<abstract xml:lang="en" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>Author underlines that biological sciences connected with the human being are traditionally - after MacFadden, among others - counted among physical culture sciences. Because of the bodily foundations of human physical activity, they perform - shortly speaking - a significant cognitive function: they describe natural foundations of particular forms of movement. In spite of the fact that knowledge in that respect is extremely important for multiform human activity in the field of physical culture, it is not knowledge of cultural character. From the formal (that is, institutional) viewpoint it is strictly connected with culture studies, but it has separate methodological and theoretical assumptions. Knowledge of that type is focused on the human organism and not on effects of mental, axiocreative, symbolic activity of the human being entangled in social relations. It includes auxiliary data which support practical - that is, in that case, physical, bodily - activity. Its reception of axiological (ethical and aesthetical), social (philosophical, sociological, pedagogical, historical {universal or strictly defined - referring <italic>e.g.</italic> to art and literature with the connected theories} or political) character is dealt with by the humanities (in other words: social sciences) constituting an immanent and the fundamental - and hence the most important - part of culture studies. Putting stress on alleged superiority and the dominating role of natural (biological in that case) sciences within physical culture sciences and the connected marginalization of the humanities - which constitute, after all, a necessary and hence an unquestionable foundation for culture studies, their essence and objectivisation - is, euphemistically speaking, a clear shortcoming in the field of science studies.</p><p>The abovementioned exaltation and aspirations for superiority, as well as deepening and more and more aggressive marginalization of the humanities (understood in that paper as a synonym for social sciences) in the field of physical culture sciences may lead to the separation of biological sciences.</p></abstract>

Author underlines that biological sciences connected with the human being are traditionally - after MacFadden, among others - counted among physical culture sciences. Because of the bodily foundations of human physical activity, they perform - shortly speaking - a significant cognitive function: they describe natural foundations of particular forms of movement. In spite of the fact that knowledge in that respect is extremely important for multiform human activity in the field of physical culture, it is not knowledge of cultural character. From the formal (that is, institutional) viewpoint it is strictly connected with culture studies, but it has separate methodological and theoretical assumptions. Knowledge of that type is focused on the human organism and not on effects of mental, axiocreative, symbolic activity of the human being entangled in social relations. It includes auxiliary data which support practical - that is, in that case, physical, bodily - activity. Its reception of axiological (ethical and aesthetical), social (philosophical, sociological, pedagogical, historical {universal or strictly defined - referring e.g. to art and literature with the connected theories} or political) character is dealt with by the humanities (in other words: social sciences) constituting an immanent and the fundamental - and hence the most important - part of culture studies. Putting stress on alleged superiority and the dominating role of natural (biological in that case) sciences within physical culture sciences and the connected marginalization of the humanities - which constitute, after all, a necessary and hence an unquestionable foundation for culture studies, their essence and objectivisation - is, euphemistically speaking, a clear shortcoming in the field of science studies.The abovementioned exaltation and aspirations for superiority, as well as deepening and more and more aggressive marginalization of the humanities (understood in that paper as a synonym for social sciences) in the field of physical culture sciences may lead to the separation of biological sciences.

Social and Biological Context of Physical Culture and Sport

Josef Pilsudski University of Physical Education in Warsaw, Poland

Physical Culture and Sport. Studies and Research

{"article-title":"Social and Biological Context of Physical Culture and Sport"}

Author underlines that biological sciences connected with the human being are traditionally - after MacFadden, among others - counted among physical culture...

Social and Biological Context of Physical Culture and Sport

Published Online: Dec 23, 2010

Page range: 5 - 31

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10141-010-0021-1

Keywords
philosophy, sport, significance, unity, embodiment, aesthetics of experience

This content is open access.

Social and Biological Context of Physical Culture and Sport

Published Online: Dec 23, 2010

Page range: 5 - 31

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10141-010-0021-1

Keywordsphilosophy, sport, significance, unity, embodiment, aesthetics of experience

This content is open access.

Keywords
philosophy, sport, significance, unity, embodiment, aesthetics of experience