Advertisement

Imagination

Chapter
  • 208 Downloads

Abstract

Following from the complication of the method that attending to the fable makes seen, the next concern is the faculty psychology of that self that generates and obeys the rules of the method. Attending to the fable also has an effect on this concept, not only on the concept of the faculty psychology of the self, but on the concept of a faculty psychology as it pertains to Descartes at all. Even though the self, as that which is constituted by a psychology, is the thing which applies a method, the effect of the fable on the method exposes something about this self and its psychology which attending to the fable’s effects without having attended to its effects on the method would be unable to expose. In particular, because the fable affects the concept of the method such that it becomes self-supplemental, knotted, and interwoven with what it would exclude, the self that both applies and is discovered by the method now comes into question as to its psychological constitution.

Keywords

facultyFaculty thingsThings intellectIntellect ideasIdea lightLight 
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. Ariew, Roger, and Marjorie Grene. 1995. “Ideas, in and Before Descartes.” Journal of the History of Ideas 56 (1): 87–106. https://doi.org/10.2307/2710008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergoffen, Debra B. 1976. “Cartesian Doubt as Methodology: Reflective Imagination and Philosophical Freedom.” Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 50: 186–195. https://doi.org/10.5840/acpaproc1976501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blizman, James. 1973. “Models, Analogies, and Degrees of Certainty in Descartes.” The Modern Schoolman 50 (1): 183–208. https://doi.org/10.5840/schoolman19725012.
  4. Brewer, Daniel. 1983. “The Philosophical Dialogue and the Forcing of Truth.” MLN 98 (5): 1234–1247. https://doi.org/10.2307/2906069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cavaillé, Jean-Pierre. 1991. Descartes: La Fable du Monde. Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin.Google Scholar
  6. Daniel, Stephen H. 1976. “The Nature of Light in Descartes’ Physics.” The Philosophical Forum: A Quarterly 7 (3–4): 323–344.Google Scholar
  7. Deleuze, Gilles. 1991. Empiricism and Subjectivity: An Essay on Hume’s Theory of Human Nature. Translated by Constantin V. Boundas. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Derrida, Jacques. 1978. “Cogito and the History of Madness.” In Writing and Difference, translated by Alan Bass, 36–63. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. ———. 2008. The Animal That Therefore I Am. Edited by Marie-Louise Mallet and translated by David Wills. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  10. ———. 2009. The Beast and the Sovereign, Volume I. Edited by Michel Lisse, Marie-Louise Mallet, and Ginette Michaud and translated by Geoffrey Bennington. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Fóti, Véronqiue M. 1986. “The Cartesian Imagination.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 46 (4): 631–642. https://doi.org/10.2307/2107673.
  12. Foucault, Michel. 1966. Les mots et les choses: Une archéologie des sciences humaines. Paris: Éditions Gallimard.Google Scholar
  13. ———. 1994. The Order of Things: An Archeology of the Human Sciences. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  14. ———. 2009. History of Madness. Edited by Jean Khalfa and translated by Jonathan Murphy and Jean Khalfa. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Garber, Daniel. 1992. Descartes’ Metaphysical Physics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. ———. 2001a. “Descartes and Experiment in the Discourse and Essays.” In Descartes Embodied: Reading Descartes Through Cartesian Science, 85–110. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. ———. 2001b. “How God Causes Motion: Descartes, Divine Sustenance, and Occasionalism.” In Descartes Embodied: Reading Descartes Through Cartesian Science, 189–202. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hatfield, Gary. 1997. “The Workings of the Intellect: Mind and Psychology.” In Logic and the Workings of the Mind: The Logic of Ideas and Faculty Psychology in Early Modern Philosophy, edited by Patricia A. Easton, North American Kant Society Studies in Philosophy 5, 21–45. Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  19. Husserl, Edmund. 1999. Cartesian Meditations: An Introduction to Phenomenology. Translated by Dorion Cairns. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. Kant, Immanuel. 2001. Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics and the Letter to Marcus Herz, February 1772. 2nd edn. Translated by James W. Ellington. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co., Inc.Google Scholar
  21. Kirkeboen, Geir. 1998. “Descartes’ Psychology of Vision and Cognitive Science: The ‘Optics’ (1637) in the Light of Marr’s (1982) ‘Vision’.” Philosophical Psychology 11 (2): 161–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089808573254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Locke, John. 1996. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Edited and abridged by John W. Yolton. London: J. M. Dent.Google Scholar
  23. Marion, Jean-Luc. 1977. Annotations. In René Descartes, Règles Utiles et Claires pour la Direction de l’Esprit en la Recherche de la Vérité, translated Jean-Luc Marion, conceptual notes by Jean-Luc Marion, and mathematical notes by Pierre Costabel, 83–294. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  24. ———. 1999. On Descartes’ Metaphysical Prism: The Constitution and the Limits of Onto-theo-logy in Cartesian Thought. Translated by Jeffrey L. Kosky. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 1968. The Visible and the Invisible: Followed by Working Notes. Translated by Alphonso Lingis. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Nancy, Jean-Luc. 1978. “Dum Scribo.” Translated by Ian McLeod. Oxford Literary Review 3 (2): 6–21. https://doi.org/10.3366/olr.1978.002.
  27. Noë, Alva. 2009. Out of Our Heads: Why You Are Not Your Brain, and Other Lessons from the Biology of Consciousness. New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
  28. Prendergast, Thomas L. 1975. “Motion, Action, and Tendency in Descartes’ Physics in Descartes’ Physics.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 13 (4): 453–462. https://doi.org/10.1353/hph.2008.0516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Reiss, Timothy J. 1997. Knowledge, Discovery, and Imagination in Early Modern Europe: The Rise of Aesthetic Rationalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Rickless, Samuel C. 2005. “The Cartesian Fallacy Fallacy.” Noûs 39 (2): 308–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0029-4624.2005.00503.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ricoeur, Paul. 2004. Memory, History, Forgetting. Translated by Kathleen Blamely and David Pellauer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. Rosen, Stanley. 1969. “A Central Ambiguity in Descartes.” In Cartesian Essays: A Collection of Critical Studies, edited by Bernd Magnus and James B. Wilbur, 17–35. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  33. Sepper, Dennis L. 1996. Descartes’s Imagination: Proportion, Images, and the Activity of Thinking. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bratislava International School of Liberal ArtsBratislavaSlovakia

Personalised recommendations