6. Sixth Lecture: Body, Behaviour, and the Structure of Reality
In this lecture, we will explore the evolutionary truth about our body as a fundamental part of the experience of existence. Existential freedom is not a phenomenon that can be addressed through pure reason alone; we must also conceptualize our somewhat unexpected relationship with our physical body.
First, we must examine the connection between the body and consciousness. While many philosophers, from Plato to Descartes, regarded "body and soul" as two distinct entities, we will see that dualism inadequately explains the connection between evolutionary truth and the body. In fact, the opposite holds true: our consciousness and our concept of self or essence are united with our body to a far greater extent than we might intuitively assume.
Let us begin with a compelling philosophical approach that leads to even more intriguing scientific results. For Heidegger, Dasein (as the experience of being in the world) does not exist without a body. In this sense, the body is not merely a physical entity but a means of experiencing and interacting with the world. At the level of primordial subjectivity in our model, we must also recognize that the very essential and initial idea of ourselves emerges only through our physical body. Our primordial subject has always already formed a permanent, lifelong connection with our body. That body becomes a means of generating a comprehensible structure for our environment and reality as a whole.
Thus, we can assert that there is no consciousness of being prior to the self-consciousness that emerges within a physical body.
The same idea has been repeated in different ways by many. Nietzsche said, "Body am I entirely, and nothing more," referring to how our bodily existence shapes all our experiences of the world. As we will soon see, his body became to him "present-at-hand" ("Vorhanden") in Heideggerian terminology, and thus his statement has far more depth than one might initially grasp. Merleau-Ponty echoed the need to see body and soul as one; Sartre agreed that existence could only be bodily, as did Wittgenstein and Buber. Based on this, let us take a closer look at one of the key phenomena regarding the body and mind that is part of the evolutionary truth.
As we have discussed, Heidegger distinguishes between two modes of being — "present-at-hand" and "ready-at-hand" ("Vorhanden" and "Zuhanden"). The first is a way of seeing things as objects, independent of their contexts and functions, focusing on their inherent properties and characteristics. The latter refers to how we relate to objects as tools or means to achieve a particular purpose; in this mode, objects are useful for something, and we do not consider their inherent properties. Most of us have encountered these two modes when using a smartphone. According to Heidegger, when a tool such as a smartphone works as it should, we conceptualize it as a means to some end (calling, browsing, taking pictures) as "Zuhanden." Only when it stops working (we break it, the battery runs out, the software hangs) do we start to experience the object as "Vorhanden" and investigate its inherent physical properties. This concept is relatively easy to grasp; however, we can build on it and reach more exciting conclusions.
When analyzing our everyday life, it becomes apparent that most activities happen automatically to a great extent. The role of premeditation, planning, and conscious thinking is far smaller than one often realizes. In most cases, all conscious conceptualization happens afterward. Heidegger would say that for a significant portion of time, we live our lives experiencing objects in the "ready-at-hand" way (as "Zuhanden"), and that mode of existing feels self-evident.
Let us illustrate how we operate with a simple example: drinking a sip of water from a glass on the table. Although it is something we do almost automatically, it consists of a long series of actions, none of which can be rendered trivial. We start by separating ourselves from the rest of the room as active agents who can take the glass and drink. It may feel ridiculously self-evident that one subject sitting in the room is easy to prove scientifically. However, one would need to be cautious. When we apply an objective scientific approach, things become far more complicated than one might think.
Now, what about spatial awareness, object recognition, and categorization? Understanding the location of the glass is also not self-evident. Determining it presupposes that we have performed numerous "background queries" to our semantic and episodic memory to achieve sufficiently accurate object recognition. We analyze, conceptualize, and divide the combination of the glass and the table into two distinct mental entities. To accomplish this at that level is a privilege of human minds, or Dasein, as Heidegger would say. With very few exceptions, no animal could categorize a glass into a different mentally constructed category than the table — for animals, it is just an obstacle or surface.
Let us move on to the actual activity of taking that sip. Russian neuroscientist Evgeny Sokolov broke that down into prehension, transport, and manipulation stages. First, as we see the glass, our hand moves and makes initial contact; muscles and joints are activated. We enter the more complex "bring-to" phase, as we have to bring the glass to the correct spatial location without spilling water. In the third manipulation phase, we perform even more activities simultaneously: analyzing the glass's size, shape, weight, and the viscosity of the water while adjusting mechanics to tilt the glass for a sip. Afterward, we must reverse the process to return the glass to the table.
