Advertisement

The Mind’s Eye

  • Evelyn Fox Keller
  • Christine R. Grontkowski
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 161)

Abstract

Feminist thought in the 1970’s and 80’s echoes a number of themes familiar from radical thought of the 60’s. One such theme appears in the revolt against the traditional Western hierarchy of the senses. In this view, the emphasis accorded the visual in Western thought is not only symptomatic of the alienation of modern man, but is itself a major factor in the disruption of man’s “natural” relation to the world. The logic1 of Western thought is too rooted in the visual; its failure, it is implied, derives from an unwholesome division of the senses.

Keywords

Western Thought Visual Metaphor Metaphoric Function Dynamic Neutrality Pure Thought 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 2.
    Luce Irigaray, ‘This Sex Which Is Not One’, in The New French Feminisms (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1980), p. 101.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    Hélène Cixous,’ sorties’, The New French Feminisms, p. 92.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    Hans Jonas, ‘The Nobility of Sight’ in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 14 (1954), 507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 5.
    Eric A. Havelock, Preface to Plato, (Universal Library, 1967).Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    For development of the same theme in different terms, see Bruno Snell, The Discovery of the Mind, T. G. Rosenmeyer, trans. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1953), especially chapter 9.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    Timaeus, 61d-68e.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    Ibid., 45b.Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    Phaedrus, 250d.Google Scholar
  9. 10.
    Republic, 507c.Google Scholar
  10. 11.
    Ibid., 508a.Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    Ibid., 508b.Google Scholar
  12. 13.
    Timaeus, 45c-d.Google Scholar
  13. 14.
    Republic, 509b.Google Scholar
  14. 15.
    Ibid., 508c.Google Scholar
  15. 16.
    Phaedrus, 250a-c.Google Scholar
  16. 17.
    Meno, 82c-86b.Google Scholar
  17. 18.
    Ibid., 81c-d.Google Scholar
  18. 19.
    Actually, “intuit” is etymologically more closely related to contemplation (theoria) than to insight. Both, however, are communion-concepts. Theoria or contemplation suggests that we can only gaze at that which is infinitely superior to us, as in the Aristotelian contemplation of the Prime Mover or the Christian contemplation of God in the Beatific Vision. Is there a subtle sense in which intuition as “having insight” is for science essentially what contemplation is for theology, with this one crucial difference: that looking at God fulfills our being while looking into nature’s secrets increases our power?Google Scholar
  19. 20.
    He attributes to Plato in particular the “self imposed task” of establishing “two main postulates: that of the personality which thinks and knows, and that of a body of knowledge which is thought about and known.”Google Scholar
  20. 21.
    Theaetetus, 186e.Google Scholar
  21. 22.
    For an analysis of the Greek vocabulary of seeing, cf. Snell, ch. 1.Google Scholar
  22. 23.
    On Free Will, II, p. 43.Google Scholar
  23. 24.
    Soliloquies, From Whitney J. Oates, Basic Writings of St. Augustine (New York, 1948), Vol. L, pp. 165–66.Google Scholar
  24. 25.
    Ibid., p. 266.Google Scholar
  25. 26.
    Ibid., p. 267.Google Scholar
  26. 28.
    René Descartes, Regulae IX from Haldane and Ross (eds.), Philosophical Works of Descartes (Dover, 1934), Vol. 1, 000-000.Google Scholar
  27. 29.
    Principles I, 45-46, Haldane and Ross (eds.), p. 237.Google Scholar
  28. 30.
    RegulaeXII, Haldane and Ross (eds.), Vol. I, p. 41.Google Scholar
  29. 31.
    Meditation V, Haldane and Ross (eds.), Vol. I, p. 183.Google Scholar
  30. 32.
    Our translation from Descartes, Ouevres et Lettres (Paris: Bibliorèque de la Pléiade, 1953), p. 181.Google Scholar
  31. 33.
    For a discussion of a much earlier articulation of the copy theory of perception, see Vasco Ronchi, Optics: The Science of Vision, translated by Edward Rosen, (New York, 1957).Google Scholar
