Descartes Imagination

8/22/2019 Descartes Imagination

1/263

Preferred Citation: Sepper, Dennis L.Descartes's Imagination: Proportion, Images, and the Activity of Thinking. Berkeley:University of California Press, c1996 1996. http:ark.cdli!.or"ark:1#$#$ft$d%n99fd

Descartes's Imagination

Proportion, Images, and the Activity of Thinking

Dennis L. Sepper

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS

Berkeley Los Angeles Oxford

!""# T$e Regents o% t$e Uni&ersit o% Ca(i%ornia

&o 'athleen

Preferred Citation: Sepper, Dennis L.Descartes's Imagination: Proportion, Images, and the Activity of Thinking. Berkeley:University of California Press, c1996 1996. http:ark.cdli!.or"ark:1#$#$ft$d%n99fd

&o 'athleen

( )i (

PREFACE AND AC)NO*LED+,ENTS

&he tr*th cannot force its +ay in +hen soethin" else is occ*pyin" its place. &o convincesoeone of the tr*th, it is not eno*"h to state it, !*t one *st find the path fro error totr*th.-LUD/0 /&&02S&/2

/ have a 3*ite precise eory of +hen and +here this pro4ect !e"an. /n the sprin" of 195# / +asatteptin" to reconcile theRules for the Direction of the ind+ith a rather conventional acco*nt ofDescartess philosophy for a "ro*p of "rad*ate st*dents. Unfort*nately / +as faced !y passa"e afterpassa"e that did not fit the convention. &he first fe+ interpretive so*rces / t*rned to provided only alittle help, hardly ore than a sharper foc*s. / reali7ed that +hen opport*nity arose, / +o*ld have to di"ore deeply into the ori"inal te)t and the secondary literat*re. B*t teachin" and other research kept eocc*pied *ntil the s*er of 1956, +hen y +ife and / had the chance to participate in 8ar4orie0renes 2ational ndo+ent for the *anities 2; seinar on Descartes at Cornell University, in


2/263

/thaca, 2e+ enaissance so*rces +ith +hich / +as little failiar. &hat investi"ation,*ndertaken in the acadeic year 1955A1959 +ith the s*pport of a fello+ship +ith the /nstit*te for>esearch in the *anities of the University of isconsin, 8adison, *ncovered for e the fiches of anold philosophical psycholo"y that had defined specific roles for ia"ination-in editation, in thepractice of eory, in poetic invention, in atheatics, indeed in all co"nition.

Unfort*nately / have !een a!le to incorporate only a fraction of those

( )ii (

riches into this !ook. Soe of y historical e)c*rsions are *ndo*!tedly oversiplified, in part !eca*seof the deands of !revity, in part, / fear, !eca*se of y i"norance. &here are any places +hereinterested readers +ill +ish for f*rther detail that / do not "ive. &hose +ho are historically interesteday !e ipatient +ith soe of the philosophical e)c*rsions= and the philosophically inclined ay findore history than is to their likin". @ll the errors, of co*rse, are y o+n: / can only offer apolo"ies inadvance for not akin" the !ook !etter than it is.

2evertheless, if / +ere to ake an apolo"ia for it, / +o*ld !e"in !y callin" attention to the +ords ofitt"enstein 3*oted a!ove. 2o philosopher of the odern era has !een, and contin*es to !e, oreytholo"i7ed than Descartes. ne reason is that Descartes hiself !e"an the process +ith hisa*to!io"raphy in theDiscourse on the ethod for !onducting "ne's Reason #ell and $inding Truthin the %ciences.irt*ally everyone since has follo+ed Descartess e)aple, if only !y readin" hiteleolo"ically, that is, +ith the e)pectation that in everythin" he +rote he +as al+ays destined to !e the

Descartes of theDiscourse,theeditations,and thePrincipia.&his is the error that holds the fieldand fro +hich one *st coence the 4o*rney= at the very least it is an o!stacle to *nderstandin"Descartess +ritin"s prior to 16#E. hat / have therefore tried to do in this !ook is to trace a path froia"ination as it is fo*nd in the canonical Descartes to +hat / !elieve is the deeper tr*th, that hisscientific and philosophical interests !e"an +ith the po+ers of the ia"ination. &his ori"in not onlyreveals an ori"inatin" ip*lse, it also lar"ely e)plains the co*rse of his researches and "ives cl*es toho+ +e sho*ld read and ho+ +e often isread; the +ritin"s of his at*rity.

&he !ook is artic*lated as follo+s. /n the introd*ction / disc*ss ipressions that soeone failiar +ithDescartes is likely to have a!o*t the role of ia"ination in his tho*"ht, then offer si"ns of a 3*iteradically different assessent of ia"ination fro one of his earliest note!ooks. Part / sketches the!ack"ro*nd of ancient and edieval theories of ia"ination as a sensitive po+er of the so*l +ith a

deterinate role in the process of kno+in"= it then t*rns to Descartess adaptation of this tradition in hisearly theory of an analo"ical and proportionali7in", cognitiveia"ination. Part // proceeds to e)ainetheRegulae ad directionem ingenii,in +hich a physiolo"ically !ased psycholo"y of kno+in"ela!orated and deepened the conception of co"nitive ia"ination !*t also !e"an to create rifts !et+eenthe corporeal and intellect*al reals. Part /// then attends to the ore liited !*t nevertheless stilliportant roles that ia"ination played in the +ritin"s that follo+ed Descartess a!andonent of theRegulae,fro&e onde&he orld, !e"*n aro*nd 16#$; to thePassions of the %oulp*!lished in16F9;. Gor altho*"h in these +orks Descartes sharply restricted its co"nitive !earin", ia"inationnevertheless reained essential for physA


3/263

( )iii (

ics and atheatics, it took on !asic f*nctions in "*idin" the h*an passions, and it servedanalo"ically as a odel for thinkin" and ideas in his at*re philosophy. &he st*dy ends +ith areflection on soe iplications of this attept to reconceive Descartes and his philosophical

iportance./ do not pretend that this is the definitive interpretation of ia"ination in Descartes, !*t / do hope that ithelps reorient o*r conception of the phenoena in p*rs*it of +hich Descartes !ecae a philosopher.8y "*idin" intention, at any rate, has !een philosophical: to rea+aken o*r sense for a deep and +idelyran"in" ental e)perience that has !een lar"ely for"otten +itho*t ever !ein" invalidated or conf*ted.

@ +ord a!o*t translation: &he availa!le translations of Descartes into n"lish all have their virt*es, !*tthere is none that s*fficiently arks distinctions of psycholo"ical ters, especially those in Latin. &h*s/ have "iven y o+n renderin"s of all the Descartes and of ost of the Latin ites / have 3*oted. /have tried to !e as literal and consistent as possi!le, pro!a!ly errin" over*ch on the side of choosin"co"nates to render the ori"inal ters. /n translatin" the Latin, / have as *ch as possi!le kept to theori"inal artic*lation of phrases, cla*ses, and sentences. &he res*lt is often stiff= !*t !etter a stiffnessthat ca*ses *s to p*ll *p in s*rprise fro tie to tie than a fl*idity that sooths over iportantdistinctions.

/ o+e 8ar4orie 0rene a deep de!t of "ratit*de= her 2 seinar +as the place +here this pro4ect +as"iven first shape and nae, and even her criticiss and do*!ts have !een a s*pport. 8any thanks toDavid Lind!er", Pa*l Boyer, and all the fac*lty and fello+s of the /nstit*te for >esearch in the*anities of the University of isconsin, 8adison, +ith a very special thankAyo* to Loretta Greilin",+ho keeps thin"s "oin". &he instit*te ena!led e to spend the acadeic year 1955A1959 haerin"o*t the first draft of this !ook= the instit*tes doors +ere opened to e a"ain in the s*er of 199#,+hich sa+ the copletion of the pen*ltiate draft that fo*nd its +ay a fe+ onths later to theUniversity of California Press.

@ heartfelt thanks to d+ard Diend!er" of the Press for his proptness, enco*ra"eent, andprofessionalis= ay every a*thor find s*ch an editorH &hanks as +ell to Stephanie erson, forhelpin" e navi"ate the an*script thro*"h the voya"e of preprod*ction= to >e!ecca Gra7ier, for"*idin" it in prod*ction= and to Sheila Ber", for her care and sensitivity in editin".

Barney >icca once a"ain saved e fro havin" to learn to pro"ra in Postscript= / thank hi for the*se of his e)pertise and for his s+iftness in prod*cin" the fi"*res / +anted.

&here are literally do7ens of li!rarians +hose help has !een inval*a!le to e, in partic*lar at CornellUniversity, the University of isconsin 8adison and 8il+a*kee;, the University of Glorida0alnesville;, the University

( )iv (

of &e)as @*stin and Dallas;, the University of klahoa 2oran;, and the University of Dallas. 8yvery special thanks "oes to 8rs. @lice P*ro, the /nterli!rary Loan Li!rarian of the University of Dallas,+ho al+ays has tie for a sile and a 3*ick check of CLC, re"ardless of ho+ any re3*ests haveflooded her desk.

/ +ish to e)press y "ratit*de to the editors of theournal of the (istory of Philosophyfor allo+in"the *se of passa"es fro y article Descartes and the clipse of /a"ination, 1615A16#$, +hich first


4/263

appeared in that 4o*rnal= and to )ford University Press for the *se of portions of Ingenium,8eory@rt, and the Unity of /a"inative 'no+in" in the arly Descartes. )cerpted fro )ssays on thePhilosophy and %cience of Ren* Descartes,edited !y Stephen oss. Copyri"ht I 199# !y )fordUniversity Press, /nc. >eprinted !y perission.;

&o the *nder"rad*ate a4ors and "rad*ate st*dents of the University of Dallas +ho have !een thea*dience, soeties captive, often eno*"h +illin", for !oth prepared and spontaneo*s e)positions of

Descartes, / +ant to say: yo*r interest and 3*estions helped s*stain this +ork= no+ yo* can see ho+ the+hole ar"*ent "oes.

&he end"ae of this !ook, the finishin" of it, has as *s*al !ro*"ht a litAtie cra7iness into faily life. /+ant to thank y children, li7a!eth and 8atthe+, for p*ttin" *p +ith y fitf*l fren7ies. 8y +ife,'athleen, has seen this all !efore and kno+s that it is likely to happen a"ain. She, a real historian,ind*l"es y occasional pretensions to historical ac*en. / can thank her for that= !*t for her love, / asiply, deeply, lovin"ly "ratef*l.

( )v (

A--REVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS

&he follo+in" a!!reviations are *sed for the ost often cited +orks.

@ J Regulae ad directionem ingenii, as printed in the 1E$1 Latin edition of var1io*s +orks !yDescartes: >. Des+!artes "puscula posthuma, physica mathematica.@sterda: P. andK. Blae*, 1E$1.

@& J "euvres de Descartes.dited !y Charles @da and Pa*l &annery. 1? vols. Paris: Cerf,159EA191#. >ev. ed. 11 vols. Paris: rin, 196FA19EF. &he ori"inal editions t+elfth vol*e

is a !io"raphy of Descartes !y Charles @da.; &e)t references +ill take the for @& #5EA#55, eanin" pa"es #5EA#55 of vol*e 1$. &he pa"ination of the t+o editions is thesae, e)cept for atter added at the end of the vol*es in the second edition. ol*es/// and / are divided into s*!vol*es that +ill !e indicated as //L@, ///B, /@, and/B.

CS8 J The Philosophical #ritings of Descartes.# vols. &ranslated !y Kohn Cottin"ha, >o!ertStoothoff, D*"ald 8*rdoch, and @nthony 'enny. Ca!rid"e: Ca!rid"e UniversityPress, 195FA1991.

