Spinoza's Theory of the Human Mind
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Expressions of Mind/Body Dualism in Thinspiration
MIND OVER MATTER: EXPRESSIONS OF MIND/BODY DUALISM IN THINSPIRATION Annamarie O’Brien A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS August 2013 Committee: Dr. Marilyn Motz, Advisor Dr. Rebecca Kinney Dr. Jeremy Wallach © 2013 Annamarie O’Brien All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Dr. Marilyn Motz, Advisor Thinspiration images, meant to inspire weight-loss, proliferate online through platforms that encourage the circulation of user-generated content. Despite numerous alarmist critiques in mass media about thinspiration and various academic studies investigating ‘pro-anorexia’ sites, surprisingly little attention has been given to the processes of creation and the symbolic potential of thinspiration. This thesis analyzes the formal hybridity of thinspiration, and its use as an expressive medium. The particularities of thinspiration (including its visual characteristics, creative processes, and exhibition) may be considered carefully constructed instances of self- representation, hinging on the expression of beliefs regarding the mind and body. While these beliefs are deeply entrenched in popular body management discourse, they also tend to rely on traditional dualist ideologies. Rather than simply emphasizing slenderness or reiterating standard assumptions about beauty, thinspiration often evokes pain and sadness, and employs truisms about the transcendence of flesh and rebellion against social constraints. By harnessing individualist discourse and the values of mind/body dualism, thinspiration becomes a space in which people struggling with disordered eating and body image issues may cast themselves as active agents—contrary to the image of eating disorders proffered by popular and medical discourse. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, I would like to thank my thesis committee chair, Dr. -
University of Groningen Spinoza's Theory of the Human Mind
University of Groningen Spinoza’s Theory of the Human Mind: Consciousness, Memory, and Reason Marrama, Oberto IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2019 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): Marrama, O. (2019). Spinoza’s Theory of the Human Mind: Consciousness, Memory, and Reason. University of Groningen. Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. Download date: 27-09-2021 SPINOZA’S THEORY OF THE HUMAN MIND: CONSCIOUSNESS, MEMORY, AND REASON 1A_BW_Marrama .job © Oberto Marrama, 2019. All rights reserved. ISBN 978-94-034-1568-0 (printed version) ISBN 978-94-034-1569-7 (electronic version) 1B_BW_Marrama .job Spinoza’s Theory of the Human Mind: Consciousness, Memory, and Reason PhD thesis to obtain the degree of PhD at the University of Groningen on the authority of the Rector Magnificus Prof. -
Philosophisches Seminar Kommentiertes
Philosophisches Seminar Kommentiertes Vorlesungsverzeichnis Sommersemester 2013 Stand: 05.03.2013 Inhalt: Übersicht 6 Vorlesungen 6, 17 Hauptseminare 7, 22 Propädeutikum 6, 21 Proseminare 10, 36 Hauptseminare 7, 47 Kolloquien 14, 49 Fachdidaktik 14, 50 Ethisch-Philosophisches Grundlagenstudium – EPG 15, 51 Kommentare 17 Hinweise und Abkürzungen 5 Dozenten: Aleksan, Gilbert EPG I: Einführung in die antike Ethik 51 Aleksan, Gilbert EPG I: Kant, Kritik der praktischen Vernunft 52 Álvarez-Vázquez, Javier PS: Historisch-genetische Theorie der Kognition 36 Arnold, Florian EPG I: Fichtes Bestimmungen des Gelehrten 52 Arnold, Thomas PS: Edmund Husserl, Phänomenologische Psychologie 36 Corall, Niklas EPG I: Moralkritik von der Antike bis zur Neuzeit 53 Cürsgen, Dirk V: Kants praktische Philosophie 17 Dangel, Tobias HS: Phänomenologie des Geistes II 22 Dangel, Tobias PS: Platon, Sophistes 37 Diehl, Ulrich PS: Kants Konzeption der Würde. Interpretation und Dis- kussion 37 Dierig, Simon PS: Einführung in Descartes’ Philosophie 39 Dilcher, Roman EPG I: Platon, Gorgias 54 Dilcher, Roman PS: Aristoteles, Nikomachische Ethik 39 Enßlen, Michael EPG II: Das deutsche Atombombenprojekt 59 Flickinger, Brigitte EPG I: Soziale Gerechtigkeit – eine künstliche Tugend? 54 Franceschini, Stefano EPG II: Spinozas Reflexion über den Mensch 59 Freitag, Wolfgang HS: Grundlegende Texte zur philosophischen Semantik 40 Freitag, Wolfgang Kolloquium 49 Freitag, Wolfgang PS: Einführung in die (analytische) Philosophie der Zeit 22 Freitag, Wolfgang V: Sprachliche Bedeutung: -
Descartes and Spinoza
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Thu Dec 29 2016, NEWGEN 229 chapter nine Descartes and Spinoza Two Approaches to Embodiment Alison Peterman 1. Introduction Descartes1 (1596– 1650) and Spinoza (1632– 1677) each gave us interest- ing and infuential approaches to answering what I’ll call “embodiment question”: what is the relationship between a mind and its body— the one that it seems to inhabit, feel, control or otherwise be uniquely involved with?2 In Spinoza we fnd (at least) three diferent answers, the ingenuity of all of which is attested to by their long reception in the philosophical tradition. Descartes was an important infuence on Spinoza, but on many others, too, ushering in the era of the “mind- body 1 I am grateful to Colin Chamberlain, Michael Della Rocca, Keota Fields, Kristin Primus, and Alison Simmons for discussion, and also to the other contributors to this volume. 2 Tis question is broader than one than one about the constitutive or essential relationship between a mind and its body. 229 02_acprof-9780190490447_Ch7-11.indd 229 12/29/2016 2:13:15 AM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Thu Dec 29 2016, NEWGEN 230 230 Embodiment problem” in the form that many philosophers still grapple with. Here, I’ll by no means attempt a comprehensive treatment of their contribu- tions. Instead I will try to uncover an unnoticed similarity between the two, and apply it to understanding the coherence of Spinoza’s account of embodiment. I’ll argue that Descartes and Spinoza both approach the embodiment question in two diferent ways: one approach starts with some metaphysical commitments about the kinds of entities, properties, and interactions there are in the world, and the other starts by attending to the experience of an embodied subject. -
Locke, God, and Materialism (Preprint)
Locke, God, and Materialism Stewart Duncan Forthcoming in Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy 1. INTRODUCTION Early modern philosophers discussed several versions of materialism. One distinction among them is that of scope. Should one be a materialist about animal minds, human minds, the whole of nature, or God? Hobbes eventually said ‘yes’ to all four questions, and Spinoza seemed to several of his readers to have done the same. Locke, however, gave different answers to the different questions. Though there is some debate about these matters, it appears that he thought materialism about God was mistaken, was agnostic about whether human minds were material, and was inclined to think that animal minds were material.1 In giving those answers, Locke famously suggested the possibility that God might have ‘superadded’ thought to the matter of our bodies, giving us the power of thought without immaterial thinking minds. He thus opened up the possibility of materialism about human minds, without adopting the sort of general materialist metaphysics that Hobbes, for example, had proposed. This paper investigates Locke’s views about materialism, by looking at the discussion in Essay IV.x. There Locke—after giving a cosmological argument for the existence of God— argues that God could not be material, and that matter alone could never produce thought.2 In 1 On Locke on animals’ minds, see Lisa Downing, ‘Locke’s Choice Between Materialism and Dualism’ [‘Locke’s Choice’], in Paul Lodge and Tom Stoneham (ed.), Locke and Leibniz on Substance (New York: Routledge, 2015), 128-45; Nicholas Jolley, Locke’s Touchy Subjects (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 33-49; and Kathleen Squadrito, ‘Thoughtful Brutes: The Ascription of Mental Predicates to Animals in Locke’s Essay’, Diálogos 58 (1991), 63-73. -
Idealism: Problematic, Visionary, Critical
Kant | Prolegomena 11 Idealism: problematic, visionary, critical There are many passages in the Prolegomena where Kant distances himself from a particular variety of idealism (e.g., Notes II and III, §32, Appendix), even though he is explicitly defending a version of idealism himself. In broadest outline, realism is the view that things in the external world are independent of human cogition; their nature and existence is unrelated to us. (This is how Kant charcterises ‘transcendental realism’ in CPR A368–9.) In contrast, idealism is the view that reality is mind-dependent or mind-correlative. An onto- logical reading suggests that there are no mind-independent things, that there is no ‘ready-made’ world out there; or it is the view that the external world exists only as an object of the mind. But it can also be the view that the fundamental entities are ideas (as opposed to matter), and thus something that is essentially mental or non-material. This is Berkeley’s ‘dogmatic’ idealism (cf. the sheet with extracts). An epistemic reading suggests that what we can know about reality is largely due to our cognitive faculties, and hence our grasp of reality is shaped not by the things themselves, but by the way in which we cognise that reality. This is Kant’s ideal- ism, which thus by no means rejects the claim that there is a world out there, for it plays a role in making possible experience as we have it. But we lack epistemic access to it: we do not have insight into ‘the inner [das Innere, roughly, the intrinsic nature] of things’ (CPR A277/B333), regardless of our cognition of them. -
What Is a Mode Account of Collective Intentionality? Michael Schmitz
What is a mode account of collective intentionality? Michael Schmitz (Penultimate draft; final version published in Gerhard Preyer & Georg Peter (eds.), Social Ontology and Collective Intentionality: Critical Essays on the Philosophy of Raimo Tuomela with his Responses; Springer 2017, pp. 37-70; please refer to the published version.) 1. Mode vs. content and subject approaches to collective intentionality Many attempts to understand collective intentionality have tried to steer between two extremes. We want to understand how the members of a group are bound together, what turns them into a group, so we don’t want to think of the group as a mere sum of individuals. At the same time, we don’t want the group to be free-floating with regard to the members. It should not come out as just another individual, as an additional person as it were, nor should it be emergent in a radical sense. It’s useful to distinguish attempts to accomplish this balancing act in terms of where they solely or predominantly locate collectivity: in the content of relevant intentional states (or speech acts), in their mode, or in their subject(s) (Schweikard and Schmid 2012). A content approach tries to understand collectivity in terms of the contents of the subjects’ intentionality, where content is understood in the standard fashion, namely as what the subjects believe, intend, hope, feel, and so on. So on this kind of view, collectivity is just a matter of certain kinds of things that individuals believe, intend, and feel with regard to each other. On this perspective, the best- known representative of which is Michael Bratman (1992; 2014), there may be a ‘we’ of joint action as represented in the content of intentions, but these intentions are always of the form ‘I intend that we J’, so that no collective ‘we’-subject of intentional states is represented.1 Now, this kind of approach is in danger of erring on the side of being too individualistic. -
Levels of Discourse in Leibniz's Metaphysics the Ontological Status of Bodies
Levels of Discourse in Leibniz's Metaphysics The Ontological Status of Bodies: A Study of the Levels of Discourse in Leibniz's Metaphysics By SCOTT STAPLEFORD, B.A. A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts McMaster University C> Copyright by Scott Stapleford, August 1998 MASTER OF ARTS (1998) McMaster University (Philosophy) Hamilton, Ontario TITLE: The Ontological Status of Bodies: A Study of the Levels of Discourse in Leibniz's Metaphysics AUTHOR: Scott Stapleford, B.A. (Brock University) SUPERVISOR: Professor Wilfrid Waluchow NUMBER OF PAGES: iv, 169 ii Table of Contents Introduction 1 The Problem 2 Collateral Issues 3 Procedure Part I 4 Some Working Deftnitions 5 Phenomenalism 5.1 Linguistic Phenomenalism 5.2 Berkeleian Phenomenalism 6 Leibniz and Phenomenalism 6.1 Macintosh's Interpretation 6.2 Jolley's Interpretation 6.3 Wilson's Interpretation 111 Part II 7 Recapitulation and Procedure 8 Athenian and Darwinian Approaches 8.1 Woolhouse's Interpretation 8.2 Adams' Interpretation 8.3 Hartz's Interpretation 8.4 Loeb's Interpretation 8.5 Rutherford's Interpretation 9 Psychology and Ontology 9.1 Mind and Matter in Descartes and Locke 9.2 Leibniz's Analysis of Mind and Matter 9.2.1 The Primary-Secondary Quality Distinction 9.2.2 Physical Considerations 9.2.3 Metaphysical Considerations 9.2.3.1 Substance as Unity 9.2.3.2 Substance as Activity 9.2.3.3 Substance as Subject 9.2.4 Psychological Considerations 10 Levels of Discourse 11 Leibniz's Epistemological Realism 11.1 Requirements of the System 11.2 The Contrary Proposition 11. -
Conflicts Between Science and Religion: Epistemology to the Rescue
Conflicts Between Science and Religion: Epistemology to the Rescue Moorad Alexanian Department of Physics and Physical Oceanography University of North Carolina Wilmington Wilmington, NC 28403-5606 (Dated: April 23, 2021) Both Albert Einstein and Erwin Schr¨odinger have defined what science is. Einstein includes not only physics, but also all natural sciences dealing with both organic and inorganic processes in his definition of science. According to Schr¨odinger, the present scientific worldview is based on the two basic attitudes of comprehensibility and objectivation. On the other hand, the notion of religion is quite equivocal and unless clearly defined will easily lead to all sorts of misunderstandings. Does science, as defined, encompass the whole of reality? More importantly, what is the whole of reality and how do we obtain data for it? The Christian worldview considers a human as body, mind, and spirit (soul), which is consistent with Cartesian ontology of only three elements: matter, mind, and God. Therefore, is it possible to give a precise definition of science showing that the conflicts are actually apparent and not real? I. INTRODUCTION In 1950, Albert Einstein gave a remarkable lecture to the International Congress of Surgeons in Cleveland, Ohio. Einstein argued that the 19th-century physicists’ simplistic view of Nature gave biologists the confidence to treat life as a purely physical phenomenon. This mechanistic picture of Nature was based on the casual laws of Newtonian mechanics and the Faraday-Maxwell theory of electromagnetism. These causal laws proved to be wanting, especially in atomistic phenomena, which brought about the advent of quantum mechanics in the 20th-century. -
Philosophy of Mind
