Renaissance Theories of Internal Senses

Chapter
Part of the Studies in the History of Philosophy of Mind book series (SHPM, volume 12)

Abstract

The standard Renaissance accounts of the internal senses often followed medieval sources, such as Albert the Great’s De homine and the anonymous Summa naturalium, maintaining that there are five internal senses: common sense and imagination, which are located in the front ventricle of the brain; fantasy and the estimative power in the middle ventricle; and memory in the posterior one. According to these accounts, common sense has a variety of functions, such as comparing between the objects of different senses and the consciousness of perception. Imagination is the faculty which retains the sensible forms received by common sense. Fantasy or the cogitative power, as it was sometimes called, is the faculty which composes and divides sensible forms and intentions, yielding new images. Intentions are evaluative features that the estimative power elicits from the sensible forms. The estimative power also provides a kind of judgement on the level of sense cognition and accounts thereby for instinctive reactions of avoidance or trust. Memory is the faculty which retains sensible forms and intentions. It differs from imagination because it retains sensible forms with knowledge of the past.

Keywords

Common Sense Internal Sense Imaginative Power Opus Omnia Evaluative Feature 
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.

References

  1. Burton, Robert (Democritus Junior). (1638). The anatomy of melancholy, what it is. Oxford; first published 1621.Google Scholar
  2. Cresci, Pietro. (1599). Discorso sopra un sonetto in lode del celebre luogo di Valchiusa. Ferrara.Google Scholar
  3. Ficino, Marsilio. (1576). Opera omnia (Vol. 2). Basel. Reprint (Turin, 1959).Google Scholar
  4. Montaigne, Michel de. (1685–1686). The essays (Vol. 3) (C. Cotton, Trans.). London.Google Scholar
  5. Piccolomini, Francesco. (1600). Libri ad scientiam de natura attinentium. Venice.Google Scholar
  6. Ronsard, Pierre de. (1566). Abbrégé de l’art poétique François. Rouen.Google Scholar
  7. Tignosi, Niccolò. (1551). In libros Aristotelis de anima commentarii. Florence.Google Scholar
  8. Casini, L. (2006). Cognitive and moral psychology in Renaissance philosophy: A study of Juan Luis Vives’ De anima et vita. Dissertation, Uppsala.Google Scholar
  9. Cocking, J. M. (1991). Imagination: A study in the history of ideas. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Garin, E. (1985). Phantasia e imaginatio fra Marsilio Ficino e Pietro Pomponazzi. Giornale critico di filosofia italiana, 64, 349–361.Google Scholar
  11. Hankins, J. (2007). Ficino, Avicenna and the occult powers of the rational soul. In F. Meroi & E. Scapparone (Eds.), La magia nell’Europa moderna: Tra antica sapienza e filosofia naturale (Vol. I, pp. 35–52). Florence: Olschki.Google Scholar
  12. Huet, M.-H. (1993). Monstrous imagination. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Park, K. (1984). Bacon’s ‘Enchanted Glass’. Isis, 75, 290–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Park, K. (1988). The organic soul, in Schmitt et al. (Eds.), 464–484.Google Scholar
  15. Spruit, L. (1994–1995). Species intelligibilis: From perception to knowledge, vol. I: Classical roots and medieval discussions; vol. II: Renaissance controversies, later scholasticism, and the elimination of the intelligible species in modern philosophy. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  16. Tirinnanzi, N. (2000). Umbra naturae: L’immaginazione da Ficino a Bruno. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura.Google Scholar
  17. Wilson, D. (1993). Signs and portents: Monstrous births from the Middle Ages to the Enlightenment. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Zambelli, P. (1985). L’immaginazione e il suo potere: Da al-Kindī, al-Fārābī e Avicenna al Medioevo latino e al Rinascimento. In A. Zimmermann & I. Craemer-Ruegenberg (Eds.), Orientalische Kultur und europäisches Mittelalter (Miscellanea Mediaevalia 17, pp. 188–206). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of UppsalaUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations