Spiritual_Wellness_Holistic_Health_and_the_Practic

38 Philosophical Foundations of Health Education
THE NATURE OF HUMANKIND
The holistic concept of a human being as an integrated whole, intimately and synergistically
related to the environment, represents a reorientation of thought from a mechanistic
to an organic view of human nature.
There is consensus between Smuts and Oberteuffer (1953) regarding a human
being ’ s integrated, indivisible nature. Both considered a human as a whole, greater
than the sum of his or her parts. Oberteuffer ’ s viewpoint was based on his belief that a
human is “ a being indivisible and whole, and who retains his integrated character . . . in
the face of an adverse environment. ” Smuts ’ holistic viewpoint was based upon his
theory that Homo sapiens represented the highest evolutionary integration of organic
body and psychic mind. According to Smuts, a human is essentially a unique whole,
the fullest expression of holism which nature has yet realized (1926, p. 152).
There is consistency between Smuts and Oberteuffer in their rejection of mechanistic
and atomistic explanations of Homo sapiens ’ nature. Smuts rejected the mechanistic
view that a human ’ s essential processes could be explained in physiochemical
terms. Smuts held that the mechanistic explanation of human nature “ is only by way of
analogy from lower forms of experience and not because man ’ s spiritual structure is in
any way of a mechanistic type ” (1926, p. 152). According to Smuts, a human being “ is
a spiritual holistic being not a mechanistic type ” (p. 152). Oberteuffer rejected the
atomistic view that a human ’ s essence could be functionally segmented. According to
Oberteuffer (1965), the atomist “ pulled man apart. They separated him into mind,
body and spirit. ” Oberteuffer(1953) held that to study the segmented parts would
throw little understanding on the whole of human nature because “ the whole is something
different from and greater than the parts. ” According to Oberteuffer, man is
essentially a unified integrated whole organism.
There is consensus between Smuts and Hoyman about human nature. According
to Smuts (1926), in essence a human being is a “ spiritual holistic being . . . with sui
generis categories of the mental and ethical orders ” (p. 152). Smuts ’ perspective is
based upon the progressive, creative evolution of human kind. He believed that Homo
sapiens is the highest expression of holism that nature has realized. According to
Hoyman (1972a), a human is in essence a self -determined, autonomous, self-actualizing
moral agent whose “ self - conscious awareness brings in a sui generis quality to his
behavior compared to other life forms. ” Both Smuts and Hoyman indicate that moral,
ethical, and spiritual dimensions are at the essence of human nature.
There is consistency between Smuts and Hoyman in their rejection of teleological
vitalist explanations of human nature. According to Smuts, vitalists conceived of an outside
“ force ” which distinguishes living from non - living bodies. He considers the vitalistic
view “ an assimilation of the concept of life to ideas . . . which . . . should be obsolete ”
(1926, p. 161). Hoyman (1974) rejected the viewpoint of reductionism which viewed a
human as “ nothing but ” a robot or machine or animal, etc. He also rejected the view of
environmental determinism and the vitalist concept of purposeful design. According to
Hoyman, “ man … has no rigidly predetermined teleological existence or essence. ”