Aristotle on Psychic Subjecthood and Explanation
نویسنده
چکیده
In recent years, vigorous debate has emerged around a question central to Aristotelian psychology and metaphysics. This question is often framed in ontological terms, and concerns the sorts of causal roles played by the Aristotelian souls of various living organisms. More precisely, it asks whether such souls are ever capable of immediately or non-derivatively underlying the sorts of states and transitions involved in intuitively psychological phenomena such as perception, emotion, or thought, or whether these states and transitions must instead belong directly or non-derivatively to ensouled living things such as human beings, horses, and dogs. When Socrates builds a house, Bucephalus sees a certain shade of yellow, or Fido gets angry at the mailman, in other words, will these ostensibly cognitive activities ever involve instances of knowledge, states of awareness, or causally relevant events that belong directly to their individual souls in the way that a certain weight belongs directly to the materials making up a bronze sphere, or in the manner that various phenomenal experiences are often held to be immediately present in something akin to a Cartesian mind? Or will such cognitive activities instead be fully explicable in terms of bodily states that are ultimately explained by, while nevertheless failing to directly belong to, the Aristotelian souls that make them possible? According to the currently dominant line of reasoning, Aristotle's mature thoughts on the soul rule out the possibility of such psychic subjecthood. In the De Anima, the argument typically goes, the soul is defined as the "substantial form" or "first actuality" of a certain sort of living body, and however we are to interpret this characterization, it is clear that it does not require the introduction of some additional entity that might stand as an independent subject for "mental" states and events. Instead, we are told, the claim that a given organism has a certain type of soul indicates something about how
منابع مشابه
Four Decades of Scientific Explanation
The search for scientific knowledge extends far back into antiquity. At some point in that quest, at least by the time of Aristotle, philosophers recognized that a fundamental distinction should be drawn between two kinds of scientific knowledge—roughly, knowledge that and knowledge why. It is one thing to know that each planet periodically reverses the direction of its motion with respect to t...
متن کاملThe Coherence of Thrasymachus
level, Plato’s own method is broadly similar to that of Thrasymachus. 29 I suspect that this is particularly true of the two arguments that seek to show that justice is a virtue—the pleonexia argument (349b1–350d4) and the civic-and-psychic unity argument (351c–352a). These arguments have been correctly argued to be absolutely essential to Socrates’ refutation of Thrasymachus in Book I by D. Sc...
متن کاملAmbroise August Liébeault and psychic phenomena.
Some nineteenth-century hypnosis researchers did not limit their interest to the study of the conventional psychological and behavioral aspects of hypnosis, but also studied and wrote about psychic phenomena such as mental suggestion and clairvoyance. One example, and the topic of this paper, was French physician Ambroise August Liébeault (1823-1904), who influenced the Nancy school of hypnosis...
متن کاملAristotle on the Cause of Being and of Coming to Be
This paper considers Aristotle’s distinction between the cause of being and the cause of coming to be. It is intended to show that Aristotle is able to unify both kinds of causes on the basis of the idea that a thing’s substance is its end. He is not confused about the cause of being and of coming to be, as it might seem in several passages. The paper’s focus is on Metaphysics Zeta 17. In contr...
متن کاملOn the Generation of Animals, by Aristotle
Aristotle?s On the Generation of Animals is referred to in Latin as De Generatione Animalium [6]. As with many of Aristotle?s writings, the exact date of authorship is unknown, but it was produced in the latter part of the fourth century B.C. This book is the second recorded work on embryology [7] as a subject of philosophy, being preceded by contributions in the Hippocratic corpus by about a c...
متن کامل