J Regulae ad directionem ingenii,in the Latin 8S copy ordered !y Lei!ni7, discovered inthe 15%$s in anover in the 'Mni"liche Nffentliche Bi!liothek !y Go*cher de Careil.

2 J Regulae ad directionem ingenii,in the D*tch translation of 165F: >.Descartes -rieven,Derde Deel, effens een nette /erhandeling van het &icht.&ranslated into D*tch !y K. .0la7eaker. @sterda: Kan >ie*+erts7, 165F.


5/263

( )vi (

/ have *sed the n"lish for of rifles for the fo*r a4or +orks of Descartes that +ere p*!lished d*rin"his lifetie: th*s it is theDiscourse on the ethod,theeditations on $irst Philosophy,thePrinciplesof Philosophy,and thePassions of the %oul.&he sae holds for the three scientific essays thataccopanied theDiscourse,theDioptrics,theeteorology,and the 0eometry.Gor other +orks / *sethe Latin or the Grench, for e)aple theRegulaeand&e onde.

/ have avoided *sin" Cartesian as an ad4ective characteri7in" Descartes, his +orks, or his philosophy.here it occ*rs, it si"nifies his follo+ers or the philosophy that is characteristic of the.

)cept +here noted, all the translations fro Latin and Grench are y o+n. / have striven for literalisrather than soothness. S3*are !rackets are *sed in translated passa"es in the follo+in" +ays:

O+ord or phrase indicates, +here the +ord or phrase is n"lish, that it can !e read incontin*ity +ith the s*rro*ndin" te)t. 8ost typically the +ord or phrase is the no*nantecedent that *st !e constr*ed +ith the ad4ective or pronoinal ad4ective precedin" it=or it is a relatively *nApro!leatic interpolation that akes for a clearer artic*lation ofeanin". here the +ord or phrase is Latin or Grench, / a identifyin" the ori"inal of +hathas 4*st !een translated.

OJ +ord or phrase indicates the antecedent or eanin" of the precedin" ter, *s*ally aprono*n, +hen it cannot !e read in contin*ity +ith the s*rro*ndin" te)t.Oor +ord or phrase indicates that the +ord or phrase is a possi!le alternative translation of+hat iediately precedes.Oi.e., phrase or cla*se indicates y interpolated e)planation of +hat iediately precedesor its conte)t.

( 1 (

Intro/ctionDescartes an t$e Imagination

/ consider that this po+er of ia"inin" +hich is in e, inas*ch as it differs fro the forceof *nderstandin", is not re3*ired for the essence of yself, that is, of y ind. Goraltho*"h it +ere a!sent fro e, +itho*t do*!t / +o*ld none the less reain the saethin" that / no+ a= fro +hich there sees to follo+ that this Opo+er depends onsoethin" different fro e. @nd / easily *nderstand that, if soe !ody e)ists to +hich theind is so 4oined that it OJthe ind i"ht apply itself to as it +ere; inspectin" that O!odyat +ill, then it co*ld happen that thro*"h this O!ody itself / i"ht ia"ine corporeal thin"s=so that this ode of thinkin" i"ht differ fro p*re *nderstandin" only in this, that the

ind, +hile it is *nderstandin"= t*rnsO1 in soe +ay to+ard its very self and re"ards oneof the ideas that are +ithin itself= +hile it is ia"inin"= ho+ever, it t*rns itself to+ard a!ody, and looks into Oor int*its soethin" in this O!ody in conforance +ith an idea*nderstood !y itself or perceived !y sense.-8D/&@&/2 6, @& // E#


6/263

A. T0E 1UESTION

>eaders of theeditations on $irst Philosophykno+ that the ia"ination fails to !rin" *s to the tr*th,+hether a!o*t o*rselves as thinkin" thin"s or a!o*t the +orld as e)tended atter. /a"ination !y itsnat*re has as o!4ect +hat is not really there, and in dreas and hall*cinations it takes appearances forreality.


7/263

co*ld !e ia"inary, it is nevertheless necessary at least that certain other thin"s even sipler and ore*niversal are to !e ackno+led"ed tr*e= o*t of s*ch tr*e colors as it +ere; are fashioned all thoseia"es of thin"s, either tr*e or false, that are in o*r co"itation @& // ?$;.

2evertheless, the ipression of ia"ination that a reader takes a+ay fro theeditationsis orelikely to !e doinated !y the eory of its fail*res than of its proise. &he reflection on the reality ofthe eleents

( # (

or tr*e colors s*!verts o*r confidence in the tr*th val*e of all coposites, and even the hopeoentarily p*t in the possi!le e)istence of tr*e eleents fails, at least for the tie !ein". Descartessadversion to coloray +ell ad*!rate a so*rce of this fail*re, for, as +e kno+ fro Cartesian physics,colors are not in thin"s !*t only in the ind.

&he ia"ination of theeditationsis si*ltaneo*sly proisin" and perple)in". /n the conte)t of thesearch for tr*th it is !o*nd to coe *p short, of co*rse, since !y the end of the Second 8editation theeditator kno+s that ia"ination does not and cannot kno+. @s the e)aination of the piece of +a)

sho+s, the kno+led"e of thin"s !elon"s not to sensation or ia"ination !*t to the inspection of theind inspectio mentis= @& // #$A#?;. /a"ination can prod*ce appearances, !*t this po+er is neverdefinitive. @ltho*"h everyone can pict*re, that is, prod*ce in ia"ination, a trian"le, a tho*sandAsidedfi"*re is !eyond the h*an !ein"s ia"inative po+ers= for the *nderstandin", ho+ever, the chilia"onis no less clearly and distinctly conceived than the trian"le @& // E?;.

8ost devastatin" of all to any pretensions for h*an ia"ination is the clai ade in the epi"raph tothis introd*ction: ia"ination *st lie o*tside y essence as a thinkin" !ein", since +itho*t it / +o*ldstill !e the sae thin" / a no+ @& // E#;. @ltho*"h ia"inin" is incl*ded as one of the ites fallin"*nder the "eneric nae thinkin" @& // ?5;, it is a +eak instance of thinkin", inessential to that ostf*ndaental of h*an activities. /t sees ipla*si!le to take ia"ination as in any sense typical orparadi"atic of +hat tho*"ht and *nderstandin" are. 8oreover, +e can even !e"in to +onder +hether

ia"inations ethodolo"ical *se in theeditationscan have ore than incidental si"nificance,especially +hen +e note the clai in the letter of 1# 2ove!er 16#9 to 8arin 8ersenne thatia"ination hars rather than helps in the search for the ost !asic tr*ths of all, those of etaphysics@& // 6??;.

/a"ination !y its nat*re is, for co"nitive p*rposes, *nrelia!le and even deceptive.


8/263

&he co"nition of nat*ral thin"s !y h*an !ein"s Oocc*rs solely thro*"h the siilit*de ofthose thin"s that fall *nder sense: and indeed +e 4*d"e that person to have ore tr*lyphilosophi7ed +ho +ill have ore s*ccessf*lly assiilated the thin" so*"ht to +hat isco"ni7ed !y sense. Co"itationes ptivatae, @& ?15A?19;

&hese notes present a rather different, one i"ht say 3*ite *nCartesian, pict*re of ia"ination and itsrole in kno+in". @s +e shall see in chapter ?, this is not an a!erration !*t typical of the hi"h estee in

+hich Descartes held co"nitive ia"ination early in his philosophical career. &heRegulae addirectionem ingenii@& #%9AF69= pres*a!ly a!andoned ca. 16?9 and not p*!lished in any for*ntil thirtyAfo*r years after Descartess death; is the !estAkno+n +ork presentin" a positive*nderstandin" of ia"ination= ia"ination is disc*ssed thro*"ho*t, and the second part e)presslydevelops a co"nitive ethod of eployin" ia"ination to solve pro!les. 8oreover, even in +orks ofhis philosophical at*rity, Descartes fre3*ently *sed ia"es for co"nitive p*rposes. /n the optics essayappended to theDiscourse,for e)aple, tennis rackets, "rapes in +ine vats, and ri"id sticks are *sed asodels for conceivin" the echanics of li"ht= in the preface to the Grench edition of Principles ofPhilosophy,the tree of philosophy represents the relationships of the vario*s disciplines to one another.O?

@re s*ch facts a!o*t ia"ination in Descartes isolated, even a!errant, or do they reveal soethin"deeply in"rained in his tho*"htQ hat is the *ltiate stat*s of ia"ination in DescartesQ

&he ans+er depends not a little on +ho the 3*estioner thinks Descartes is. Gor philosophers, he ispro!a!ly a!ove all the a*thor of theeditations,aro*nd +hich all the other +orks revolve. Gor anintellect*al or c*lt*ral historian, he i"ht !e instead the a*thor of theDiscourse on ethod= for ahistorian of science, the a*thor of the essays on optics, eteorolo"y, and "eoetry to +hich theDiscourse+as 4*st a preface. @ccordin" to the Descartes intended, the ans+er +ill !e different, or atleast differently inflected. @!o*t ia"ination in Descartes, ho+ever, theeditations'acco*nt of theinessentiality and co"nitive irrelevance of ia"ination appears to !e the decisive fact that any scholarsclais or discoveries can never inii7e or deny.

2evertheless, Descartes scholarship and philosophical reflection a!o*t his +ork have not yet settled the

3*estion of the role and scope of ia"ination in his tho*"ht. &he topic, seein"ly of ar"inal interest,has prod*ced fe+ st*dies and no consens*s. /n the first part of this cent*ry there

O? Gor the tree of philosophy, see @& /B 1FA1%. Gor evidence of the pervasiveness of s*""estiveia"es in the later +ritin"s, see 0eneviRve >odisALe+is, Gro 8etaphysics to Physics, in )ssays onthe Philosophy and %cience of Ren* Descartes,ed. Stephen oss 2e+


9/263

his tho*"ht-not !eca*se there are reote and o!sc*re connections !et+een the, !*t rather !eca*seia"ination +as at the heart of his earliest philosophi7in", and !eca*se his prolon"ed effort to esta!lishthe practical relevance and co"nitive iportance of ia"ination led hi into a net+ork of pro!lesthat defeated his initial hopes. &he later philosophy, the canonical Descartes as +e i"ht call it;, is adirect o*t"ro+th of a shift that +as intended to circ*vent and displace the pro!leatics ofia"ination. 2evertheless, the later philosophy !ears the ark of its ori"ins, and it is not for any

accidental reason that ia"ination akes its appearance at cr*cial t*rns in the investi"ations of +hath*an !ein"s are and ho+ it is that they kno+.

O# Pierre Bo*tro*),&'Imagination et les math*mati1ues selon Descartes,Gac*lt des lettres de/Universit de Paris, no. 1$ Paris: Geli) @lcan, 19$$;= Lon Br*nschvic", 8athati3*e ettaphysi3*e che7 Descartes, in)crits philosophi1ues,vol. 1:&'(urnanisme de l'"ccident:Descartes, %pino2a, 3antParis: Presses Universitaires de Grance, 19%1;, 11A%F= and Kaco! 'lein,0reek athematical Thought and the "rigin of Alge4ra,trans. va Brann Ca!rid"e: 8/& Press,1965;, 1$EA?11 and notes. @ recent, profo*nd reevocation of this thee is fo*nd in David >apportLachteran, The )thics of 0eometry: A 0enealogy of odernity2e+ o*tled"e, Chapan Tall, 195$;, esp. 6EA91. /n his st*dy of theRegulae,Leslie K. Beck notes the persistence of theethodolo"ical iportance of ia"ination in theDiscourse= see Beck, The ethod of Descartes: A

%tudy of the 5Regulae5)ford: Clarendon Press, 19%?;.OF Lder 0V!e,Descartes' %el4stkritik: 6ntersungen 2ur Philosophie des 7ungen Descartesa!*r":Geli) 8einer, 19E?;, and Kosef Sion, #ahrheit als $reiheit: 8ur )nt9icklung der #ahrheits+frage inder neueren PhilosophieBerlin: de 0r*yter, 19E5;, esp. 1?1A1F9.

