A surprising amount of philosophical ideas I've come across since we began the semester are related to the Alexander Technique. A lot of philosophers believe in mind-body connection, skeptics don't trust their senses, and many were basically just interested in the body and how it works. Some philosophers, however, make assumptions about the mind and body that is proved true, would make the Alexander Technique completely wrong.
| Plato vs. Aristotle |
The majority of early philosophers held the idea that the mind and body were separate entities. You have a body, you have a soul- your soul lives in your body but is somehow not concretely connected. Plato was the first person to write about this idea, though evidence shows that his predecessors probably believed the same. This view on mind-body connection is called dualism. Aristotle was the first philosopher that argued something different. While he agreed with many aspects of his teacher's theory, Aristotle believed that when the body died, the souls( he believed we have 3) die as well. While Aristotle's idea was revolutionary and led to many new ideas about our body and soul, such as Epicurus' idea not to worry about death because you don't worry about your non-existence before you were born, Plato's take on the matter remained the more popular idea and has been adapted by many philosophers such as Rene Descartes. One philosopher has developed a theory that would explain the mind and body as separate but symbiotically working together, which would make it possible for AT to still be effective if the mind a and body are separate entities. Gottfried Leibniz's solution to the mind and body problem is psycho-physical parallelism. The mind and body work harmoniously together in complete agreement, despite being components which operate independently of each other, so, if this is the case, then it could be possible for kinks in their symbiosis that cause the habits Alexander Technique works to change. It's certainly a different approach than F.M. Alexander took, but its feasible.
The idea of Stoicism is very similar to the foundation of Alexander Technique. Stoics believe that we are responsible for our thoughts and feelings, that they are processes that can be controlled to relieve us from suffering. In the Alexander Technique students are taught to train their reactions to situation in the same way, like once when my AT teacher was late for our class she told us that she knew she was going to be late and instead of getting upset and coming into class a flustered mess, she decided to be okay with her tardiness and that allowed her to keep her composure. Alexander Technique takes Stoicism a step further in that students control their minds to control their bodies and vice- versa in a sort of balancing act. Like Stoicism, the primary goal of Alexander Technique is to allow a person to live freely, even if the world does not.
Another philosophical standing that is related to the Alexander Technique is skepticism. Pyrrho, the ultimate skeptic believed not to trust his senses at all, since there is the possibility that they could be tricking him. The extreme nature of his belief nearly cost him his life on several occasions, but with Alexander Technique it is possible to use this idea to improve your life and the quality of it. Alexander Technique also teaches not to trust your senses and instincts, not because it might be a trick, but because what feels comfortable and natural may not be using the body to it's greatest mechanical advantage, and thereby, causes problems. Alexander's skepticism isn't quite as extreme as Pyrrho's skepticism, and rather than suspicious, it is more cautious, but it is still the same idea that everything is not what it seems. The Alexander Technique puts Pyrrho's theory to practical use.
Some philosophers would have had interesting perspectives on the Alexander Technique. George Berkeley's, for example, would be extremely confusing. Would he practice AT because of his belief that everything is in your mind? Would he think that the Alexander Technique could help him strengthen that mind? I certainly believe David Hume would be interested, since Alexander Technique teaches to use the body in the fashion it is designed. He would also find it interesting because it teaches that everything wrong is caused by some misuse, which goes nicely with his own theories about God being the original cause to an endless string of cause and effects. Rousseau would enjoy the freedom of the technique, releasing yourself from the chains of uncomfortable and ineffective living. It would more than likely be appealing to Bentham, as just another way to increase the possibility of happiness.
In conclusion, I think it is safe to say that everything about the Alexander Technique, and the mind and body as well, can be debated and related to philosophy and deeper thought. It is of such philosophical nature because our minds and bodies are the closest and most basic things to us. Also if you are interested in further study of the Alexander Technique, MTSU does offer a course of it through the theatre and dance departments, and it is an absolutely wonderful and eye opening class, so I recommend it.
Also of special interest to me: the classic American philosopher John Dewey, whose greatest complaint about the history of philosophy was its unexamined commitment to dualism, was a proponent of the AT: http://www.alexandercenter.com/jd/
ReplyDeleteI've often thought that "getting out of our own way" is a key to the pursuit of happiness. AT offers practical steps to that achievement. Thanks, Morgan.