In the world of intellectual discourse, Lewis Gordon's assertion, "There is something pathological about philosophy that forgets its somatic condition," captures a critical issue often overlooked. To decipher the weight of this statement, we need to break down its key components: philosophy, pathological, and somatic condition.
Philosophy and Its Dimensions
Philosophy, by its nature, seeks to understand the fundamental principles governing existence, knowledge, and ethical conduct. Traditionally, philosophical discourse has been heavily centered on abstract reasoning and the conceptual realm. Many philosophers have dissected problems related to existence, consciousness, and the nature of reality through primarily cognitive and rational frameworks. Yet, there's an inherent limitation to this approach.
The Pathological Angle
When Gordon refers to something as "pathological," he taps into the discourse of health and illness. Pathological conditions in medicine signify abnormal states that lead to dysfunction or discomfort. By using this term in relation to philosophy, Gordon argues that a purely cognitive approach to philosophy is not just incomplete but also somewhat dysfunctional.
The Significance of the Somatic Condition
The term "somatic condition" refers to the body in its physical and biological aspects, separate from mental or spiritual attributes. The body is not just a vessel but an active participant in the philosophical process. Our bodily conditions, such as race, gender, age, and health, invariably influence our perceptions and therefore our philosophies. Philosophical inquiries shaped without considering these somatic influences can generate theories that are not universally applicable or even outright exclusionary.
Why Forgetting Somatic Condition is Problematic
When philosophy forgets its somatic condition, it tends to create theories that may not stand the test of practical application. For instance, if a philosophy of ethics is framed without considering the bodily experiences of pain, pleasure, or disability, it risks becoming an impractical guide for ethical conduct. Similarly, theories of justice that overlook the somatic aspects related to race and gender often perpetuate existing inequalities.
Moreover, abstract theories that lack grounding in bodily experience are often detached from real-world applicability. For example, concepts of freedom and choice may hold different significance for someone living with a physical disability compared to someone without such conditions. Thus, neglecting the somatic aspect means neglecting the real-world implications and complexities that arise from our bodily existence.
Implications for Philosophical Practice
For a more rounded and functional philosophy, a reconnection with its somatic condition is imperative. This involves not just the acknowledgment of bodily factors but also their active incorporation into philosophical discourse. By doing so, philosophy becomes more inclusive, grounded, and aligned with real-world complexities.
In summary, Lewis Gordon's assertion serves as a critical reminder of the incompleteness and potential dysfunction in philosophies that divorce themselves from the physical realities of human existence. His call to remember the somatic condition is not just a critique but also a directive for refining the philosophical practice, making it more aligned with the complex tapestry of human experience.
Comments