The Body as Teacher: From Source of Knowledge to Object of Knowledge :: Philosophy

The Body as Teacher: From Source of Knowledge to Object of Knowledge ABSTRACT: I look at two ways of seeing the body during the Renaissance: the first, illustrated in the Essais of Montaigne, focuses on the body as a source of knowledge about the self; the second, illustrated in the developing science of anatomy, focuses on the body as an object of knowledge that is increasingly available only to specialists. In looking at the science of anatomy as it developed in the Renaissance, I show that the transformation of the body from a source of knowledge of both body and soul to an object of a mechanical science did not happen easily and reflects contradictory approaches to the self that continue to this day. In his book The Mirage of Health, Renà © Dubos refers to the never-ending oscillation between two different points of view in medicine: those who believe that health results from living in harmony with nature (and thus take it upon themselves to know themselves and live in harmony with their environment) and those who believe that health is the responsibility of a medical expert who brings specialized knowledge and the surgeon's knife to conquer disease). He points out that in ancient Greece, doctors worked under the patronage of Asklepios, the god of medicine while healers served Asklepios's daughter Hygeia, goddess of health: For the worshippers of Hygeia, health is the natural order of things, a positive attribute to which men are entitled if they govern their lives wisely. According to them, the most important function of medicine is to discover and teach the natural laws which will ensure a man a healthy mind in a healthy body. More skeptical, or wiser in the ways of the world, the followers of Asklepios believe that the chief role of the physician is to treat disease, to restore health by correcting any imperfections caused by accidents of birth or life. (1) The modern debate between the followers of Hygeia and the followers of Asklepios is more than a debate about the relative merits of medical science; it reflects a more fundamental debate about the nature of the self and about the ways in which one can have knowledge of the self. It is a debate about the nature of the body and how we learn about it or from it. It is about the body as teacher. This paper focusses on one

Literary Criticism Essay

Biographical criticism begins with the simple but central insight that literature is written by actual people and that understanding an author’s life can help readers more thoroughly comprehend the work. Anyone who reads the biography of a writer quickly sees how much an author’s experience shapes—both directly and indirectly—what he or she creates. Reading that biography will also change (and usually deepen) our response to the work. Sometimes even knowing a single important fact illuminates our reading of a poem or story. Learning, for example, that Josephine Miles was confined to a wheelchair or that Weldon Kees committed suicide at forty-one will certainly make us pay attention to certain aspects of their poems we might otherwise have missed or considered unimportant. A formalist critic might complain that we would also have noticed those things through careful textual analysis, but biographical information provided the practical assistance of underscoring subtle but important meanings in the poems. Though many literary theorists have assailed biographical criticism on philosophical grounds, the biographical approach to literature has never disappeared because of its obvious practical advantage in illuminating literary texts. It may be helpful here to make a distinction between biography and biographical criticism. Biography is, strictly speaking, a branch of history; it provides a written account of a person’s life. To establish and interpret the facts of a poet’s life, for instance, a biographer would use all the available information—not just personal documents like letters and diaries, but also the poems for the possible light they might shed on the subject’s life. A biographical critic, however, is not concerned with recreating the record of an author’s life. Biographical criticism focuses on explicating the literary work by using the insight provided by knowledge of the author’s life. Quite often biographical critics, like Brett C. Millier in her discussion of Elizabeth Bishop’s â€Å"One Art,† will examine the drafts of a poem or story to see both how the work came into being and how it might have been changed from its autobiographical origins. A reader, however, must use biographical interpretations cautiously. Writers are notorious for revising the facts of their own lives; they often delete embarrassments and invent accomplishments while changing the details of real episodes to improve their literary impact. John Cheever, for example, frequently told reporters about his sunny, privileged youth; after the author’s death, his biographer Scott Donaldson discovered a childhood scarred by a distant mother, a failed, alcoholic father, and nagging economic uncertainty. Likewise, Cheever’s outwardly successful adulthood was plagued by alcoholism, sexual promiscuity, and family tension. The chilling facts of Cheever’s life significantly changed the way critics read his stories. The danger in a famous writer s case—Sylvia Plath and F. Scott Fitzgerald are two modern examples—is that the life story can overwhelm and eventually distort the work. A savvy biographical critic always remembers to base an interpretation on what is in the text itself; biographical data should amplify the meaning of the text, not drown it out with irrelevant material.

Kubrick And Lynch On The Patriarchy - 1581 Words

Kubrick and Lynch on the Patriarchy Stanley Kubrick’s great breadth of work spans over forty-eight years, and due to both his longevity and skill, he has influenced filmmakers from several generations. Kubrick has been named as a creative influence for a myriad of filmmakers, including Steven Spielberg, Woody Allen, Terry Gilliam, the Coen Brothers and Christopher Nolan [2,3]. Kubrick presents sensitive events in an unbiased manner, withholding an opinion on the topic. By not offering a resolution or a stance, he forces viewers to see the evils of man objectively. There is usually no punishment for the morally corrupt acts, because that offers a more accurate portrayal of reality. Characters often do not fully develop in Kubrick films, again as if to replicate reality. These unsettling techniques have left a clear impression on the filmmaker David Lynch. His films often share a sense of amorality that goes unpunished or unaddressed. Their respective world views are equally cynical, criticizing traditionalism in society. Arguably one of the most consistent links between Stanley Kubrick and David Lynch is their portrayal of women in film. Stanley Kubrick does not choose to emphasize the struggles of being a woman in a patriarchal society. Instead, he shows women through the patriarchal gaze. In A Clockwork Orange, women are literally objectified, as plastic statues of naked women are used as coffee tables in the Korova Milk Bar. This introduces the viewers to the protagonist,