<p>In this paper, we try to examine the places and the meanings of physical education in discourses of education clued by the term of 'tai-iku (physical education)' in " New discourse of pedagogy" proposed by Heizaburo Takashima. <br/>Heizaburo Takashima(1865-1946) was a prominent advocate of physical education (P.E.) in the latter part of the Meiji era of Japan. As meanings of P.E. has changed since its importation, to trace its process of changing we should not overlook him. But attempts to read his books so far are not sufficiently to be comprehended. The present paper attempts to clarify the meaning of the term 'tai-iku' (physical education) and find its theoretical places and importance in his discussions of education relatively. <br/>Firstly, we brought his main work of P.E. "Principles of physical education" (1904) into focus to clarify meanings of the term 'tai-iku'. This has two meanings that are to cultivate the physical, and to bring up the intellectual and the moral. Secondly, from the contexts we extracted the fundamental theory on which the meanings is based. This theory is of education. But in his "principles", his discussion of education was not developed enough. So finally, shifting object of examination to his work of education "New discourse of pedagogy" (1901), we confirmed the meanings of 'tai-iku' and examined his arguments about the relations between 'tai-iku' and education. <br/>Meanings which Takashima brought out are two meanings of P.E.. One is to educate human body based on Spencer's educational theory (called 'san-iku' in Japan). The other is the methodological concept that means to educate the intellectual and the moral based on his theory of the body-mind relationship. Both contribute to character building, which is the general purpose of education, in each ways. Therefore, according to his "New discourse of pedagogy", 'tai-iku' is a result deduced from his discussion about education, namely it is a part of his thought of education. <br/>Moreover, 'Tai-iku' as an ideal phase backs up the importance of existence of 'gymnastics' as a subject in the educational system, and works as the critical point of view of it. So, 'Tai-iku' in takashima's logic is an ideal which guides practices in the field of education.</p>

The present paper attempts to clarify the meaning of the term ‘tai-iku’ (physical education) in the “principles of physical education” proposed by Heizaburo Takashima (1865-1946), who was a prominent advocate of physical education (P.E.) in the latter part of the Meiji era of Japan. Takashima wrote many books on P.E., which included many examples of the term ‘tai-iku’. Subjects related to P.E. were discussed meaningfully from various angles, but the meaning of the term ‘tai-iku’ (P.E.) itself was not self-evident.<br>  ‘Tai-iku’ in Japanese has had many meanings throughout history. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify previous references to ‘tai-iku’ using an empirical approach when reading books on P.E. written in past times, as there is a risk that Takashima's term ‘tai-iku’ may unconsciously conform to our concept of P.E.. The present paper represents the first attempt to define the term.<br>  Our first conclusion was that Takashima's own concept of ‘tai-iku’ should be defined in terms of his “principles of physical education” (1904). Our second was that the definition was a methodological one, by which intellectual and moral education can be brought to perfection, while retaining the previous meaning in the context of the human body. The term ‘tai-iku’ in Takashima's book has these two different meanings.<br>  Some other issues remain to be addressed, such as whether alternative meanings exist in Takashima's books, or whether his books (“principles of physical education” and so on) can be read consistently and coherently.<br>

This paper is to review discussions that try to answer the question 'what is physical education?', especially the ones after WW Ⅱ. And this is to classify them from a certain point of view for pointing out a blind spot on that studies. <br>We can see many discussions concerned with the issue of the identity of physical education, which have defined it in various meanings. So, we refer to some frame works proposed in the past for surveying them, and extract assertions which justify their definition of physical education from one of discussions in each type. By fixing these assertions as a new frame work to classify, the all disscussion is categorized. Finally, we derive some difficulties of the study from the characteristic of discussions in each classes, and point out an incomplete part in common which the discussions in question have necessarily. <br>'Physical education' is used in various meanings according to histrical and social contexts. But in the discussions, a certain meaning being justified, the other meanings are considered inappropriate. Histories of physical education have typically described from this standpoint ; based on his meanings which had been defined previously. In these cases, it is difficult to see 'physical education' in another meaning. This is why, historical problems of individual facts, for example, how physical education was grasped in a certain age or society, have been failed to see. This is the blind spot on the philosophical study of physical education, which we wanted to point out.