O% roni3*e GWti, &he Cartesian /a"ination,Philosopky and Phenomenological ResearchF61956;: 6#1A6F?.

O6 Kean . >oy,&'Imagination selon DescartesParis: 0alliard, 19FF;. /n chapter E, / +ill ention inaddition several o*tstandin" articles on ia"ination in theeditations.

@lso of note is an *np*!lished dissertation that *ses >*les E, 1?, and 1FA16 of the >e"*lae, the passa"e

e)plainin" ia"inations role in *sical perception fro the Copendi* *sicae, and the8editations assertion that the thinkin" h*an !ein" is an ia"e of 0od to ar"*e that ia"ination is thetr*ly active, synthetic a"ent aon" the po+ers of ind a thesis to +hich / "ive only 3*alified assent;=see Stephen enry Gord, /a"ination and &ho*"ht in Descartes, Ph.D. dissertation,


10/263

positions in a psycholo"ical constellation infored !y and ent+ined +ith a preodern conception ofthe h*an so*l and its operations, a foration and ent+ineent that has !een eclipsed !y the passa"eof tie and !y a shift in the central pro!leatics of estern philosophy. nce +e have !ecoe a+areof this, ho+ever, even theeditations'apparent re4ection of ia"ination !e"ins to tell another storythan the one to +hich +e are acc*stoed, and +e !e"in to reco"ni7e Descartess preocc*pation +ithia"ination as a key episode in his efforts to coe to "rips +ith tho*"ht as an activityof ind.

&he historical tendency of these three clais i"ht !e p*t in a kind of slo"an that, tho*"hoversiplified, has the virt*es of !ein" copact and s*""estive: the philosophy of Descartes, fro!e"innin" to end, is an e)tended reflection on the iplications of a dict* first prono*nced in 0reekanti3*ity !y @ristotle, &here is no tho*"ht +itho*t phantass-no tho*"ht +itho*t the presence ofsoethin" in ia"ination in vie+ of +hich the po+er of *nderstandin" e)ercises its activity.

&he third clai, in partic*lar, that Descartess psycholo"y is ent+ined ore +ith preodern thanodern psycholo"y, is as *ch a!o*t philosophy and the history of philosophy as it is a!o*t Descartes,and it concerns not erely his s*!se3*ent infl*ence on philosophy !*t *s as +ell. Consider first thatepisteolo"y is a coina"e of the seventeenth cent*ry, not !y accident !*t !eca*se the attention to thepo+ers, activities, and facts of conscio*sness transfored the philosophical +ay of 3*estionin", atransforation that received a decisive ip*lse fro Descartess +orks.


11/263

he p*!lished, thePassions of the %oul,he allo+ed it a nota!le f*nction in the astery of the passions./n theeditationshe p*t ia"ination to +ork in the very act of transcendin" it, and he took ordinaryia"ination as an analo"ical odel for conceivin"

OE &he e)aination of !eliefs that one o*"ht to *ndertake once in ones lifetie follo+s on onesac3*isition of those !eliefs not siply as a thinkin" thin" !*t also as a h*an !ein" +ho has !een!ro*"ht *p in the +ays and traditions of a society +ith soe decided conceptions a!o*t the nat*re and

e)istence of kno+led"e 3*ite apart fro the ores that "ive rise to the orality one adheres to;. ne*st therefore think thro*"h the conflict of interpretations one has "ro+n *p +ith !y eans of theodels of ac3*ired and sec*red tr*th that have !een previo*sly reco"ni7ed and c*ltivated.

( 5 (

the activity and o!4ects of intellection. ne need think only of the *se he ade of the ali"n "eni*sat the end of the Girst 8editation to reco"ni7e that radical do*!t itself is an ia"inative, or at least ania"inationAlike, f*nction. @s for ia"inations role as analo"ical odel for the +orkin"s of thethinkin" thin", one i"ht read the >esponses to the third set of o!4ections to theeditations,+hereDescartes tells &hoas o!!es that he chose the ter idea !eca*se it is *sed !y philosophers forsi"nifyin" the fors of perceptions of the divine ind, altho*"h +e reco"ni7e no phantasiain 0od@& // 151;. /deas are like the fors of 0ods ia"inin"s, if 0od had ia"inin"s-+hich of co*rse hedoesntH ven if over the years Descartes reconceived or do+n"raded the iportance, especially theco"nitive iportance, of ia"ination, the response to o!!es s*""ests that for an ade3*ate*nderstandin" of so Cartesian a notion as idea +e *st consider it in the conte)t of ia"inationsf*nctions.

@ f*rther otivation for p*shin" for+ard in this st*dy is provided !y rearkin" that ia"ination is 4*stone of +hat edieval and early odern thinkers called internal sensesand that, as +e shall see, soeof its f*nctions in Descartes are closely related or even identical to those that had traditionally !eenassi"ned to the cogitativa,the internal sense in +hich co"itation proper !e"ins. /n the Regulae ad

directionem ingenii,the ter imaginatioin fact appears on one occasion as a direct synony ofcogitatio,+hich at the very least reinforces the s*spicion that Descartess preA16#$ *nderstandin" ofpsycholo"y provides a conte)t o*t of +hich the later philosophy i"ht !e ore acc*rately *nderstood./t +o*ld, after all is said and done, !e hard to ar"*e that Descartess *nderstandin" of co"itatio is aatter of only in*te historical interest-not +hen the tr*th that resists the corrosiveness of hyper!olicdo*!t and arks the !e"innin" of odern philosophy is for*lated co"ito, er"o s*.

B*t +e can press !eyond Descartes scholarship and history of philosophy conceived narro+ly to the3*estion of his infl*ence and role in estern intellect*al c*lt*re. &he constellation of the internalsenses, fro coon sense to co"itation, +as part not 4*st of philosophy !*t also of the edical andscientific *nderstandin" of the sensitive and co"nitive a!ilities of h*an !ein"s, in partic*lar of therelationship !et+een !ody and ind or so*l. &he doctrine of internal senses constit*ted an intellect*al

coonplace +ell into the seventeenth cent*ry, !*t in the +ake of CarAtesianis it *nder+ent rapiddisinte"ration and +as displaced !y radically siplified scheas. Unlike the Cartesians, that is, hisfollo+ers, Descartes !e"an his philosophic and scientific career solidly rooted in this earlier tradition.e developed a ne+ conception of the ind!ody relationship precisely !y thinkin" thro*"h theparado)es of the old tradition and discoverin" that it co*ld not !e !ro*"ht into confority +ith theedicine and science of his day. /f there +as a Cartesian t*rn in estern tho*"ht,

( 9 (


12/263

Descartes hiself +as the first to accoplish it, and perhaps he +as the only person ever to accoplishit in a thoro*"h"oin", philosophical +ay. Seein" ho+ this happened ay help *s reco"ni7e 3*estionsa!o*t Descartes and odernity that have never !een ade3*ately e)plored. 2ot least of the advanta"es+e co*ld "ain i"ht !e a ore concrete and less deoni7ed version of the classic Descartes, +ho itis pop*lar to sti"ati7e as ori"inator of a host of odern evils.

&he final reason / shall cite for pressin" for+ard has to do +ith ia"ination itself and its place in the

econoy of h*an !ein" and h*an life. &oday no aspect of ind has copara!le po+er to elicit !ythe ere ention of its nae a +ide and c*rio*s a*dience, !oth intellect*al and pop*lar. /a"inationis a shi!!oleth of odern hopef*lness. /t naes a po+er that any people think can save the, if notthe +orld= they !elieve that the res*lts of an ever "reater tri*ph of the ia"ination can only !e"ood.O5

va Brann, in a +ork that attepts to !rin" into foc*s the vast philosophical, psycholo"ical, andaesthetic literat*re on ia"ination, rearks that estern tradition assi"ns ia"ination a pivotalf*nction.

/t is placed centrally !et+een the fac*lties and interediately !et+een so*l and +orld. &h*sit !oth holds the so*l to"ether +ithin and connects it to the o!4ects +itho*t.


13/263

a!o*t ia"ination is fra"entary and o!li3*e. /s this !eca*se his *nderstandin" is inade3*ateQ r is it!eca*se there is soethin" a!o*t ia"ination that enco*ra"es, even deands, indirection andpartialityQ @re h*an !ein"s capa!le of a coplete, disc*rsive *nderstandin" of ia"inationQ@ltho*"h this !ook cannot aspire to ans+er each of these, it +ill, / hope, "ive insi"ht into thephenomenonof ia"ination-the silent center of this investi"ation-and the 3*estions s*rro*ndin" it.@t the very least, !y tryin" to think ia"ination alon" +ith Descartes, !y tracin" o*t the career of the

ia"inin" Descartes, +e can "ain not 4*st perspective on the evol*tion of a sin"le thinker !*t alsoinsi"ht into the +orkin"s of this deeply rooted po+er, the so*rce of *ch proise and anyperple)ities.

( 11 (

PART I

T$e Ear( P$i(osop$ o% Imagination

( 1# (

ONE

T$e Interna( Senses an Descartes's Psc$op$sio(og o%

Imagination

/n the introd*ction / entioned Descartess inde!tedness to a tradition of philosophical psycholo"y thatplaced soAcalled internal or in+ard senses !et+een the five e)ternal senses and the po+ers of intellect.

&he p*rpose of this chapter is t+ofold: 1; to introd*ce the chief eleents of the doctrine of the internalsenses and sit*ate the ia"ination +ithin it and ?; to deonstrate the connection of the psycholo"yand physiolo"y of *nderstandin" ela!orated in DescartessRegulae ad directionem ingeniito thistradition. @s +e shall presently see, altho*"h at first "lance the psychophysiAolo"y of theRegulaereadslike an anticipation of the later theory of the pineal "land as the seat of the so*l in the !ody;, it is in aore ori"inal sense an o*t"ro+th of the doctrine of internal senses.

A. I,A+INATION AND T0E INTERNAL SENSES -EFORE DESCARTES

/a"ination is a nae traditionally "iven to one of the po+ers of the ind en*erated in soAcalledfac*lty psycholo"ies,O1 +hich divide the h*an so*l accordin" to f*ndaental capacities. 8ost

edieval disc*ssions follo+ @ristotle in takin" the ve"etative, sensitive, and intellect*al parts asO1 @s pointed o*t !y Kerry @. Godor, altho*"h fac*lty psycholo"y is prono*nced dead in every cent*ry,it invaria!ly recovers= see Godor, The odularity of ind: An )ssay on $aculty PsychologyCa!rid"e: 8/& Press, 195#;. &he central iss*e for a psycholo"y of fac*lties is not +hether ind orso*l is tho*"ht to have vario*s f*nctions !*t the de"ree of independence of these f*nctions fro hi"herpo+ers. Gor e)aple, if the senses are tho*"ht to operate in essential independence fro intellect, thensensi!ility is an independent fac*lty= intellect, in its t*rn, i"ht f*nction independently of sense, forinstance insofar as it does not re3*ire the iediate action of the senses. @s soon as one allo+s even asall de"ree of independence to a f*nction, one has in fact taken the first step into a psycholo"y of


14/263

fac*lties.

( 1F (

!asic= &hoas @3*inas aplifies this to five !y addin" the appetitive incl*din" +ill; and thelocootive po+ers.O? ach of these parts ay in t*rn !e s*!divided accordin" to its vario*s f*nctions

and o!4ects. &he intellect*al po+er, for instance, can !e divided, accordin" to its mode of operation,into intellect, +hich is iediately apprehensive, and disc*rsive reason, +hich proceeds !y sta"es= or,ephasi7in" instead the o47ectto+ard +hich the fac*lty is directed, one can divide it into the threecapacities of kno+in" l; +hat is chan"in", ?; +hat is *nchan"in" !*t aterial, and #; +hat is*nchan"in" and +holly iaterial.

&he sensitive po+ers incl*de not 4*st the five e)ternal senses of si"ht, hearin", to*ch, sell, and taste!*t also the internal senses. @ltho*"h there +as no little disa"reeent a!o*t the precise n*!er of theinternal senses, their proper naes, their or"anic locations, and the correct deliitation of theirf*nctions, there +as s*fficient consistency in edieval presentations for *s to a!stract a core theory.&he core theory *ltiately derives fro @ristotle !*t has adi)t*res fro other philosophicaltraditions and incorporates scientific and edical doctrine as +ell.

/n a first appro)iation +e sho*ld note that the sensitive po+ers, +hich h*an !ein"s share +ith otheranials, are interediate !et+een the ve"etativeAn*tritiveAreprod*ctive po+ers possessed !y all livin"thin"s and the intellect*al po+ers possessed at least aon" physical !ein"s; only !y h*ans. /ncontrast to the ve"etative po+ers, the sensitive po+ers involve an a+areness of thin"s, or at least ofaspects of thin"s. @+areness does not ake the intellect*al, for the intellect*al po+ers proper operateat the level of a!stractions, *niversal concepts, and "enerali7ations, +hereas the sensitive po+ers deal+ith sensory aspects of sin"*lar thin"s. Still, there can !e ore than a s*perficial rese!lance to*nderstandin" in anial sensi!ility. &his is evident not so *ch fro individ*al sensations-seein" acolor, hearin" a tone, sellin" an aroa-as fro the a!ility of anials to *se *ltiple sensations ofthe sae and different types, to copare and ree!er the, in order to s*rvive and prosper. So, for

e)aple, ost aals learn fro a sall n*!er of incidents to avoid sit*ations that prod*ce*npleasant effects, and they can ake discriinations in their environent that perit the to sec*refood and shelter and to raise their yo*n". @ltho*"h soe i"ht !e inclined to call these a!ilities forsof intelli"ence and to treat the as in essence intellect*al, the tradition / a descri!in" sa+ these ascloser to the e)ternal senses than to intellect. 2evertheless, they opened the +ay to the conception of adeeper kind of sensi!ility that is crystalli7ed in the internal sense tradition.

@s / have already noted, the *ltiate so*rce of the internal senses docA

O? %umma theologiae,1, 3. E5, art. 1.

( 1% (trine is @ristotles psycholo"ical +ritin"s, especiallyDe animan the So*l;. &he second and third!ooks ofDe animadevelop a theory !eyond the ve"etative; of the sensitive and co"nitive po+ers ofso*l: the five e)ternal senses, the coon sense aisthesis koine;, ia"ination phantasia;, receptiveintellect nous pathetikos;, and a"ent or prod*ctive intellect nous poietikos;. &his co"nitivepsycholo"y +as predicated on the e)istence of fors in s*!stances for o*r p*rposes s*!stance can !etaken to ean physical o!4ects, tho*"h for @ristotle there are iaterial s*!stances, too;: an essentialform,+hich constit*tes the nat*re of the thin" and akes it the kind or species of thin" it is e."., thefor of h*an !ein";, andsensi4le forms,+hich deterine the vario*s any nonessential; sensi!le


15/263

3*alities of the thin" e."., the visi!le forshape of a partic*lar h*an !ody;.O# Sensi!le fors can !eco*nicated to the properly disposed sense or"ans of anials, and they are divided into t+o kinds:proper sensi!les, those thin"s that are perceived !y one and only one sense color in vision, odor insell, so*nd in hearin", etc.;, and coon sensi!les, like oveent, rest, fi"*re, a"nit*de, n*!er,and *nity, +hich are co*nicated to ore than one sense e."., !oth the eye and to*ch can detectfi"*re;.

/t *st not !e tho*"ht that this co*nication of fors necessarily occ*rs thro*"h local otion or thatit takes tie, say !y eans of an @ristotelian photon flyin" thro*"h space fro o!4ect to sense.@ristotle does not, for e)aple, conceive of vision as !ein" d*e to the transission of little o!4ects orip*lses. >ather, a proper sensi!le in the o!4ect, for e)aple its color, acts on the or"an +hen theedi* !et+een the, in the case of color +hat @ristotle calls the diaphano*s or transparent, is adeact*ally transparent !y li"ht. /n darkness, transparent aterials are only potentially diaphano*s, and socolors cannot !e co*nicated to the eye= !*t li"ht activates the edi*, th*s ena!lin" it to !e theeans thro*"h +hich the sensi!le for co*nicates itself to the sense or"an.OF &he res*lt is that thesense receives into itself the sensi!le fors of thin"s +itho*t the atter.

&o *se the classic for*la, the sense in act is the sensi!le o!4ect in act= that is, the sense of si"ht as it isact*ally en"a"ed in seein" is the sae as the activity of the sensi!le for of the o!4ect +hich isco*nicated

O# @n ar"*ent i"ht !e ade that this division into essential and sensi!le fors is artificial, that it isfro the essential for that the act of an o!4ect is co*nicated to the sense or"ans, +hich receive anddifferentiate the for accordin" to their nat*res. B*t the evidence of @ristotles te)t 4*stifies locatin"sensi!le fors in the o!4ect.

OF nce a"ain, this is not like the case of li"ht rays !o*ncin" off an o!4ect and travelin" to the eye,!eca*se in s*ch a case the li"ht rays, not the diaphano*s, +o*ld !e the edi*. @ f*rther step a+ayfro the @ristotelian conception +o*ld !e to consider the rays not as a edi* !*t as akers orsti*lators of color the early odern scientific notion of color as *nderstood !y 0alileo, Descartes,and 2e+ton;.

( 16 (

thro*"h the edi* +itho*t the atter of the o!4ect and activates the sense or"an;. r to *se the ia"ethat anticipated Descartess *se of it in >*le 1?, @& F1?; !y nearly t+o tho*sand years, every senseis receptive of the fors of sensi!le o!4ects +itho*t their atter, and in a sort of +ay in +hich +a)receives the ipression of a si"netArin" +itho*t the iron or "old, for the +a) receives the ipression ofthe "olden or !ron7e Orin" not 3*a "old or 3*a !ron7e F?Fa1EA?l= !rackets in so*rce;.O%

Bet+een his disc*ssions of the five senses and intellect, @ristotle introd*ces t+o other po+ers that,+ith the addition of eory, initiated the internal senses tradition. &he first is coon sense, so

naed !eca*se it is that part of sense in +hich the coon sensi!les like otion and shape areperceived. &he eye receives not 4*st color !*t also otion, rest, n*!er, shape, and a"nit*deF15a15A?$; !*t itself perceives only +hat is proper to it, color. @nother po+er is therefore needed in+hich the coon sensi!les can !e perceived alon"side the proper sensi!les and in +hich the sensi!lesfro all the different sense or"ans are !ro*"ht to"ether into a *nified field of perception.O6 &he eye4*d"es of redness, !*t the *nified sense, not the eye, 4*d"es that a red thin" is ovin", that it is ro*nd,that it is lar"e, and so on. ision !y itself reco"ni7es not o!4ects as s*ch !*t colors= hearin" reco"ni7esnot thin"s !*t so*nds= and siilarly for the other e)ternal senses. B*t to reco"ni7e that this +hite,crystalline st*ff, called s*"ar, is s+eet, to reco"ni7e that an asse!la"e of colors is a thin", and to


16/263

reco"ni7e that a partic*lar o!4ect has s*chAandAs*ch characteristics is perceived not !y any individ*alsense or"an !*t in the coon sense.

&he 4*stification for this fac*lty is perhaps clearest fro the need to coordinate and copare theinforationOE of the different senses. e can not only see +ith o*r eyes !*t also feel !y o*r to*ch thata thin" is ovin", ro*nd, or lar"e, and these t+o channels of inforation are perceived as referrin" toa sin"le thin". 2either the eye nor the ton"*e is a!le to 4*d"e that the +hite st*ff +e call s*"ar is s+eet

the eye perceives +hiteness !*t not s+eetness, the ton"*e s+eetness !*t not +hiteness;. &he coonsense is a!le to do these thin"s !eca*se it is +here the different sensi!les are *nified.

&he coon sense, +e i"ht concl*de, is the repository of the *nified imageof sensation. B*t +e alsohave ia"es +hen +e are not directly sensin" thin"s, and this 4*stifies introd*cin" another sensitivepo+er precedA

O% &ranslations froDe animaare taken froAristotle's 5"n the %oul5 De anima;,trans. ippocrates0. @postle 0rinnell, /o+a: Peripatetic Press, 1951;.

O6 Unified field of perception is not @ristotles ter, !*t it "ives soe sense of the pro!le !ein"addressed.

OE /t is not entirely ille"itiate to think of !oth the odern and the @ristotelian connotations of this+ord.

( 1E (

in" intellect, phantasia or ia"ination. &here is de!ate a!o*t +hether ia"ination is really a fac*lty for@ristotle,O5 !*t +e can !y and lar"e i"nore this, since for the vast a4ority of @ra!ic and Latincoentators there +as no do*!t that it +as a fac*lty-+hich is not to say that they tho*"ht there +ereno diffic*lties of interpretation. Diffic*lties arise not least !eca*se @ristotles disc*ssion of ia"inationis dialectical and pro!leatical.

8ost of the third chapter of !ook # ofDe animacited !elo+ asDe anima/// #; is devoted todistin"*ishin" ia"ination fro e)ternal sense, coon sense, opinion, !elief, kno+led"e, andintellect, +ith d*e re"ard "iven to possi!le connections to these. P*t s*arily, @ristotle ar"*es that ifia"ination, the po+er or ha!it !y virt*e of +hich ia"es are fored in *s, is a po+er ofdiscriination, it is nevertheless different fro other discriinatin" po+ers, like the e)ternal sensesand coon sense, !eca*se it does not re3*ire the presence of an o!4ect, altho*"h it does depend onthe previo*s activity of these i.e., if one has never sensed anythin", one cannot have ia"es;. Beca*seia"inin"s are not inherently tr*e, ia"ination *st also !e differentiated fro the co"nitive fac*ltiesthat are al+ays tr*e, like kno+led"e and intellection. /t is not identical +ith or a variety of opinion, noris it a i)t*re of opinion and sensation, !eca*se conviction and reason al+ays accopany opinion,+hereas neither is necessary for ia"inin". e concl*des that ia"ination has not so *ch to do +iththe proper activities of the senses-+hich are infalli!le +ith respect to the proper sensi!les +hen theeye sees red it is really seein" red;-as +ith the attri!*tion of proper sensi!les to o!4ects and thediscriination of coon sensi!les, +hich are soeties false. @ccordin"ly, if no thin" other thania"ination has the thin"s stated a!ove, then ia"ination +o*ld !e a otion prod*ced !y the activityof sense F?5!#$AF?9a?;. @nd !eca*se ia"inations persist in *s and are siilar to the correspondin"sensations, anials do any thin"s accordin" to the, soe i.e., nonArational anials; !eca*se theypossess no intellect, and others i.e., en; !eca*se their intellect is soeties clo*ded !y passion ordisease or sleep F?9aFA5;. Like the e)ternal senses and the coon sense, ia"ination is of thesensi!le= !*t its o!4ects need not !e iediately present, and it is responsi!le for or related to thepersistence and the repeata!ility of ia"es.


