Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Active Perception in the History of Philosophy pp 167–185Cite as

Active Perception from Nicholas of Cusa to Thomas Hobbes

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Studies in the History of Philosophy of Mind ((SHPM,volume 14))

Abstract

This chapter gives an overview of the various ways in which philosophers in the Renaissance and early modern period dealt with the question of to what extent sense perception is an active mental process. This question is subdivided into two themes. First, the way in which philosophers conceptualized sense perception as an active process depended on what they saw as the nature and the causal efficacy of sensory input. Should we think of sensory input in terms of sensible species or perhaps just motion? Can the external objects be causally efficacious with respect to the soul, or are they dependent on another agent? If so, what is the nature of this agent? The second theme concerns the way in which a philosopher thought of sense perception as an active process depended on his view of the processing of the sensory input. What are the mechanisms involved in the processing of external stimuli? What agent does the processing? These themes are studies with respect to four different groups of philosophers, viz. philosophers working within the Aristotelian tradition (Suarez and Cajetan), Italian naturalist philosophers such as Fracastoro and Telesio, Neoplatonists such as Cusanus and Ficino and finally Descartes and Hobbes as representatives of early modern philosophy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This chapter is partially based on Leijenhorst (2002, 2004, 2007).

  2. 2.

    Aristotle, De Anima II, 5, 416 b 33.

  3. 3.

    See the chapter by J.B. Brenet in this book. See also Pattin (1988).

  4. 4.

    On medieval accounts of selective attention, see Pasnau (1997, pp. 125–158). On later discussions, see Leijenhorst (2004).

  5. 5.

    See Pattin (1988), vi, and the chapter by José Filipe Silva in this book.

  6. 6.

    See Jandun’s Tractatus de sensu agente, in Pattin (1988, p. 167).

  7. 7.

    Cajetan (1510), Book 2, Chapter 11, § 266, p. 253.

  8. 8.

    Ibid. Book 2, Chap. 11, § 267, pp. 253–254.

  9. 9.

    For a good summary of Cajetan’s position on this issue, see Simon (1933, pp. 229–252).

  10. 10.

    Cajetan, Commentaria in De Anima Aristotelis, Book 2, Chap. 11, § 281, p. 263.

  11. 11.

    Ibid. Book 2, Chap. 11, § 281, pp. 264–265.

  12. 12.

    Cajetan, Commentaria in De Anima Aristotelis, vol. 4, Question 14, Article 1, p. 168.

  13. 13.

    Ibid., vol. 4, Question 79, Article 2, p. 263.

  14. 14.

    Ibid.

  15. 15.

    The De Anima commentary originated in Suarez’ teaching at the University of Segovia between 1571 and 1574. He started rewriting the work shortly before his death, which interrupted its composition (only the first twelve chapters were ready). His pupil Alvarez reorganized and published the book in Lyons in 1621. There are significant differences between the original publication and the critical edition (Suarez 1978). Here, we use the Vivès edition of 1856, which reprints the Alvarez edition, since that is the one that was historically received (Suarez 1856).

  16. 16.

    Suarez, De Anima, vol. 3, Book 3, Chap. 9, p. 647.

  17. 17.

    Ibid., vol. 3, Book 3, Chap. 4, p. 627.

  18. 18.

    Ibid., vol. 3, Book 3, Chap. 4, pp. 627–628.

  19. 19.

    Ibid., vol. 3, Book 3, Chap. 4, p. 628.

  20. 20.

    Ibid.

  21. 21.

    Ibid., vol. 3, Book 3, Chap. 4, p. 630.

  22. 22.

    Mahoney (1971, p. 123).

  23. 23.

    Ibid., pp. 129–130.

  24. 24.

    Ibid., p. 131.

  25. 25.

    On Zabarella’s doctrine of sense perception, see South (2002).

  26. 26.

    Zabarella (1966, Chap. 3, p. 834).

  27. 27.

    Ibid., Chap. 3, p. 841.

  28. 28.

    Ibid., Chap. 9, p. 851.

  29. 29.

    Ibid., Chap. 9, p. 852.

  30. 30.

    Ibid., Chapter 10, p. 854.

  31. 31.

    Ibid., Chap. 10, pp. 854–855.

  32. 32.

    Ibid., Chap. 9, p. 851.

  33. 33.

    On Ficino, see Allen and Rees (2002).

  34. 34.

    Ficino (1964, vol. 2, Book 9, Chap. 5, p. 30).

  35. 35.

