Subject (psychosomatic)
In psychosomatics, subject is understood to be a holistic concept that communicates the whole . He wants to encompass the wealth of facets that result from the conceptual pairs of opposites connected with him. Reference should only be made here to the pairs of opposites of subject and object, subject and environment or to the opposing “physiomorphic approach” on the one hand, as inherent in physiology and anatomy , or on the other hand to the “anthropomorphic approach”, as used in philosophy and anthropology is common. On the one hand, the psychosomatic concept of the subject characterizes the change of concept from ancient philosophy to today's meaning. On the other hand, it clarifies a tension of meaning ( extension ) in the consideration and distinction between health and illness , which encompasses the ancient and current usage of words. According to general opinion, the contemporary definition of subject is a consciously equipped knowing and acting " I " or a "mentally and physically active person" or an "independent structure with spontaneous activity ". The origin of the term subject from ancient philosophy, however, shows that the change in meaning that has occurred today shortens the original understanding of the meaning of hypokeimenon in ancient Greece, which is due to an increasing subjectification of facts. The colloquial meaning of subject best reflects this older word meaning.
etymology
The origin of the word from Greek philosophy provides the first starting point for the question of the tension of meaning on the subject of health and illness. Although the term subject comes indirectly from the Latin language, there is only a translation from the Greek meaning of ὺποκείμενον ( hypokeimenon ), on which the Latin term subject is based in terms of content. Subject means something like that “thrown under”. However, such a purely formal derivation would be incomplete if one did not consider the full scope of meanings that the word takes in the Greek language. After BENSELER ὺποκείμενον means of a statement or discussion Underlying whose condition even so much as place of action of a drama, is considered stoic terminus of a substrate or a perception of the object as the subject of treatment or meeting, see. also ὺποθεσις , grammatically as a sentence object . According to Schischkoff , Aristotle also used the term in the sense of substance , which he included among the categories . Even the range of the meaning of the Greek word ὺποκείμενον suggests a so-called original word from today's perspective , because it includes opposing meanings. Such opposites were already formulated in the Latin reception of the term, namely in the distinction between subject and object that is customary there. In the Latin language, object means that which is “opposed”. The object is, so to speak, “thrown against” the subject. It seems both instructive what this distinction , which has been retained to this day, means in the Latin language, as well as what expresses the original unity of the meanings of subject and object. In the French language, the purely conceptual distinction is still ambivalent to this day . In the meaning of "le sujet de conversation" (= topic of conversation) z. For example, this ambivalence still resonates today, because the purely “objective” meaning of “subject” in the sense of what is “opposed” or what is to be objectified still resonates in a paradoxical way to this day . Freud described this double meaning or this form of ambivalence of the French word “sujet” in one of his examples of the joke.
Unity and distinction between subject and object
According to Thure von Uexküll, the sense of a unity of subject and object arises in the motivational context of an action . The environment of a human being is in fact often not clearly defined. Their meaning changes depending on their different needs and inner drives. For example, a chair can be used as a weapon of defense in the event of danger. Objects, however, usually represent instructions for action. Chair usually means “sitting”, bed “lying”, etc. This primeval relationship is also expressed in patients who suffer from aphasia with word-finding disorders. For example, you describe a cup as a “drinking thing”. The distinction between subject and object becomes necessary due to the purely scientific and conceptual separation of the inner and outer world. It is a purely philosophical-conceptual or purely physical distinction. The term “molecule”, for example, is more of an instruction for a physicist who leaves out everything subjective. Even if the conceptual differentiation between subject and object appears to be purely abstract and philosophically justifiable, every “ concept ” also contains an instruction to which the origin of the concept of “grasp” already points. Reference should be made here to the frequent combination of aphasia with paralysis of the hand on the side of the language- dominant hemisphere , i.e. H. usually a combination with right side paralysis of the hand. It is then a question of brain damage to the left fronto-temporo - parietal region .
Splitting of subject and object in illness
Illness becomes conscious, for example, when it manifests itself in the form of subjective impairments. Then there are complaints such as: "I cannot swallow, walk or hear". Often these are so-called expressive diseases in which the ego is subject to certain emotions. In the case of readiness diseases, however, the complaints are usually expressed in a different form. They do not relate to the ego, but to the organs. It is then spoken of, for example, "my heart is beating" or "my stomach is pressing" or "my liver is aching". In amazement, “we can stay out of breath”. Here the body is subject to emotional emotions that split the connection from normal life relationships. Since in both cases there are no tangible physical changes and lesions , Thure von Üexküll speaks of a split in the integration space . The subject or the body is “subjected” to the influences of emotional emotions. The avoidance of illness aims at a perception of these influences and at conscious support of the “wisdom of the body” to restore the integration space, which is not only shaped by physical, but also in many cases by psychosocial factors.
Web links
Individual evidence
- ↑ a b c d e f Uexküll, Thure von : Basic questions of psychosomatic medicine. Rowohlt Taschenbuch, Reinbek near Hamburg 1963; (a) Re. “Necessity of a demarcation from philosophy”: pp. 7–11; (b) Re. “Definition”: p. 230 f .; (c) Re. “Word origin”: p. 102; (d) Re. “Unity of subject and object”, p. 102 ff. Re. “Functional circle”, p. 259 f .; (e) Re. “Exclusion of all subjectivity”, p. 104; (f) on stw. “Splitting of the subject-object relationship”: pp. 154–157, 229 f.
- ↑ a b Schischkoff, Georgi (ed.): Philosophical dictionary. Alfred-Kröner, Stuttgart 14 1982, ISBN 3-520-01321-5 , (a + b) zu Lexikon-Stw. "Subject": p. 675
- ^ Karl-Heinz Hillmann : Dictionary of Sociology (= Kröner's pocket edition . Volume 410). 4th, revised and expanded edition. Kröner, Stuttgart 1994, ISBN 3-520-41004-4 , Lexikon-Stw. Subject , p. 849.
- ^ Benseler, Gustav Eduard et al .: Greek-German school dictionary . BG Teubner, Leipzig 13 1911; P. 945
- ↑ Freud, Sigmund : The joke and its relationship to the unconscious . (1905) Collected Works, Volume VI, S. Fischer Verlag, Frankfurt / M 3 1953; Job reference here from the paperback edition of the Fischerbücherei Frankfurt / M 1963 on tax "Le roi n'est pas sujet": p. 29
- ↑ Drosdowski, Günther : Etymologie . Dictionary of origin of the German language; The history of German words and foreign words from their origins to the present. Dudenverlag, Volume 7, Mannheim, 2 1997, ISBN 3-411-20907-0 ; Lexicon-Stw. "Concept": p. 70
- ^ Poeck, Klaus : Neurology . Springer, Berlin 8 1992, ISBN 3-540-53810-0 ; Re. “Lateralization in aphasia”: p. 134