17/263

&his acco*nt ofDe anima/// # leaves any 3*estions *nresolved. /t is not entirely clear, for e)aple,+hat it eans for ia"ination to !e a

O5 See 8ichael . edin,ind and Imagination in Aristotle2e+ aven: orty )ford: Clarendon Press, 199?;, ?F9A?EE= andDorothea Grede, &he Co"nitive >ole ofPhantasiain @ristotle, also in)ssays on Aristotle's 5De

Anima,5?E9A?9%.

( 15 (

otion prod*ced !y the activity of sense. Since ia"es persist in ia"ination, it +o*ld see to havesoe si"nificant relationship to eory, altho*"h that is not p*rs*ed inDe anima,O9 and it appears tooverlap the coon sense in that it deals in atters of the *nified sense one +o*ld ass*e +ithdifferent f*nctions;. &he o!sc*rities and *nresolved 3*estions +o*ld !y theselves have occasioned atleast soe ela!oration fro coentators. B*t the deepest reason for the persistence of interest in@ristotles doctrine of phantasia +as a clai ade inDe anima/// E that p*ts ia"ination at the heartof kno+in" itself.

/a"es are to the thinkin" so*l like sense ipressions. B*t +hen Othe thinkin" so*l affirsor denies the as "ood or !ad, it p*rs*es or avoids, respectively, and for this reason theso*l never thinks +itho*t ia"es. . . . &he thinkin" part, then, thinks the fors in theia"es= and 4*st as +hat is to !e p*rs*ed and +hat is to !e avoided O+hen the sensi!leo!4ects are present is deterined for it !y the correspondin" Osensations, so it is oved+hen ia"es are !efore it and there is no sensation. Gor e)aple, sensin" a !eacon as !ein"fire, it kno+s !y the coon fac*lty of sensation that the eney is approachin" +hen itsees the !eacon in otion. @t other ties, it fors 4*d"ents and deli!erates a!o*t f*t*reo!4ects relative to present o!4ects !y eans of ia"es or tho*"hts as if it +ere seein" theseo!4ects= and +henever it asserts that Ocertain o!4ects ia"ined are pleas*ra!le or painf*l, it

p*rs*es or avoids Othose o!4ects as it does +hen it senses o!4ects= and it does so in actionsin "eneral. F#1a1FA1E, F#1!?A1$= !rackets in so*rce;

&here is no thinkin" +itho*t ia"es, +itho*t phantass. &he +ord for thinkin" here is dianoein,+hichin @ristotle iplies 4*d"ent, the disc*rsive thinkin" that co!ines or divides t+o thin"s= inDememoria et reminiscentiathe sae stateent is ade of noein,+hich e!races !oth disc*rsivethinkin" and the int*itive "rasp of siple thin"s ters or concepts, the eleents that disc*rsivethinkin" co!ines in 4*d"ents;.O1$ @ristotles

O9 B*t rather inDe memoria et reminiscentiaichard Sora!4i,Aristotle on emoryProvidence:Bro+n University Press, 19E?;.

O1$oein,correspondin" to nous,+o*ld refer specifically to any siple act of receivin" a

f*ndaental concept or principle= ore "enerally, it coprises !oth the int*ition of siple conceptsand the co!ination of the in 4*d"ents. &he passa"e froDe memoria et reminiscentiaF%$a1A6;reads:X>Y

@n acco*nt has already !een "iven of ia"ination in the disc*ssion of the so*l, and it is not possi!le tothink +itho*t a phantas. Gor the sae affection occ*rs in thinkin" as in the dra+in" of a dia"ra. /nthe latter case, even tho*"h +e are not also *sin" the trian"les !ein" deterinate in 3*antity,nonetheless +e dra+ it deterinately as to 3*antity. /n 4*st the sae +ay, the person thinkin", even ifhe is not thinkin" of 3*antity, places Oa 3*antity !efore his eyes, !*t does not think of it 3*a 3*antity.ven if the nat*re Oof +hat he is thinkin" is aon" the 3*antities, !*t indeterinate, he places !efore


18/263

hi a deterinate 3*antity, !*t thinks of it 3*a 3*antity only. Z*oted after Lachteran, &he thics of0eoetry, 5?;

( 19 (

for*lations in ters of "ood!ad, pleas*ra!lepainf*l, and f*t*re acts i"ht lead one to s*spect that

the dict* applies to practical activity and not to theoretical. B*t in the sae passa"e ofDe animahenotes that o!4ects +hich are o*tside of the sphere of action, too, i.e., the tr*e and the false, coe *nderthe sae "en*s, naely, that of "ood and evil= they differ, ho+ever, O!y !ein" "ood or evil either+itho*t 3*alification or in a 3*alified +ay F#1!1$A1?= !rackets in the so*rce;. hat the ori"inalstateent eans, then, is that alldisc*rsive thinkin"-all thinkin" of any kind, if +e take into acco*ntthe passa"e froDe memoria et reminiscentia-re3*ires phantass, and ia"es are iportant not 4*st!eca*se they are f*ndaental to the activity of coparison that *nderlies 4*d"ent !*t also !eca*se itis fro ia"es that the for or essence of a thin" is arrived at, is a!stracted. 8oreover, chapter Eleaves open the 3*estion of +hether it is even possi!le for the intellect to think an o!4ect separate froatter.O11 &he ia"e, +ith its renants of corporeal a"nit*de, is at the core of @ristotlesontolo"ically "ro*nded episteolo"y.

Chapter E of !ook # corrects an ipression that one can easily "et: that the treatent of phantasia inchapter # +as incl*ded for the sake of copleteness rather than intrinsic iportance, since chapters Fand %, +hich treat the cr*cial topics of receptive and a"ent intellect, ake no reference to ia"es. B*tthose latter t+o chapters are dedicated chiefly to contin*in" the differentiation of so*l po+ers fro oneanother that !e"an in !ook ?. @ccordin"ly, they identify the factors that differentiate intellect froother parts of the so*l and distin"*ish the intellect accordin" to its activity a"ent intellect; andpotentiality receptive intellect;.O1? /t is only in the follo+in" chapters, and there 3*ite !riefly, that@ristotle disc*sses the interrelationsof the sensitive and co"nitive po+ers in h*an kno+in" anddoin".

Understandin" the nat*re of the t+ofold intellect +as one of the chief and ost controverted parts of

@ristotlesDe animafor the 8iddle @"es. &his +as not 4*st !eca*se of the iportance of the 3*estionof kno+in" !*t also !eca*se it !ore on the iortality of the so*l and its relation to

O11 /n "eneral, then, the intellect +hen in act*ality is the o!4ects +hich it thinks. B*t +hether theintellect, +hich is not separate fro a"nit*de, can or cannot think any separate o!4ect is a atter to !econsidered later De anima,F#1!1EA19;. &he 3*estion is not treated s*!se3*ently inDe anima


19/263

so*l or instead a divine eanation as in @vicenna; or even 0od hiself. 8y foc*s +ill !e theinterpretation of the process of co"nition.

>ather than contin*e here +ith an analysis of @ristotle hiself, +e can no+ t*rn to @vicennasinterpretation of ia"ination in the process of kno+in", since his theory of the forer as one of theinternal senses !ecae canonical for the later Latin thinkers. @vicennaO1# 95$Al$#E; +as a Persianphilosopher and physician +hose edical +ritin"s +ere pro!a!ly the sin"le ost iportant infl*ence

on the edicine ta*"ht in *ropean *niversities thro*"h the >enaissance and +hose coentaries onand ela!orations of @ristotle alon" +ith those of /!nA>*shd, or @verro[s, 11?6A1195; decisivelyshaped the reception of the Peripatetic philosophy in the thirteenthAcent*ry est. /ndeed, it is likelythat at the !e"innin" of that cent*ry @vicenna +as !etter kno+n and ore infl*ential in the ccidentthan +as @ristotle.O1F /n his o+n +ork a!o*t the so*l, also titled De anima,he tried not only topresent @ristotles teachin"s !*t also to clarify and develop +hat the 0reek philosopher and hiscoentators had left o!sc*re or iplicit. /n so doin", @vicenna contri!*ted ne+ doctrines andtheories that +ere to shape the later edieval and >enaissance conceptions of the so*l and its co"nitivepo+ers.

/n hisDe anima,@vicenna identified five internal senses. &hey +ere translated into Latin *nder thenaes 1;fantasiaorsensus communis,?; imaginatio,#; vis aestimationis,F; vis memorialisorreminisci4ilis,and %; vis imaginativaor cogitans.O1% &he phantasy or coon sense is !asically thecoon

O1# &his is the failiar Latin for of his nae= the @ra!ic is /!n SinaO\ .

O1F See Kohn 8aren!on,&ater edieval Philosophy ==>?+=@>?;: An IntroductionLondon:>o*tled"e T 'e"an Pa*l, 195E;, %$A6%, esp. %FA%%.

O1% See 8aren!on,&ater edieval Philosophy,1$%A1$6= see also . >*th arvey, The In9ard #itsLondon: ar!*r" /nstit*te, 19E%;, F$AF1. @vicennasDe anima+as translated into Latin in the t+elfthcent*ry !y 0*ndissalin*s. &he Latin tradition 3*ickly a!andoned the terinolo"ical identification ofphantasia +ith sens*s co*nis fo*nd in the translation of @vicenna. Phantasia and ia"inatio

+ere rarely *sed !y any sin"le thinker as direct synonys= it +as coon to find the or co"nates;*sed to distin"*ish internal sense po+ers, for e)aple the store of availa!le sense ia"es vers*s thepo+er to co!ine, divide, and reco!ine ia"es. &he Latin terinolo"y, at any rate, varied "reatlyfro a*thor to a*thor. Gor disc*ssions of the tradition of the psycholo"y and anatoy of the internalsenses, see alther S*dhoff, Die Lehre von den irnventrikeln in te)tlicher *nd "raphischer &raditiondes @ltert*s *nd 8ittelalters,Archiv fr 0eschichte der edi2onE 191#;: 1F9A?$%= d+in Clarkand 'enneth De+h*rst,An Illustrated (istory of -rain $unctionBerkeley, Los @n"eles, and London:University of California Press, 19E?;, esp. %A%%= arvey, The In9ard #its= 2icholas ans Steneck,&he Pro!le of the /nternal Senses in the Go*rteenth Cent*ry, Ph.D. diss., University of isconsin,19E$= arry @*stryn olfson, &he /nternal Senses in Latin, @ra!ic, and e!re+ Philosophic &e)ts,(arvard Theological Revie9?5 19#%;: 69A1##= 8aren!on,&ater edieval Philosophy= 'atharinePark, &he r"anic So*l, in The !am4ridge (istory of Renaissance Philosophy,ed. Charles B.Schitt and Z*entin Skinner Ca!rid"e: Ca!rid"e University Press, 1955;, F6FAF5F= and DavidS*ers, The udgment of %ense: Renaissance aturalism and the Rise of AestheticsCa!rid"e:Ca!rid"e University Press, 195E;.