  32. 34.
    Some recent critics have argued for a residual presence of the emission theory in Descartes work see, for example, Stephen H. Daniel ‘The Nature of Light in Descartes’ Physics,’ The Philosophic Forum 7 (1976), 341, but this point is debatable and does not in any case mitigate against his essential and explicit rejection of optical emanations.Google Scholar
  33. 35.
    Dioptrics in Descartes: Philosophical Writings translated and edited by Elizabeth Anscombe and Peter T. Geach (London, 1954), p. 242.Google Scholar
  34. 36.
    Peter T. Geach (London, 1954) Ibid., p. 253.Google Scholar
  35. 37.
    Peter T. Geach (London, 1954) Ibid., p. 246.Google Scholar
  36. 38.
    Sir Isaac Newton, Principia, quoted by Alexandre Koyré in From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe (New York, 1958), p. 161.Google Scholar
  37. 39.
    Frank Manuel, A Portrait of Newton (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968), p. 78.Google Scholar
  38. 40.
    Ibid., pp. 78–79.Google Scholar
  39. 41.
    Ibid., p. 85. “Newton,” Manuel says, “had confronted a god face to face and had been preserved.” The psychological dimensions of this experience are provocatively explored by Manuel, and need to be explored further. The personalization of the sun, evident in this quote, makes its presence felt again in Newton’s commitment to absolute space. Here Newton conjoins the Greek tradition with another, the Hebraic, in which space itself is identified with God. Jammer, Concept of Space (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1954) provides an excellent account of the confluence of these traditions in Newton’s thought. The relation between them needs to be further explored in connection with Newton’s acknowledged problematic commitment to a fixed point in space, originally though not finally identified with the sun. See also the discussion of the “symbolic identification of the sun and God” in Thomas Kuhn’s The Copernican Revolution (Harvard, 1957).Google Scholar
  40. 42.
    Ibid., p. 141.Google Scholar
  41. 43.
    Ibid., p. 86.Google Scholar
  42. 44.
    Patrick A. Heelan, ‘Horizon, Objectivity and Reality in the Physical Sciences,’ International Philosophical Quarterly 7 (1967), 407). In this context of cf. also E. A. Burtt, The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science, Ch. VII (New York, 1932).Google Scholar
  43. 45.
    Opticks, 3rd edition, London, 1721, p. 344.Google Scholar
  44. 46.
    Gerald Holton, Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought (Harvard, 1973), p. 86.Google Scholar
  45. 47.
    Ibid., p. 234.Google Scholar
  46. 48.
    See, e.g., E. F. Keller‘Cognitive Repression in Contemporary Physics’, where ongoing dispute over the interpretation of quantum mechanics is traced to the retention of one or the other of these dual tenets. Some psychological sources of the appeal to belief in the “objectifiability” and the “knowability” of nature are suggested.Google Scholar
  47. 49.
    Jonas, ‘The Nobility of Sight’Google Scholar
  48. 50.
    Ibid., p. 513.Google Scholar
  49. 51.
    Ibid., p. 514.Google Scholar
  50. 52.
    Ibid., p. 515.Google Scholar
  51. 53.
    Ibid., p.514.Google Scholar
  52. 54.
    Ibid., p. 517.Google Scholar
  53. 55.
    Ibid., p. 518.Google Scholar
  54. 56.
    Ibid., loc. cit. Google Scholar
  55. 57.
    Evelyn Fox Keller, ‘Gender and Science’, reprinted in this volume.Google Scholar
  56. 58.
    See ref. 48 for further discussion of this point, as well as E. F. Keller, ‘Nature as “Her”’, Proceedings of the Second Sex Conference (New York University, 1979).Google Scholar
  57. 59.
    Cf., Kurt Von Fritz, ‘Noûs, Noein and Their Derivation in Pre-Socratic Philosophy’ in The Pre-Socratics, edited by Alexander P. D. Mourelatos, (New York, 1974).Google Scholar
  58. 60.
    G. N. A. Vesey, ‘Vision’ The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (New York, 1967), Vol. 8, p. 252.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Evelyn Fox Keller
    • 1
  • Christine R. Grontkowski
    • 2
  1. 1.Northeastern UniversityBostonUSA
  2. 2.College at PurchaseState University of New YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations