Abstract
Assuming that the demarcation between normal and pathological is unfunded and that the debate is constantly updated, this article aimed to expand the range of discussion of these concepts in order to offer subsidies to resist the pathologization of existence without denying these concepts that are fundamental for clinical practice. It aims to present the dispute between the naturalist and normativist contemporary perspectives seeking to clarify the general concepts of health and disease. The analysis of the epistemological status of the concepts of health and disease or normal and pathological was widely held by Canguilhem in the 1940s and, currently, the subject of research indicates that the conceptual Canguilhemian apparatus deserves to be refined. As a result, the controversy in the Anglo-Saxon philosophical literature between naturalistic and normativist perspectives by reference to the work of Christopher Boorse and Lennart Nordenfelt is presented. While Boorse contributes to the discussion by bringing a naturalist and health functionalist concept from the idea of a "non-normative norm," Nordenfelt anchors health in pragmatic action of the subject in the world, considering the field of affective expressions of the human being.
Key words:
normal; pathological; naturalism; normativism