( ?1 (

sense of @ristotle: it is the place +here all the sensi!le fors are perceived. &hese fors are stored forf*t*re *se in the ia"ination, a kind of senseAia"e eory. Besides the fors that can !e sensed,


20/263

there are also instinctive perceptions or 4*d"ents of "ood and !ad, advanta"eo*s and harf*l like ayo*n", ine)perienced la!s reco"nition of the dan"er posed !y a +olf;= these soAcalled intentiones,orintentions, are received in the vis aestiationis, or po+er of estiation. &he eorial or reinisci!lepo+er stores these nonsensi!le intentions, 4*st as the ia"ination stores the sensi!le fors that have!een received !y the coon sense. &he reainin" po+er is called vis ia"inativa in anials, visco"itans in the h*an !ein". &his po+er, as one scholar descri!es it,

copo*nds and divides coponere et dividere; !oth sensi!le fors taken fro theia"inatio and intentiones taken fro the vis eorialis.Be"innin" +ith one of the, itproceeds !y nat*re to another +hich is contrary or siilar or in soe +ay to !e coparedto the first. . . . @s the nae @vicenna chooses for it in h*ans indicates, the vis co"itansen"a"es in disc*rsive tho*"ht= !*t the ca*se of its oveent fro one ia"e or intentionto another is al+ays a sin"*lar thin", not a *niversal.O16

&he co"itative po+er is th*s !ased on o*r a!ility and, in soe sense, also the a!ility of anials; to seeone ia"ined sensi!le for in relation to another or in relation to the intentions, +hich in anialse!ody an instinct for "ood and !ad.

@vicennas theory of the internal senses e)plains the pro"ressive deateriali7ation or a!straction that

takes place in the processes of sensation and intellection. @s the for, ia"e, or phantas is passed onfro sense or"an to coon sense to ia"ination, and so on, it *nder"oes a pro"ressive eliination ofthe partic*larities of the ori"inal o!4ect. &he theory is also in lar"e part physiolo"ical= that is, theinternal senses are dependent on and locali7a!le in the !ody. Physicians in anti3*ity had alreadys*""ested the locali7ation of the sensitive and rational po+ers, and @vicennas e)tension of this doesnot see to !e inconsistent +ith @ristotles intentions. /n the !anon of edicine,translated into Latinin the t+elfth cent*ry !y 0erard of Creona, @vicenna first divides the soAcalled anial virt*e into thecoprehensive and the active virt*es= the forer incl*des !oth e)ternal and internal senses. &he !anonpoints o*t that the internal senses

O16 8aren!on, 1$%A1$6.

( ?? (

are considered !y doctors to !e three in n*!er: phantasia in the anterior !rain ventricle, virtuscogitativain the iddle, and virtus memorialisor conservativain the posterior. Philosophers akeore precise distinctions and identify five: the front ventricle has sens*s co*nis to receivesensations and phantasia to retain the= the iddle ventricles virt*s co"itativa is referred to asia"inativa +hen it is *nder the coand of eBtimativa animalisand co"itativa +hen the rationalpo+er akes *se of it. &he virt*s e)tiativa does not properly have a ventricle, altho*"h itsf*nctionin" depends on the other internal sense po+ers.O1E Both h*an !ein"s and anials have thisinstinctive attri!*tion of "ood and !ad, safe and dan"ero*s. &his po+er is not, ho+ever, to !e conf*sed

+ith the hi"her po+ers proper. &he coprehendin" po+er, +hich is one of the coprehendin" po+ersof the so*l, is the h*an reason. @nd !eca*se doctors do not deal +ith the estiative po+er for thereason +e have "iven, they do not deal +ith this po+er for the sae reason: it +orks only thro*"h theother three po+ers Othat the doctors identify, and not in other thin"s.O15 &he last po+er, virt*seorialisconservativa, is the sae for philosopher and doctor. /n addition to this psychophysiolo"yof the internal senses, @vicenna also held to the traditional Stoic edical doctrine of anial or !odilyspirits, +hich +ere considered to !e the !earer of the po+ers of the so*l in the li!s of anials, +hich+ork !y Otheir eans.O19

@vicenna +as not *ni3*e in akin" the po+ers of the internal senses the focal point for a cooperation


21/263

of !ody and so*l that e)tended, on the one hand, into the oveents of the !ody and, on the other, intothe real of reason, nor +as he the first to do this, !*t he +as the ost infl*ential, especially in theest. &he psychophysiolo"y of the internal senses !ecae a coonplace, altho*"h the e)act naesof the po+ers, the discriination of their f*nctions, and their de"ree of independence fro intellectvaried fro a*thor to a*thor. @ partic*larly iportant e)aple is @3*inas, +ho follo+ed @vicenna3*ite closely e)cept for the naes; in the cases of sens*s co*nis, ia"inatio for fantasia;, and vis

memorativa.e critici7ed @vicennas conception of ia"inativaco"itativa +hich @3*inas "ave thealternative nae fantasia;, ho+ever. &his is the po+er that co!ines and divides ia"inary fors likethe "olden o*ntain. @3*inas did not deny the e)istence of the po+er !*t rather ascri!ed it follo+in"@verro[s; to the ia"ination. 8oreover, @3*inass vis aestimativais to !e distin"*ished fro@vicennas virt*s e)tiativa. /n the !anon

O1E /n theDe anima,he nevertheless positions the estiative po+er at the top of the iddle ventricle=see arvey, The In9ard #its,F%.

O15 Z*oted !y arvey, The In9ard #its,?F= the !racketed interpolation is ine. &he disc*ssion of thispara"raph is lar"ely adapted fro arvey.

O19 Z*oted !y arvey, The In9ard #its,?F= the !racketed interpolation is ine.

( ?# (

@vicenna had descri!ed it as dependin" on the other internal po+ers !*t as not properly located in anyof the !rain ventricles= in theDe anima,ho+ever, the vis e)tiativa +as considered to !e in the iddleventricle and closely related in f*nction to ia"inativa, co"itativa, and eorialis especially to theforer t+o, since they also +ere seated in the iddle ventricle;. Gor @3*inas, the aestiativa, +hich inanials is the ost 4*d"Aentlike of the internal senses, is in h*an !ein"s called cogitativaor ratioparticularis./t is the sensitive po+er that is ost deeply to*ched !y the rationality of h*an nat*re. /tis the po+er !y +hich the h*an !ein" kno+s individ*als as fallin" *nder a *niversal, altho*"h onlyintellect can kno+ the *niversal as s*ch. ne odern analysis of the co"itativa in @3*inas e)plains it

this +ay:

Does therefore the co"itative, a sensi!le and or"anic fac*lty, kno+ the coon nat*re, thatis, an or oak as *niversalQ St. &hoas is caref*l to say no s*ch thin". e says that theco"itative kno+s the individ*al as e)istin", and as coin" *nder the h*an nat*re. Strictlyspeakin", therefore, it kno+s only the individ*al.


22/263

nonsensi!le intentions; to the ia"inative po+er, and he n*!ered the iaterial fac*lties that@ristotle had posited as fo*r: coon sense, ia"ination, co"itation, and eory. B*t in soe

O?$ K*lien Pe"haire, @ Gor"otten Sense, the Co"itative accordin" to St &hoas @3*inas,odern%choolman?$ 19F#;: 1?1A1F$, ?1$A??9= see p. 1F$.

( ?F (conte)ts @verro[s red*ced the n*!er to three, the ia"inative, the co"itative, and the eorative,one for each of the three ventricles of the !rain that he identified.

Gor !oth @vicenna and @verro[s, the ia"ination is very close to the hi"hest po+er that h*an !ein"spossess per se. /n @vicenna no*s poietAikos, or a"ent intellect, does not properly !elon" to h*an!ein"s, altho*"h passive intellect no*s pathetikos; does= !*t there is at least a partial identification in@vicenna of passive intellect +ith ia"ination e."., in the3ita4 al+a7at,he calls ia"ination asecond passive intellect;.O?1 Gor @verro[s, ia"ination, that is, the po+er of dividin" and coposin"ia"es +hich he also soeties referred to as co"itation;, +as 3*ite siply the hi"hest po+er of an=!oth the passive and the a"ent intellect +ere fro 0od and co*ld !e participated in !y an only in the

presence of a properly disposed phantas.@ll five or fo*r, or three; of the internal senses are involved in the preparation of phantass, and oneof the, the co"itative or its e3*ivalent *nder soe other nae, even thinks those phantassaccordin" to a partic*lar for. Gor the f*t*re history of the theory of the internal senses, in partic*larfor Descartess conception of the f*nction of ia"ination, @vicennas teachin" is cr*cial, especially inthat it +as transitted +ith essential inte"rity to the Latin i"h 8iddle @"es !y @l!ert the 0reat.O??B*t @verro[ss schee had its proponents as +ell, one of the no less infl*ential than @3*inas. Despitethe any variations that arose especially in the *se of terinolo"y;, its !asics, its topo"raphy ofor"anically located internal senses that effect the coon field of sensation, the retention of ia"esand reactions to ia"es, the recall of the, and their coposition and division, reained canonicalri"ht *p to the !e"innin" of the early odern period in *rope. &he internal senses +ere *nderstood as

*ltiple, as corporeal, and as to soe de"ree already involvin", or at least iitatin", tho*"ht, and theia"inative f*nctions +ere conceived as closely connected +ith, even identical to, the co"itation ofpartic*lars.

/n the tradition of internal senses, e)ternal sensations are not iediately taken *p !y the intellect*alpo+ers !*t rather processed at an interediate level. @ltho*"h any aniate !ein" is a!le to akevery siple discriinations at the level of sensation-vision, not an internal sense or intellect,distin"*ishes !lack fro +hite and red fro !l*e-ore sophisticated distinctions re3*ire a hi"herfac*lty coon sense first of all, +hich distin"*ishes color fro depth fro aroa;. &hesedistinctions are

O?1 See G. >ahan,Avicenna's PsychologyLondon: 0eoffrey C*!erle"e, for )ford University

Press, 19%?;, 65A69, 11%A116. @lready in anti3*ity coentators like Siplici*s had identifiedia"ination +ith passive intellect.

O?? See Steneck, Pro!le of the /nternal Senses in the Go*rteenth Cent*ry, esp. chaps. 1A#.

( ?% (

not yet intellect*al, ho+ever: 4*st as there is an a+areness at the level of vision, there is anothera+areness at the level of each internal sense.O?# &he internal senses as a "ro*p are capa!le not 4*st of


23/263

re"isterin" ia"es delivered !y the e)ternal senses !*t also of coparin", contrastin", decoposin",and recoposin" the and since it is of the essence of perforin" discriination and coparison; ofseein" one ia"e in relation identity and difference; to others. &his capacity of relatin" ia"es to oneanother is +hat allo+s the internal senses at their peak to e)ercise the po+er of partic*lar 4*d"ent.G*rtherore, since the internal senses are sensitive po+ers, they have or"ans or or"anic location 4*st asthe e)ternal senses do. &he edieval thinkers, s*pported !y !oth edical and philosophical tradition,

assi"ned the to the interior spaces of the !rain, the ventricles enclosed !y the t+o heispheres.&hro*"ho*t the edieval and early odern periods one finds ill*strations and dia"ras of the positionsof the internal senses in the head= it +as c*stoary, for e)aple, to place the coon sense in one ofthe front or anterior ventricles, the reco!inative po+er of ia"ination or co"itation in the iddleventricle, and the eory in the posterior ventricle. &he edieval +riters +ere 3*ite a+are, therefore,that anatoical and physiolo"ical differences !et+een individ*als co*ld affect the operations of theinternal senses. 8oreover, since a phantas is re3*ired for thinkin" proper and the phantas isprepared !y the internal senses, lesions or diseases co*ld ipair a persons a!ility to think and*nderstand. /n short, the constit*tion of the internal senses co*ld partic*lari7e, even personali7e, thepo+ers of e)periencin" and kno+in" that are coon to all h*an !ein"s.