How is all of this related to evolutionary truth? To a great extent! Observing something as simple as sipping water from a transcendental perspective allows us to conceptualize how we interact with reality in the broadest sense. In most cases, there is little (if any) premeditation. First and foremost, we are not thinking beings; we are doing beings. Per the Heideggerian approach, human existence is grounded in action and practice rather than thought or reason. However, that is just the beginning, as how we act forms the foundation for conceptualizing our being and identity. Hegel demonstrated the need for action to proceed with reflexive determinism in the development of consciousness. Žižek described the influence of actions and choices on identity through the concept of determinate reflection. Thinkers like Lacan, Merleau-Ponty, and Sartre, among others, have similarly explored these ideas from diverse perspectives.
Still, one must be cautious; there is a thin line between insightful analysis and relativism when examining the role of individual action or inaction in identity formation. If we base our argument on thinkers like Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, Guattari, or Lyotard, we may encounter significant uncertainties, particularly when connecting their approaches to psychology. Some interpretations suggest that individual behavior is shaped by preceding fantasies or desires. Yet, it would be unreasonable to discard advances in modern psychotherapy entirely or revert to Skinner's findings in their bluntest form. A dialectical approach can help navigate these complexities and shed light on this nuanced situation.
Most modern self-help programs utilize cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), which has a proven track record of effectiveness. However, attributing this effectiveness solely to its cognitive aspect can be misleading. Behavioral components — such as interaction, encouragement, and support — often play a critical role in facilitating change. While we are not arguing that the behavioral component is universally superior, separating the two components can be challenging. This interplay is significant not only for treating mental illnesses such as depression but also for achieving long-term personal growth.
When we transition from addressing specific mental health issues to making positive life changes, it becomes evident that cognitive approaches alone are often insufficient. Self-help as a category is broad, and the persistence of its effects can be debated. However, this broader argument may be beside the point when we ask more radical questions: what if the subject of CBT and self-help programs is merely the S1 level in our model — a construct of our primordial self rather than the foundation of our being? What if the outcomes of such programs are merely fortunate interpretations of behavioral changes driven by deeper, primordial forces at the S0 level of subjectivity? Could it be that the "True Self" being treated or improved is not the core of our being but a fantasy-produced construct?
Given that science has yet to fully conceptualize consciousness, the self, or the unconscious mind, we cannot dismiss these questions lightly. Science still struggles to explain phenomena such as free will, the purpose of dreams, the sense of time, and near-death experiences. Even simpler phenomena, such as the placebo effect and spirituality, remain elusive. Perhaps the reason lies in the fact that our actions, rooted in primordial and existential levels, are not fully conceptualizable. These actions may bring about changes in our beliefs and perceptions of ourselves in ways we can only partially understand.
We can argue that our ancestors, who perceived the evolutionary truths embedded in their daily lives, were not entirely mistaken. Our body contains a biological wisdom that we experience but cannot fully rationalize. For example, without any formal learning, we instinctively startle at sudden events, grasp objects as infants, and experience physiological reactions such as shivering when cold or aroused. Additionally, we learn new skills through observation, as children often do before they can articulate rules. This biological wisdom is a manifestation of evolutionary truth and reflects how our ancestors shared skills before the advent of language.
Our body plays a far more significant role in experiencing reality than we initially thought. There is considerable merit to the idea that most of our actions and decisions are automatic, emotional, and only conceptualized afterward. Even our core subjectivity might be shaped by behavior, with declarative truth playing a smaller role. This perspective, echoed by many thinkers, invites us to reconsider our actions within the context of daily life and existence as a whole.
Commentary
Now, years later, after writing the initial lecture, I wish to add the following commentary. The role of the body with its a priori intuitions and spatiotemporal abilities is not something to be considered self-evident or graspable through a Newtonian approach alone — far from it. Over the course of analyzing various new approaches to these questions, I have come to realize the significance of viewing the human body as part of a structure not merely in constant relation to the physical world but as a medium for experiencing the story in which the individual participates. Spatiotemporal reality is often greatly misleading, as it reveals itself in a format of interlinked situations forming chains of scenes. The sense this provides to most people is superficial and overly physical. One should instead strive to understand the experience of being in the world as a narrative, which, in turn, enables foresight into the broader course of life when one becomes familiar with other stories that contain evolutionary truths, such as those found in religion.
