or what; how much or how often. In all these things appetite is a much better
guide than our reason. Were reason alone to direct us in this matter, its calm
voice would often be drowned in the hurry of business, or the charms of
amusement. But the voice of the appetite rises gradually, and, at last, becomes
loud enough to call off our attention from any other employment.
On the face of it, this quotation is a simple
statement. Who can deny what Reid asserts here? Maybe we can object to some
details of the quotation, for example to the first sentence, but this will not
affect the essence of the idea expressed, namely that basically our body decides
that we have to eat and when. I think that nothing can undermine this idea as
it stands. However, the quotation contains not only a fundamental fact of life.
A closer look will reveal a complete ontology of man. I’ll not try to develop
such ontology from these few sentences, but I’ll make a few arbitrary remarks
which will show the depth of these words.
Many people think that they are free, but this
quotation shows that freedom has its limitations. We are free to choose lettuce
or endive or other vegetables to eat but our body says that we need vegetables
in order to stay healthy. On the other hand, would we be free, if we hadn’t any
limitations at all? If we could choose anything we liked? Elsewhere in my blogs
I have argued that we need limitations in order to be free. Without them we had
nothing to chose. Our body gives us such limitations and makes us free in this
way.
In my last blog I talked about Dretske’s distinction
between triggering and structuring causes. A drop of certain body parameters
causing us having the feeling that we are hungry while this feeling makes us
looking for food is an example of a body related triggering cause of what we
do. The structuring cause in this case is that we are going to prepare a meal
and not going to take a nap. And this is so because nature structured us that
way that taking food and not going to sleep is a solution of our hunger
problem. That’s how we have been made.
Descartes contended that body and mind are two
different things. Many people still think so. However, Reid’s instance shows how
they are intrinsically related. The mind is not a kind of free floating spirit.
It is an aspect of the body or a way to consider the body at most. When the
body becomes hungry, the mind can push this feeling to the background for some
time, but in the end it can only think of how to get food and how to satisfy
the hunger. Then our mind is governed by our feeling of hunger and it loses its
feeling of independence that it thought to have. Some people will object that hunger
strikers (like Gandhi) can suppress the feeling of hunger. But isn’t this just
an example of the intrinsic relation between mind and body (but then in the
opposite direction)? If such a relation didn’t exist, there was nothing to
suppress and the mind could go its own way without giving attention to any
feeling whatever.
It’s the same for pain, and that’s why I once asked
here in a blog: “When I
stumble, and I hurt my toe, is the pain then in my toe or in my brain?” It’s
the same for noise, too: One cannot think when hearing a drill. Or rather, one
can think only “Stop!” or “I must go away!”.
We can
never act without taking care of what our body wants. If we try to do so,
sooner or later the body will call us to order and guide – if not determine –
what we do.
No comments:
Post a Comment