@ltho*"h / have disc*ssed the internal senses as part of @ristotelian tradition, it is iportant to reali7e

that the !asics of the doctrine +ere accepted even !y those +ho +ere not properly @ristotelian orScholastic. Z*ite apart fro the fact that edical kno+led"e appeared to s*pport it, the doctrine hadanalo"*es in other philosophical traditions, especially the Platonic and the Stoic. @cceptin" soeversion of the internal senses +as th*s no ore controversial in late edieval and early odern *ropethan it +o*ld !e today to hold that different parts of the !rain are responsi!le for different otor,speech, and co"nitive f*nctions indeed, one can trace a line fro the psychophysiolo"y of the internalsenses do+n to odern theories of !rain f*nction;.O?F &he edical tradition also helped contri!*te toa synthesis of @ristotelian thees +ith the Stoic conception of

O?# &his parcelin" o*t of a+areness is not at all co*nterint*itive. @n asse!ly line +orker i"ht !ea!le to sort parts !y color +hile daydreain", and a driver i"ht !e a!le to ne"otiate traffic all the+hile she is considerin" a atheatical proof.

O?F @s is done in KeanAPierre 0han"e*),euronal an: The -iology of ind,trans. Dr. La*rence0arey )ford: )ford University Press, 195%;, and in Clarke and De+h*rst,Illustrated (istory of-rain $unction.

( ?6 (

ia"ination and psychophysiolo"ical f*nctions. &he Stoics !elieved that the nerves +ere hollo+ t*!esfilled +ithpneuma,a very fine, active atter capa!le of ovin" and aniatin" "rosser atter. &hesespirits, as they cae to !e called, +ere conceived as the eans !y +hich the ipressions of the senses+ere conveyed to the coand center of the !rain, the hegemonikon, and it +as also !y eans of

these spirits that thinkin" co*ld coand the !ody. &he Stoic pne*a doctrine *ltiately !ecaee!edded in the psychophysiolo"y of the internal senses. /n partic*lar, spirits +ere tho*"ht to fill theventricles of the !rain= altho*"h !y todays standards there +as ins*fficient attention to the details ofthe role they played in internal sensation, there +as little do*!t that they did.

/ have entioned the Stoics not siply !eca*se they contri!*ted a theory of anial spirits to thepsychophysiolo"y of internal sensation or !eca*se, as +e shall see in +hat s*cceeds, hollo+ nervesfilled +ith spirits are part of Descartess ne*rophysiolo"y. &he Stoics +ere also responsi!le, it appears,for the artic*lation of a concept*al str*ct*re and terinolo"y that draatically raised the stat*s of


24/263

ia"ination, a str*ct*re that +as conveyed to the Latin est !y +ay of edieval /slaic and Ke+ishthinkers. /n &hoas @3*inas and other hi"h edieval Latin +riters, one finds ia"iAnatio *sed in thesense of p*re concept*al int*ition, of a p*rely intellect*al ia"ination. &his *sa"e can !e traced to asall n*!er of concept*al pairin"s that cae do+n to @ra!s and Persians fro Stoic +ritin"s !*t+ere *sed to artic*late the essentially @ristotelian distinction !et+een siple intellect*al apprehensionnous, intellectus; and disc*rsive rational tho*"ht dianoia, ratio;.O?% &his i"ht see at first only to

add to the conf*sion a!o*t the proper eanin" and stat*s of ia"inatio, +hich even in the narro+erconfines of the Scholastic tradition +as rendered !y an *nsteady voca!*lary often *sed in 3*itedifferent senses !y thinkers close to one another in tie and place. B*t the variety and even theconf*sion ay testify instead to the nat*re and iportance of the ia"e. &he vario*s sensory andental capacities for prod*cin", reprod*cin", and considerin" ia"es are relevant to the entire ran"e ofental e)perience, fro conceivin", storin", and recoverin" ordinary sense ia"es, thro*"hreco!inin" the and !rin"in" the into 4*d"entlike relations to one another, to *nderstandin"anythin" +hatsoever that appears to the ind. &his ran"e of po+ers and pro!les crystalli7ed into anet+ork arran"ed a!o*t the ters ia"inatio, phantasia, ia"inativa, a net+ork that +as not in needof any sin"le philosophical, scientific, or edical tradition to !e e)ploited, adapted, c*ltivated, and,*ltiately, handed do+n. &he pro!A

O?% See arry @*stryn olfson, &he &ers tasa99urCEand tasdi1CEin @ra!ic Philosophy and&heir 0reek, Latin and e!re+ 3*ivalents,oslem #orld19F#; : 11FA1?5.

( ?E (

leatic of the internal senses, in partic*lar of the ia"ination, th*s took on a relatively a*tonoo*sc*lt*ral e)istence.

@ltho*"h +e have very little specific inforation a!o*t ho+ Descartes !ecae a+are of thepro!leatic of ia"ination and the internal senses, its pervasiveness akes esta!lishin" any specificconnection oot. &hat Descartes +as e)posed to it at school is a nearAcertainty. e sho*ld recall that

the threeAyearAlon" philosophy c*rric*l* of the Kes*it enry / Colle"e at La GlRche, +hichDescartes attended fro aro*nd 16$E to 161%, foc*sed on the +orks of @ristotle and &hoas @3*inas.O?6 8oreover, the Kes*its +ere the s*pree c*lt*ral "atherers of their day, collectin" artiAfacts,inforation, and kno+led"e in their a!ition to evan"eli7e and to a"nify the "lory of 0od. e kno+that the precocio*s >en Descartes +as peritted to read ore +idely than his fello+ st*dents=do*!tless he enco*ntered ia"ination and the internal senses in any !ooks and any differentconte)ts.

e shall e)aine several of these conte)ts in the chapters that follo+, ran"in" fro the atheaticalto the spirit*al. Gor no+ it +ill !e eno*"h to ention a sin"le +ork that likely +as availa!le at LaGlRche and that reflects the Kes*its conception of the philosophical and co"nitive relevance ofia"ination. / a referrin" to the coentary on @ristotles De animaprepared !y Kes*it scholars at

the University of Coi!ra in presentAday Port*"al;, one of the soAcalled Coi!ran Coentaries. &heDe animacoentary presents the 0reek te)t and a Latin translation on facin" pa"es= these te)ts ares*rro*nded !y footnoted coent and disc*ssion ran"in" fro the philolo"ical to the philosophical=and after each a4or section of te)t and coent, the forat is interr*pted !y 1uaestionesthat disc*ssthe f*ndaental theses and conflictin" interpretations pro and contra i.e., that reflect the !asicstr*ct*re of the Scholastic 1uaestio;. ne of these, the ei"hth 3*estion foc*sin" on the first half of thethird !ook ofDe anima,asks +hether phantass and th*s the po+er of ia"ination; are tr*ly re3*iredfor all intellect*al activity. @fter a prolon"ed disc*ssion


25/263

O?6 n the years of Descartess attendance, see 0eneviRve >odisALe+is, Descartes Life and theDevelopent of is Philosophy, in The !am4ridge !ompanion to Descartes,ed. Kohn Cottin"haCa!rid"e: Ca!rid"e University Press, 199?;, ?1A%E, esp. p. ?#. n ed*cation at La GlRche, seeCaille de >ocheontei), 6n !ollFge de *suites auB G/II et G/III siFcles: &e !ollFge (enri I/ de&a $lFche,F vols. Le 8ans: Le"*iche*), 1559;, esp. vol. F. &heRatio studiorum,+hich "overneded*cation at Kes*it schools, does not ention the teachin" of @ristotlesDe anima,!*t psycholo"ical

topics are incl*ded in t+o !ooks +hich 9ereta*"ht, theetaphysicsand thei9machean )thics,andthe Catholic doctrine of separate s*!stances +o*ld !e scarcely intelli"i!le +itho*t distin"*ishin" thekno+in" processes of h*an !ein"s, +ho re3*ire phantass for kno+in", fro an"elic and divinekno+in". &he internal senses are entioned in a collection of theses s*!itted !y a st*dent in 16?c=see >ocheontei), 6n !ollFge de *suites,F:#%?.

( ?5 (

the editors concl*de that phantass are necessary for ali ordinary and coon atters. &hee)ceptions are revealin": Christ co*ld *nderstand apart fro phantass !eca*se he had a divine as +ellas a h*an nat*re= in the afterlife, +hen h*an so*ls +ill !e 4oined to "lorified !odies, it +ill !e

possi!le to kno+ intellect*al thin"s directly altho*"h in the "lorified state it +ill also !e possi!le tothink !y +ay of phantass;= and, in the present life on earth, the very fe+ +ho are "iven a special"race fro 0od that raises the to a rapt*ro*s, ecstatic conteplation of his essence think and kno++itho*t phantass. B*t ordinary h*an ecstasy, like that e)perienced !y Socrates +hen he stood inrapt conteplation of the /deas for a +hole day and ni"ht told !y @lci!iades in the %ymposium;,re3*ires phantass, as do all other activities of thinkin" and kno+in" that h*an !ein"s perfor inaccordance +ith their nat*res.O?E

&he e)ceptions are therefore hardly e)ceptions= for all practical and theoretical p*rposes, apart frosit*ations in +hich the h*an !ein" passes !eyond the nat*ral into the s*pernat*ral real, there can !eno thinkin" and kno+in" +itho*t the internal senses and their phantass. @ll reasonin", conceivin",*nderstandin", all science and tr*th, *st coe to *s !y +ay of and accopanied !y phantass.

-. T0E PSYC0OP0YSIOLO+Y OF T0E RE+ULAE 2RULE !34

avin" rearked these thin"s, +e are ready to coence o*r e)ploration of ia"ination and theinternal senses in Descartes.

@nyone failiar only +ith the Descartes of standard interpretations is likely to find a close readin" oftheRegulae ad directionem ingeniis*rprisin", since there the po+er of ia"ination is "iven a centralrole in kno+in" scientifically. &he f*ll e)tent of the iportance of ia"ination in theRegulae+ill !ethe foc*s of Part // of this +ork. &o "ain a provisional sense of its role, it is *sef*l to look at a passa"efro the t+elfth r*le that presents Descartess early psychophysiolo"ical theory of h*an co"nition.

@ltho*"h there are controversies a!o*t the dates of coposition of the Regulae-soe think Descartes+orked on it for a!o*t a decade, !e"innin" as early as 1615 +hen he +as t+entyAt+o years old; andendin" aro*nd 16?5, hereas others think that the entire +ork +as prod*ced in a short period endin" atthe latter date-it is !elieved that !y the tie he !e"an the investi"ations of&e ondeperhaps in late16?9 or early 16#$; he had a!andoned theRegulae.irt*ally all st*dents of the 3*estion +o*ld a"ree

O?E / have *sed the third edition: !ommentarii !ollegii !onim4ricensis %ocietatis lesu, in tres li+4rosDe anima, Aristotelis %tagiritae,#d ed. Lyon: orace Cardon, 16$F;= see 3*estion 5, F%?AF%9. &hefirst edition appeared in 1%95.


26/263

( ?9 (

that >*le 1?, +hich disc*sses the psychophysiolo"y of kno+led"e, +as +ritten shortly !efore thata!andonent. &h*s, if +e place the !e"innin" of Descartess post"rad*ate intellect*al career in 1615th*s ore or less takin" theDiscourse on the ethodat its +ord;, theRegulae'spsychophysiolo"yfalls ro*"hly id+ay !et+een this !e"innin" and Descartess first p*!lication, theDiscourseand itsaccopanyin" scientific essays 16#E;.

arly in >*le 1?, +hich is !y far the lon"est of the t+entyAone e)tant r*les,O?5 Descartes presents atheory of sensation, ia"ination, and *nderstandin" that has o!vio*s connections to the doctrine ofinternal senses, +hich it adapts in a novel +ay to a ne+ scientific sensi!ility. &he r*le e)plains thatipressions received !y the sense or"ans are passed on to the sens*s co*nis, or coon sense,fro +here they are f*rther transitted to the phantasia, or ia"ination, +hich he calls a tr*e part ofthe !ody . . . of s*ch a"nit*de that its different parts can take on any distinct fi"*res one afteranother and *s*ally retain these for a lon" tie @& F1F;= fro this phantasia the kno+in" forcevis cognoscens; can then receive an ipression, or, reciprocally, the kno+in" force can ipress a ne+fi"*re in it.

