You Can't Prove You Exist

[Cloud]

Cartesian theory emphasizes mind over body--the pureness of intellect over the grossness of the body. This philosophy is a direct descendant of classical thinking, and it's what causes some people in Western Civilization to cry "mutilation" when confronted with body modification. But other cultures view the body quite differently, hence the "modern tribal" movement associated with body modification.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Cloud

Cartesian theory emphasizes mind over body--the pureness of intellect over the grossness of the body. This philosophy is a direct descendant of classical thinking, and it's what causes some people in Western Civilization to cry "mutilation" when confronted with body modification. But other cultures view the body quite differently, hence the "modern tribal" movement associated with body modification.

Ok .....well if people in western civilization believe in Cartesian Philosophy and as you say "grossness of the body", which I have never heard an ancient say pertaining to this philosophy, what would be wrong with modification or mutilation?
In short.... this isn't adding up to me. Could you please clarify this for me?

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Cloud

Odd that this should come up in the "you can't prove you exist" thread, because one of the motivations, I think, that people have (among the legion) for body modification is just that--to prove to themselves that they exist, to reinforce the envelope of the body with meaning.

It's a tension between western society and history, and non-western society. The Greek ideal was of bodily perfection; furthered by the medieval Christian church's horror of imperfection and abnormaility, and by the Enlightenment philosophers, such as Decartes. "Civilization" in the Western view is the triumph of man over nature, but we are moving away from that.

Here is what Victoria Pitts, a scholar and the author of "In the Flesh" says:

"Among the problems of the self-mutiliation argument is that it uncritically relies on a classical ideal of the skin as a pristine, smooth, closed envelope for the self, and a notion of the body and self as fixed and unchanging. These notions were inherited from Enlightenment traditions . . The Enlightenment affirmed a mind/body binary in which the mind was seen as more significant, while the body was dismissed as a hindrance to res cogitans, Decartes' term for the intellect and selfhood."

Opening the body in the form of pricking it with a needle goes against this Western idea of bodily boundaries. In tribal societies, both ancient and modern, this legacy is obviously lacking, and marking the body carries with it a whole slew of meanings, from status symbols to rites of passage, to marks of humanity.

If you are a Westerner, if you mark your body, you are mutilating it. You are demonstrating your disdain for traditional norms and are likely to be viewed as dangerous, criminal, sexually, deviant or psychologically disturbed. Some of these views are changing, of course, but try getting medical or dental treatment if you are heavily modded and see how lingering these ideas can be.

I hope I've added to your understanding. It's really a pretty complex question, and I certainly do not consider myself any kind of classical or Enlightenment scholar. I can recommend a number of good books if you are interested in body modification or philosophy of the human body.

Originally Posted by Cicero

Ok .....well if people in western civilization believe in Cartesian Philosophy and as you say "grossness of the body", which I have never heard an ancient say pertaining to this philosophy, what would be wrong with modification or mutilation?
In short.... this isn't adding up to me. Could you please clarify this for me?

This was my question which was more of a statement.
I'm still trying to get out of this conversation.
Cloud- just read through your own statements about what westerners believed about the body and see if anything comes up.
In your haste to link ancient philosophy with body modification you ended up contradicting yourself. No big deal.
I understand what you were trying to say. I was merely trying to get you to see a very minimal fault in your own logic (from thread to thread) without taking the time to spell it out. This completely blew up in my face because this is a forum and I have to do something obnoxious like quote out of your threads to get you to eat your words. Or do I? No... because it's not that important, and thus far I like you, and I am playing nice.

Can I be done with this now? I always end up completely off topic and I'm trying to get out of that terrible habit.
Someone says, "how 'bout them Bears?" and I start telling them about robots.