Degradation of the Body in Idealist–Dualist Philosophy

Abstract

There is no corporal philosophy at the level of other philosophical subdisciplines. A research line has begun whose ultimate goal is to determine whether a somatic philosophy can be built. From a pragmatist and biopolitical approach, the present study investigated why it has not been possible to develop grounded somatic philosophy. As an answer, the “idealist–dualist episteme” is described, which encompasses invariants in the history of idealist philosophy at the ontological, gnoseological, ethical–political, and pedagogical levels. These constants reflect somatophobia, as well as an ontological and gnoseological disregard of the body, which has led to the irrelevance of the body and corporeality in philosophy until the arrival of the “bodily turn”. The critique of this prevailing idealism and dualism will enable a review of current approaches based on these positions, such as embodiment, enactivism, embodied cognition, or embodied artificial intelligence. It opens up a new philosophical line with a universalis scope that is open to the eclectic construction of a pragmatic corporal philosophy that takes into account Chinese, Japanese, or African philosophies.

Hotspots and trends in health-oriented physical literacy research: a visual analysis based on the WOS database

“…This viewpoint posits that our physical experiences are intrinsically interwoven with our cognitive and emotional states. This monistic stance integral to physical literacy contests the traditional dualistic approach prevalent in education and health, which often segregates physical and mental development into disparate domains, completely marginalizing our body [15]. By championing the interconnection and mutual dependence of physical and mental facets of human experience, physical literacy fosters a more comprehensive, holistic approach to human development and well-being [16].…”