&he e)ternal senses, insofar as they are parts of the !ody, altho*"h +e apply the to o!4ects thro*"h

action, vi7., local otion, nevertheless properly sense thro*"h passion only, in the sae +ay in +hich+a) receives an ipression fro a seal @& F1?;= that is, they are p*rely passive or receptive insensation proper. e ephasi7es that the coparison to an ipression in +a) is no ere fi"*re ofspeech per analogiarn;: +e *st think of the e)ternal fi"*re of the sentient !ody as !ein" reallychan"ed !y the o!4ect, 4*st as that +hich is in the s*rface of the +a) is chan"ed !y the seal @& F1?;. &his holds not 4*st for to*ch !*t also for the eye the first opa3*e e!rane that is in the eyereceives the fi"*re ipressed !y an ill*ination arrayed +ith vario*s colors; and all the other sensesthe first e!rane ipervio*s to the o!4ect !orro+s a ne+ fi"*re fro the so*nd, the odor, and theflavor;. Descartes notes f*rther that +e can conceive this ore clearly if +e ake the s*pposition thatthe variety of colors, so*nds, odors, and flavors corresponds to the "reat variety of possi!le t+oAdiensional fi"*res. 2e)t, 4*st as the otion of one end of a pen "ets passed on ri"idly and

instantaneo*sly to the rest of the instr*ent as one +rites, so does the sti*l*s of the sense or"an "etpassed on to a certain other part of the !ody, +hich is called coon sense, and this coon sensef*nctions like a seal for forin" in phantasia or ia"ination, as if

O?5 &he individ*al r*les consist of a r*!ric or headin" and an e)position or coentary, +ith thee)ception of >*les 19 thro*"h ?1, +hich have only headin"s. Gro Descartess rearks at the end of>*le 1? and the !e"innin" of >*le 1# it is evident that he intended to present thirtyAsi) in all, dividedinto three "ro*ps of t+elve.

( #$ (

in +a), the sae fi"*res or ideasO?9 that coe, p*re and +itho*t !ody, fro the e)ternal senses @& F1F;. @fter !riefly e)plainin" ho+ phantasia can ca*se otions in the nerves to !rin" a!o*t thelocootion of the !ody, he ascends to the *ltiate po+er, the vis co"noscens, that force thro*"h+hich +e properly kno+ thin"s, +hich is p*rely spirit*al. /ndeed, it is the partic*lar f*nctionin" ofthis kno+in" force that prod*ces the differentiation of the other fac*lties.

/n all these Ofac*lties this force soeties s*ffers, soeties acts, and iitates no+ theseal, no+ the +a)= +hich nevertheless is to !e taken here only thro*"h analo"y, for incorporeal thin"s nothin" at ail siilar to this is to !e fo*nd. @nd one and the sae is thisforce, +hich, if it applies itself alon" +ith ia"ination to the coon sense, is said to see,


27/263

to*ch, etc.= if to ia"ination alone +hen Oia"ination is arrayed +ith diverse fi"*res, it issaid to ree!er Oreinisci= if to the sae OJia"ination in order to fashion ne+ ones, itis said to ia"ine or conceive= if finally it acts alone, it is said to *nderstand: the +ay in+hich this last occ*rs / +ill e)po*nd at len"th in its place. @nd therefore the saeOkno+in" force accordin" to these diverse f*nctions is called either p*re intellect, oria"ination, or eory, or sense= it is properly called in"eni*, ho+ever, +hen it at one

oent fors ne+ ideas in phantasia, at another applies itself Oinc*!at to those alreadyade. @& F1%AF16;

Several thin"s are iediately strikin" a!o*t this passa"e. &he first is ho+ closely ia"ination iscoordinated +ith a physiolo"ical theory. /n one sense, the ia"ination is a physical or"an in the !rain,identified no ore specifically than !y the ter phantasia. /n another, ia"ination is the res*lt of thekno+in" force applyin" itself to or, ore literally, !earin" do+n *pon; this or"an. @ second strikin"note is ho+ central a role ia"ination plays in the f*nctionin" h*an !ein". &he kno+in" force can acton its o+n-in that case it is called p*re intellect-!*t in all other respects it acts *pon or thro*"h theor"an phantasia.O#$ Sensation is the kno+in" force

O?9 /n theRegulae,and even in any occ*rrences in theDiscourse on the ethod,idea issynonyo*s +ith corporeal ia"e.

O#$ @ recent translation of >*le 1? o!sc*res the relationship of the kno+in" force and phantasia to thecoon sense. &he Latin cla*se vnica3*e esse, 3*ae vel accipit fi"*ras ] sens* co*ni si*l c*phantasi^ @& F1% U. 16A15; is rendered as it Othe kno+in" force is one sin"le po+er, +hether itreceives fi"*res fro the coon sense at the sae tie as does the corporeal ia"ination= seeCS8, 1:F?. &his translation iplies that the phantasia and the kno+in" force are si*ltaneo*sly !*tseparately applyin" theselves to the coon sense. B*t this is to read the phrase si*l c*phantasi^, a prepositional a!lative, as tho*"h it introd*ced an elliptical s*!4*nctive cla*se, +ithphantasia in the noinative copare the last line of p. F1%, +hich has a parallel a!lative e)pression invis, 3*ae, si applicet se c* ia"inatione ad sens* co*ne;. 8oreover, si*l pro!a!ly sho*ldnot !e taken in the strictly teporal sense !*t as 4oined +ith c* to e)press a sharin" of action i.e.,

to"ether +ith;= s.v. si*l, "Bford &atin Dictionary,ed. P. 0. . 0lare )ford: )ford UniversityPress, for the Clarendon Press, 195?; aldane and >oss rendered this +ith the ore defensi!le it is asin"le a"ency, +hether it receives ipressions fro the coon sense si*ltaneo*sly +ith the fancy,+hich at least leaves the constr*al open= see The Philosophital #orks of Descartes,? vols., ed. andtrans. li7a!eth S. aldane and 0. >. &. >oss, corrected ed. Ca!rid"e: Ca!rid"e University Press,19#1;, 1:#5. 2ote also that 4*st a fe+ lines do+n fro the cla*se in 3*estion, ia"ination is "iven arole in all acts of the kno+in" force, e)cept +hen that force arts on its o+n @& F1%1. ?EAF161. 1?;.8y preferred readin" is one and the sae is this force, +hich, if it applies itself alon" +ithia"ination to the coon sense. . . .

( #1 (applyin" itself in diverse +ays to the coon sense alon" +ith ia"ination= reiniscence is thisforce applyin" itself to ia"ination alone insofar as there are fi"*res already ipressed there=ia"inin" or conceivin", a not *niportant alternative that +e shall e)plore presently; is the kno+in"force applyin" itself in order to prod*ce ne+ fi"*res. ven the otion of the !ody depends onia"ination: /t is to !e conceived that the otive force, or the nerves theselves, takes its ori"in frothe !rain, in +hich there is the phantasia, fro +hich these Onerves are oved in vario*s +ays, 4*st asthe coon sense Ois oved !y e)ternal sense, or 4*st as the +hole pen Ois oved !y its lo+er part@& F1FAF1%;. &his conception can even !e *sed, Descartes says, to acco*nt for all oveents of


28/263

other anials, altho*"h in these a!sol*tely no co"nition of thin"s !e aditted, !*t only p*relycorporeal phantasia= like+ise as +ell in the +ay all those operations happen in o*rselves that +eaccoplish +itho*t any assistance fro reason @& F1%;. &h*s ia"inatioAphantasia-the forerter iplyin" chiefly the activity of akin" ia"es, the latter the or"an +here the ia"es are fored-is at +ork in virt*ally all activities of the h*an !ein", +ith the apparent e)ception of p*reintellection.O#1

hat sho*ld +e ake of this passa"eQ /t is teptin" to interpret it siply as an early version of thetheory of the conarion or pineal "land, +hich is in fact located in the ventricles of the !rain.O#? /n theearly 16#$s,

O#1 /n theRegulae,ia"inafio soeties refers to the or"an, !*t ore often it refers to the po+er ofia"inin"= phantasia, !y contrast, refers alost e)l*sively to the or"an and activities of ia"inationinsofar as they are *nderstood as the act of an or"an. &he de"ree to +hich p*re intellect constit*tes ane)ception fro ia"inative involveent +ill !e disc*ssed later.

O#? &he pineal !ody or "land is an o*t"ro+th of the roof of the diencephalon, one of the three parts ofthe fore!rain. /t is on the *pperost part of the !rain ste, +hich is t*cked a+ay into the concave !asesof the !rain heispheres kno+n as the ventricles;= the pineal "land is, specifically, in the third

ventricle. /t is one of the fe+ !rain parts that do not develop !ilateral str*ct*res, and it is near thethala*s, +here all the nerves fro the senses e)cept for sell; coe to"ether. Descartes says that hechose the pineal "land as the central or"an of the sensory syste !eca*se he tho*"ht it +as the onlyplace for the t+o channels of inforation fro the ri"ht and left side sense or"ans e."., the ri"ht andleft eye; to !e *nified into a sin"le ipression see&'(omme,@& / 1EFA1EE=Dioptrics,@& / 1?5A1#$= andPassions,@& / #%?A#%#;.

( #? (

Descartes e)pressly identified this "land as the focal point of !odily activity: e)ternal ipressions areconveyed to it fro the sense or"ans !y eans of otions transitted alon" the nerves, and, in t*rn, it

is the so*rce of flo+s of the soAcalled anial spirits that prod*ce the anials !ody otions. &he ind,+hich is a radically different kind of s*!stance fro !ody, soeho+ takes note of +hat is happenin" tothe pineal "land and is a!le to prod*ce otions of that "land. Precisely ho+ s*ch thin"s happen!et+een radically distinct s*!stances, the ain pro!le of indA!ody d*alis, has e)ercised"enerations of Cartesians and critics, of co*rse. @t any rate, Descartes conceived thinkin" and !ody to!e intiately altho*"h ysterio*sly 4oined in h*an !ein"s. 8ost people are *na!le to conceive theas distinct !eca*se of this intiate 4oinin", a fact that sets the ain pro!le for Descartess principal+orks, in partic*lar theeditations,+hich appears to teach that +e can coe to a p*re e)perience ofo*rselves !y t*rnin" a+ay fro reliance on the senses and ia"ination.O##

/nterpretin" phantasia erely as the protopineal "land sees 3*ite nat*ral. 2evertheless, a closer look

can help clarify sall !*t si"nificant differences !et+een the phantasia of theRegulaeand the pineal"land of Descartess later +ork. &he pineal "land is the coand center of the a*tonoo*sechanical syste that is the !ody. @*tonoo*s echanical syste eans that the !odys f*nctionin"is e)plained !y the echanical la+s of the aterial *niverse. ithin this syste the pineal "land isaffected !y otions of nerves and flo+s or c*rrents of the anial spirits, and it *ses these otions andflo+s to direct ne+ flo+s that prod*ce !ody otions and other physiolo"ical responses. &his syste,+hich is at +ork in !oth anials and the h*an !ein", re3*ires no conscio*sness to f*nction acc*ratelyand effectively. @ la! flees fro a +olf !eca*se the nerve otions and spirit flo+s elicit this as aechanical reaction= like+ise a h*an !ein" +ithdra+s a hand fro the searin" heat of a flae, or


29/263

i"ht flee at the si"ht of a +olf, !eca*se of s*ch echanical operations. B*t in the case of a h*an!ein" facin" a +olf, mightflee is the e)actly appropriate loc*tion, !eca*se there are the additionalfactors of ind and +ill. &a

Documents

Descartes Imagination