    Ibid. On Ficino’s notion of spirit, see Corrias (2012).

  36. 36.

    Ficino, Théologie platonicienne, vol. 2, Book 9, Chap. 5, pp. 30–31. On the term “formulae innatae”, see Spruit (1995, p. 34).

  37. 37.

    Ficino, Théologie platonicienne, vol. 2, Book 9, Chap. 5, p. 31.

  38. 38.

    On Nicholas of Cusa, see Flasch (2001).

  39. 39.

    Nicholas of Cusa (1995, Chap. 6, § 77, p. 30).

  40. 40.

    See Spruit (1995, p. 20).

  41. 41.

    Nicholas of Cusa, Idiota de Mente, Chap. 7, § 100, p. 56.

  42. 42.

    Nicholas of Cusa (1970, Chap. 13, § 41, p. 52).

  43. 43.

    Nicholas of Cusa, Compendium, Chap. 13, § 40, p. 50.

  44. 44.

    Nicholas of Cusa, Idiota de Mente, Chap. 3, § 72, pp. 25–26.

  45. 45.

    On the Turrius, see Boenke (2005, pp. 74–119).

  46. 46.

    Fracastoro (1555, 166C–D).

  47. 47.

    Fracastoro, Turrius, 170B.

  48. 48.

    Ibid.

  49. 49.

    Ibid., 170B–C. Fracastoro here clearly draws from Aristotle’s Parva Naturalia. On this connection see Leijenhorst (2004, p. 213).

  50. 50.

    On Telesio, see Leijenhorst (2010).

  51. 51.

    Telesio (1965–1976, vol. 3, p. 30.

  52. 52.

    Ibid., vol. 3, p. 6.

  53. 53.

    Ibid., vol. 3, p. 6.

  54. 54.

    See Boenke (2005, p. 151).

  55. 55.

    Descartes (1996c, pp. 185–186). Given the limits of space available here, this summary of Descartes’ account of perceptual mechanisms has to remain brief and generalising. For a more in-depth treatment, see Hatfield (1992); and Yolton (1981, pp. 63–83). See also Spruit (1995, pp. 352–390).

  56. 56.

    See Spruit (1999, pp. 271–291), for a discussion of the relevant passages.

  57. 57.

    Spruit (1999).

  58. 58.

    Descartes (1996b, p. 359).

  59. 59.

    Descartes (1996c, pp. 185–186).

  60. 60.

    Descartes (1996d, p. 361).

  61. 61.

    Descartes (1996a, p. 109).

  62. 62.

    On Hobbes’ natural philosophy, see Leijenhorst (2002).

  63. 63.

    Hobbes (1962, Chap. 2, Sect. 4, p. 4).

  64. 64.

    Hobbes (1963, pp. 151).

  65. 65.

    On Hobbes’ doctrine of sense perception, see Leijenhorst (2002, pp. 56–100).

  66. 66.

    Hobbes (1961, Chap. 25, pp. 317–319).

  67. 67.

    Ibid., Chap. 25, pp. 321–322.

  68. 68.

    Hobbes, Tractatus, 208.

  69. 69.

    Hobbes, De corpore, Chap. 25, p. 320.

  70. 70.

    Zabarella, Liber de sensu agente, Chap. 9, p. 851.

  71. 71.

    Hobbes, De corpore, Chap. 25, p. 325.

  72. 72.

    Ibid.

  73. 73.

    Ibid., Chap. 25, p. 317.

Bibliography

Primary sources

  • Cardinal Cajetan, T. de Vio. (1510). Commentaria in De Anima Aristotelis. Florence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardinal Cajetan, Thomas de Vio. (1888). Commentaria in Thomas Aquinatis Prima Pars Summae Theologiae, in Opera Omnia (Editio Leonina). Rome.

