Skip to main content
Log in

Postphenomenological Re-embodiment

  • Commentary
  • Published:
Foundations of Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The phenomenological tradition has had a long interest in embodiment, and bodily experience beyond the confines of the “skinbag” body. Here I respond to Helena De Preester’s analysis of different types of protheses: limb, perceptual, cognitive. In her paper “Technology and the body: the (im)possibilities of re-embodiment”, she wants to make finer distinctions between extensions and incorporations. Today’s hi-tech developments make this refinement necessary and possible. I respond to the three levels or types of prostheses taking note of the increasing difficulty at each level and express certain worries about cognitively framed notions of bodily experience.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Reference

  • De Preester H. (2011) Technology and the body: The (im)possibilities of re-embodiment. Foundations of science 16(2–3): 119–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Don Ihde.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ihde, D. Postphenomenological Re-embodiment. Found Sci 17, 373–377 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-011-9244-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-011-9244-9

Keywords

Navigation