The body of an elderly man...

I saw something in the newspaper the other day, about police finding the body of an elderly man who had been in a car crash. It wrote of the police pulling the body from his car. There was nothing mentioned about whether or not he was dead.

It made me think... If that man had still been alive while the police took him from his car, would any newspaper article have stated: "Upon finding out that the victim of the car crash was still alive, the police pulled the body out of the car"? My guess would be no; it sounds too awkward. Even if one were to write, "Upon finding out that the victim of the car crash was still alive, the police pulled the victim's body out of the car", it isn't right. This separates the person from their body, which is okay in some situations, such as when one speaks of pure physical motion (her body sprung into lively action). But in this case, when a living victim is being pulled from a car's wreckage, to separate them from their body and make their body alone representative of what is happening to them as a person, seems odd.

No one calls a living person a "body" when discussing them as an entire entity.

But... We can refer to someone who is dead as a "body" quite easily. In fact, when someone does this, any reader or listener will generally assume that the person being spoken of is dead, as shown by the newspaper article I first made mention of. The reader of this article needs no clarification that it was a dead body that was pulled out of the car.

The only time (that I can think of... If you have another example, feel free to share) that a living person is termed as only a body is in a derogatory sense. If you call a woman, or a man for that matter, a "body", you are taking something away from them. You are leaving out some part of who they are. Perhaps you are objectifying them sexually, or as a source of labour. I think that most everyone would agree that there is something wrong about saying: "She/he is only a body." This is dehumanizing. But why is it dehumanizing? What is there to a person other than their body, with their brain and its various connections included therein?

Yet the worldview that purports that matter is all that exists would believe that a human is merely a body, with the only difference between a living body and a dead body being that for the former, blood is flowing, the brain is functioning, etc., while for the latter it is not. So then, how does this account for the fact that when one refers to a body, it is generally assumed that they are referring to a dead person? Can a living person be a body and a body alone?

The English language does not support the proposition that someone living can consist of only a body. Languages develop to suit the needs of their speakers. They develop to express what is understood and deemed by the general populace to be true, and can end up defining, influencing, defending, and even creating beliefs.

This causes me to think that, if a living person cannot merely be referred to as a body, then there is a truth-based reason behind it, a truth that says that there is more to a human than matter alone.