    Google Scholar 

  • Descartes, R. (1996a). Dioptrique. In C. Adam & P. Tannery (Eds.), Œuvres de Descartes (Vol. 6). Paris: Vrin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Descartes, R. (1996b). Notae in programma quoddam. In C. Adam & P. Tannery (Eds.), Œuvres de Descartes (Vol. 8). Paris: Vrin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Descartes, R. (1996c). Traité de l’Homme. In C. Adam & P. Tannery (Eds.), Œuvres de Descartes (Vol. 11). Paris: Vrin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Descartes, R. (1996d). Les passions de l’âme. In C. Adam & P. Tannery (Eds.), Œuvres de Descartes (Vol. 11). Paris: Vrin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ficino, M. (1964). Théologie platonicienne de l’immortalité des ames (Ed. R. Marcel). Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fracastoro, G. (1555). Turrius, in Id., Opera omnia. Venezia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbes, T. (1961). De corpora. In W. Molesworth (Ed.), Id., Opera latina (Vol. 1). Aalen: Scientia (Reprint London 1839).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbes, T. (1962). Elements of law. In W. Molesworth (Ed.), Id., English works (Vol. 4). Aalen: Scientia (Reprint London 1839).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbes, T. (1963). Tractatus opticus ii. In F. Alessio & T. Hobbes (Eds.), Tractatus opticus (Harley Mss. 6796, ff. 193–266). Rivista critica di storia della filosofia 18, 147–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholas of Cusa. (1970). Compendium (Eds. B. Decker, and K. Bormann). Hamburg: Meiner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholas of Cusa. (1995). Idiota de Mente (Ed. R. Steiger). Hamburg: Meiner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suarez, F. (1856). De Anima (Ed. M. André). Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suarez, F. (1978). De Anima (Ed. S. Castellote). Madrid: Labor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Telesio, B. (1965–1976). De rerum natura iuxta propria principia (Ed. L. De Franco). Cosenza: Casa del Libro (Firenze: Franco Angeli).

    Google Scholar 

  • Zabarella, J. (1966). Liber de sensu agente. In Id., De rebus naturalibus (pp. 831–856). Frankfurt a. M.: Minerva (Reprint Frankfurt am Main 1607).

    Google Scholar 

Secondary sources

  • Allen, M., & Rees, V. (Eds.). (2002). Marsilio ficino: His theology, his philosophy, his legacy. Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boenke, M. (2005). Körper, spiritus, geist. München: Fink.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corrias, A. (2012). Imagination and memory in Marsilio Ficino’s theory of the vehicles of the soul. The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition, 6, 81–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flasch, K. (2001). Nicolaus cusanus. München: Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatfield, G. (1992). Descartes’ physiology and its relation to his psychology. In J. Cottingham (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to descartes (pp. 335–370). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Leijenhorst, C. (2002). The mechanisation of aristotelianism: The late aristotelian setting of Thomas Hobbes’ natural philosophy. Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leijenhorst, C. (2004). Attention please! Theories of selective attention in renaissance and early modern philosophy. In P. Bakker & H. Thijssen (Eds.), Mind, perception, and cognition: The commentary tradition of Aristotle’s De Anima (pp. 205–230). Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leijenhorst, C. (2007). The chain of being and agent sense: Two renaissance aristotelian views. In H. Lagerlund & O. Pluta (Eds.), Forming the mind: conceptions of body and soul in late medieval and early modern philosophy (pp. 237–262). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Leijenhorst, C. (2010). Bernardino Telesio (1509–1588): New fundamental principles of nature. In P. Blum (Ed.), Philosophers of the renaissance (pp. 168–180). Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, E. (1971). Agostino Nifo’s De Sensu Agente. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, 53, 119–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pasnau, R. (1997). Theories of cognition in the later middle ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pattin, A. (1988). Pour l’histoire du sens agent. La controverse entre Barthélemy de Bruges et Jean de Jandun. Ses antécédents et son évolution. Leuven: Peeters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, Y. (1933). Positions aristotélicennes concernant le problème de l’activité du sens. Revue de Philosophie, 33, 229–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • South, J. B. (2002). Zabarella and the intentionality of sensation. Rivista di storia della filosofia, 57, 5–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spruit, L. (1995). Species intelligibilis: From perception to knowledge (Vol. 2). Leiden: Brill.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Spruit, L. (1999). Applicatio mentis: Descartes’ philosophy of mind and renaissance noetics. In E. Faye (Ed.), Descartes et la renaissance (pp. 271–291). Paris: Champion.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yolton, J. (1981). Perceptual cognition with Descartes. Studia Cartesiana, 2, 63–83.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, Theology and Religious Sciences, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands

    Cees Leijenhorst

Authors
  1. Cees Leijenhorst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cees Leijenhorst .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

    José Filipe Silva

  2. University of Jyväskylä Dept. Social Sciences & Philosophy, Jyväskylä, Finland

    Mikko Yrjönsuuri

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Leijenhorst, C. (2014). Active Perception from Nicholas of Cusa to Thomas Hobbes. In: Silva, J., Yrjönsuuri, M. (eds) Active Perception in the History of Philosophy. Studies in the History of Philosophy of Mind, vol 14. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04361-6_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation