Body as condition of knowledge (was: Lebensphilosophie)

[Risto S Varanka]

----- Forwarded message from j laari -----
>What was 'reactionary lebensphilosophie'? How do you understand 100
>years old philosophy of life, "Lebensphilosophie"?
>
>I think the main reason for the contempt of Lebensphilosophie is
>Lukacs' stalinist pamphlet (you've been referring to during the recent
>years). The problem with such a mockery is that it gives a totally
>false presentation of Lebensphilosophie as philosophical standpoint.
>After all, what reactionary is with a view, that phenomenal and
>experiential "world" is grounded on (and comes up from) "life" that
>actually means a living human body? 

Is this perhaps reflected in Habermas's notion of the lifeworld,
which is in danger of being "colonized by the system"?

I'm also trying research what kind of a role the human body has
for knowledge.  One could view the human body as a physical entity
(material substance), a field of experience (lived body with
spatial extension etc) or an acting entity (operating body).  I
think many Phenomenologists - from Heidegger to Merleau-Ponty and
Dreyfus - emphasize that the experienced human body is a necessary
precondition of knowledge, while I tend to think that the
connection to bodily action is a necessary precondition of meaning
and understanding. 

I am slightly dissatisfied with a Habermasian view of knowledge,
which views knowledge as propositional content, the validity of
which is determined in a discourse removed from action.  Habermas
recognizes some real-world factors which can influence knowledge,
though, and now I'm starting to think that maybe it's possible to
dig up some passages from Habermas which give a role to the human
body in the formation of knowledge. 

Do any Frankfurt School writers bring up the relation of knowledge
and the human body - explicitly or implicitly?

-- 
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/
risto varanka at no spam please helsinki fi