Part Two Philosophy of Mind 9781350067301_txt_prf.indd 179 21-08-2018 11:42:33 9781350067301_txt_prf.indd 180 21-08-2018 11:42:33 6 Spinoza’s Two Claims about the Mind-Body Relation Alison Peterman Introduction How is a particular mind related to its body?1 There are many ways to understand this question, and many different answers for those different ways. Spinoza makes a number of claims about this relationship, all of which are independently interesting. But it is not clear that they are compatible. In this chapter, I would like to focus on two of those claims, and to argue that although Spinoza sometimes run these two claims together, in fact he does not succeed in making them compatible with one another. I suggest that the illusion that they are compatible comes from an equivocation between two ways of using the phrase “insofar as” [quatenus], and that this type of equivocation runs deep in Spinoza’s metaphysics. Those two claims are: (1) Parallelism: the mind is causally and structurally linked to other minds in the same way that its body is linked to other bodies; (2) Idea-of: the mind is the idea of its body; or, the body is the object [objectum] of its mind. In focusing on these two, I will ignore some of those other interesting things that Spinoza writes about the mind-body relationship. For example, I will for the most part ignore his account of it in the earlier Short Treatise, where he claims that love constitutes the union of the mind with the body.2 But I will also ignore another of Spinoza’s commitments that might look more relevant: that the mind and the body are “one and the same thing, understood in two different ways” (E2p7s). -
Evaluating the Metaphysical Realism of Étienne Gilson
Studia Gilsoniana 4:4 (October–December 2015): 363–380 | ISSN 2300–0066 Brian Kemple Center for Thomistic Studies University of St. Thomas, Houston Texas, USA EVALUATING THE METAPHYSICAL REALISM OF ÉTIENNE GILSON It is true to say that there would likely be far fewer students of Thomas Aquinas in North America today if not for the work of Étienne Gilson; it is equally true to say that Gilson’s work has made significant contributions both to the overcoming of modern philosophy and to the understanding of Thomas himself, particularly as regards the Angelic Doc- tor’s metaphysics and philosophy of knowledge. The resurgence of genu- ine Thomism—as opposed to the Suarezian impostor which had come to dominate—which followed Leo XIII’s Aeterni Patris had much to over- come, not the least of which was the preponderance of modernity’s idealist epistemology. Descartes’ mathematicism, the insistence that all things lacking the certitude of mathematics cannot truly be called “knowledge,”1 begot Cartesian idealism, which in turn launched a centuries-long quest, carried out by numerous philosophers, for an answer to what might be best described as “the wrong question,” namely: “How is it that we can know things outside the mind?” This question, particularly in the most thorough treatment among moderns given it by Kant, coursed through philosophy so strongly that even many Thomists were swept along by its current. Enter Gilson. By participating in the recovery of the thought of the scholastics, especially Thomas Aquinas, Gilson was able to formulate a theory of knowledge which, though aimed at answering the question of the moderns, avoided their fundamental errors. -
Conciencia Y Paralelismo En Spinoza
Discusión Conciencia y paralelismo en Spinoza Luis Ángel García Muñoz Departamento de Filosofía Universidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes [email protected] En su obra más representativa, la Ethica ordine geometrico demostrata (específi camente en su segunda parte), Spinoza sugiere que todo individuo, sea humano, animal o un objeto extenso cualquiera, está animado en cierto grado (E IIP13s). Y por si fuera poco, que los indi- viduos inferiores como animales u objetos extensos tienen mente. Este asunto, potencialmente agresivo para el sentido común, es tratado por Edwin Curley, quien trata de ofrecer una distinción entre los hombres y los demás individuos con la fi nalidad de expli- car el sistema de Spinoza sin caer en sugerencias tan problemáticas. Esta distinción se encuentra en su libro Spinoza’s Metaphysics: An Essay in Interpretation publicado en 1969, en el que defi ende que, en Spinoza, todos los individuos que están en Dios tienen mente. Pero los hombres se distinguen de los demás individuos (rocas, animales, etc.) porque sólo los primeros, además de tener mente, tienen conciencia. Lo que caracteriza a la conciencia en Spinoza, se- gún Curley, es la posesión de ideas de ideas o bien de proposiciones de proposiciones.1 Así, aunque todos los individuos, en Spinoza tengan mente, los hombres se distinguen de los demás individuos porque sólo ellos poseen ideas de ideas o proposiciones de proposiciones. 1 Esta caracterización de la conciencia es adoptada por Curley al haber reinterpretado la teoría de las ideas en Spinoza y al haber encontrado en ellas ‘un elemento de afi rmación’ que permite equipararlas con las proposiciones.