This paper is to discuss a condition of acceptance of T.Sato's theory of Physical education(P. E.), and verify the validity of H.Tomozoe's discussion based on the Sato's theory, on the subject of Tomozoe's "Character Building in School Physical Education". Sato's theory of P.E. is often referred and adopted for a methodological theory, but that theoretical range or validity were not examined. So, an attempt in this paper is a verification of Tomozoe's discussion as a case study. <br>By this work, we reconfirmed that Sato's theory is used as theoretical method in Tomozoe's discussion, and clarified that a problem derives from using Sato's theory. This problem, which is also based on omitting the argument of physical building from his discussion, is against his own purpose which aims to establish the importance of P.E. as a subject. Namely, in his "Character Building in School Physical Education", reasonableness of listing P.E. in the school curriculum is hardly enlarged in theory. Also, his own discussion puts the meaning of the existence of P.E. to come up against a new problem. <br>The concrete results of our examination are stated below. <br>It is possible and important to add 'the character building' as the educational purpose to P.E.. But it is not self-evident that that purpose can be compatible with the indigenous works of P.E.. Although Sato argue that the concept of P.E. is universal with human being, this doesn't mean that P.E. is always arising everywhere the people is acting. 'Physical building' is a key concept for connecting logically P.E. and 'Character building', that is why, a discussion about 'physical building' should not have been omitted for discussing meaningfully 'character building' of P.E. based on Sato' s theory. <br>Therefore, we cannot say that Sato's theory of P.E. is used with an adequate effectiveness, and it is necessary in future to be resolved the impropriety as stated above, by discussing 'physical building'.

The purpose of this study is to identify the fundamental principle of physical education (PE) in a discussion from the viewpoints of reasonability and methodological effectiveness. To conduct our examination, we adopted Sato's theory of PE-“Philosophizing about physical education.” Finally, we aim to answer the most fundamental question in the field of the philosophy of sports and PE: “What is PE?” The answer of this study will prove to be a milestone of this question.<br>The examination in this study was based on the intrinsic perspective. In other words, the examination was fixed upon three pieces of “categorical apparatus” ; the consistency in the discussion, which was deduced from these apparatus, was then examined. These apparatus form the frameworks of Sato's discussion, from where the main results were developed. Therefore, it is necessary to examine these apparatus for the purpose of our study.<br>The main results of our examination are stated below.<br>Sato's discussion contains an inconsistency between results of the “relation” of the category and the results of “transcendentality.” To develop the discussion on the former, we can say, it is difficult for the latter to remain valid, and vice versa. Therefore, thus far, it is necessary that we hold off accepting Sato's theory as the theory of the fundamental principle of PE, which should have enough validity.<br>Other researchers in Japan have put forth various theories of the fundamental principles of PE; however, these have scarcely been examined. Consequently, some logical issues remain hidden, as pointed out by our examination. In this sense, our study has implied the existance of such issues.

The purpose of this paper was to clarify the referents of “physique” (adj.) and discuss its significance in the educational context of J. J. Rousseau's <i>Émile</i>.<br> In 18th century France, the term ‘physique’ was a synonym for ‘naturel(les)’, and did not refer directly to the human body (‘corps’). This implies that the educational theory of ‘physique’ found in <i>Émile</i> differed in some way from the contemporary concept of ‘physical education’ as education of the human body. By considering the educational theory of ‘physique’ as a prototype of physical education, this paper attempts to clarify its contexts, and to trace its educational significance.<br> The main points derived were as follows:<br> In <i>Émile</i>, ‘physique’ was paired with ‘moral’ (‘moreau’), which corresponds to the stages of human development. The former meant the characteristics of stages in infancy, while the latter meant the stages after puberty. Education aimed at ‘the being of physique’ attempts to facilitate acquisition of abilities for self-conservation. In order to acquire such abilities, not only the human body but also mentality needs to be developed. The educational theory of ‘physique’, which attempts to cultivate both, is appropriate for childhood.<br> In the work of Rousseau, ‘physique’ has referents different from the human body. Although the educational theory of ‘physique’ includes the human body, the two need to be distinguished from each other.<br>

This paper is part of a study performed to clarify certain aspects of primitive thought related to physical education (PE), as outlined in the work of Jean-Jacques Rousseau.<br>Some studies of Rousseau have focused on PE, but in my view these are not based on the positive foundation, and there is no reference to the term “physical education (éducation physique)” in his works. Nevertheless, it is possible to demonstrate connections between Rousseau and PE. It is evident that the “father of modern PE”, GutsMuths, was influenced by Rousseau, and many discussions in this field have, in fact, been based on Rousseau. This study focuses not on PE itself, but on a prototype concept that is recognizable in Rousseau's works.<br>For this purpose, this paper attempts to analyze the context, especially public education focusing on the human body. In general, the terms “human body (corps)” and “education (éducation)” are understood as the elements of PE, and discussion of public education can be seen as one of the bases of Rousseau's thoughts about education, containing some important descriptions about the human body.<br>The main points presented in this paper are as follow:<br>Body exercise (exercices corporels) in public education, which has been accepted as the “PE of Rousseau”, is an approach to education with two purposes: moral and physical. Exercise is based on “negative education” aiming at the “child”, which is one of the main concepts of Rousseau's education thought. Furthermore, some value is placed on the whole process, where public education goes on to developing patriotism (l'amour de la patrie) in children (i.e. future citizens). Finally, exercise, a method of education, is balanced between the demand for public education and the restriction imposed by negative education.