| |
|
I would tend to think of health as an ideal, an ideal to which we can only make approximations. Similarly, I suppose, to other abstractions of this type (for example freedom) it can never be attained absolutely; we are seemingly constrained by our own physical limitations to being consistently unhealthy to relative degrees. There is no such thing as a perfectly healthy being. Personally I would take the view point that we are all in a generally degenerative state and that health, or the quest to be healthy, is the attempt to minimize its impact on our lives and to not encounter anything which will speed up the process by which we lose our own functionality. Now note that this is a very different quest to those which we are often fed to us under the same name; the quest to look like a he-man, the quest to be the right shape, colour or size, or even the quest to be fit enough to compete, fight or crush our enemies. Frankly these are more often a sign of psychological unhealthy than an aim towards well being.
I suppose the ideal of health in its crystallized and solid form would be perfect homeostasis, perfect emotional and psychological well-being, zero trauma to the body, perfect muscle tension so as not to experience aches, perfect posture, no impeding deformations or disabilities and finally it can possibly also be said to include perfect quality of life, but I guess given this one’s subjectivity we can probably overlook it. Now even overlooking the last item it’s fairly obvious it’s more of a pipe dream than something to be actualised. The process of becoming healthy is like some kind of asymptotic aim towards an unachievable end. I kind of view health therefore somewhat like Kant’s imperfect duty to the self in the groundwork; perfection of the self. I don’t believe anyone should be forced (if it were possible) into being healthy, but it is essentially a waste not to. Unattainable and subjective, but universally desirable.
I would say about health and happiness then, that we should probably take a somewhat utilitarian standpoint. To coin slightly economic terminology; Haus’s presupposition is right in so far as some people will be sacrificing the short term profits of utility garnered through not exercising. However by doing so they, hopefully (assuming they don’t get run over), reap the longer term profits of minimised degeneracy of functionality. Now I think people make these choice on the basis of which lifestyle will give them more utility. This also gives room for those nuts that are health crazy and derive great satisfaction in running around in subzero temperatures at the crack of dawn - they are just people who take a lot of utility from lactic acid I guess.
As for your questions about how to define disease or health, I think we should perhaps look at the etymology of disease; much to everyone’s surprise I am sure, it literally meant causing a lack of ease. Therefore it may be wise to see a more personal distinction as to what qualifies as a disease and what doesn’t. If something physiological is causing you irregular discomfort, hindrance or dysfunction it might as well be considered a disease I suppose. More interesting would be for someone to try and ascribe an exact line as to what justifies a mental illness. If you aren’t aware you're dysfunctional according to our norms is it right for other people to determine that you are unhealthy? Do we simply trust the authority of the 'informed'? Welcome to Harmony House. |
|
|
