Encyclopedia of Renaissance Philosophy

Living Edition
| Editors: Marco Sgarbi

Immanence, Renaissance Idea Of

  • Tomáš NejeschlebaEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02848-4_432-1

Abstract

Immanence in Renaissance philosophy is primarily an epistemological category derived from a reading of Aristotle and the Medieval Aristotelian tradition. Immanent actions are considered operations of the soul which remain in the operating one itself and do not have a cause or effect on external matter. These immanent actions are distinguished from transient actions. The main issue for Renaissance philosophers involved determining which activities of the soul (nutrition, sensation, intellection, will) can be assessed as immanent. Immanence as a metaphysical category only emerged in the seventeenth century with Spinoza’s concept of God as causa immanens and was later extrapolated by philosophy historians, who were influenced by the philosophy of the Enlightenment and by German idealism, on the description of two originally Neoplatonic ideas: (1) the intrinsicness of the world soul in the world as the immanence of the soul in the world in connection with panpsychism and (2) the presence of the divine in the world as the immanence of God in the world in connection with pantheism.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

Primary Literature

  1. Aristotle. 2006. Metaphysics, Book Theta. Trans. Stephen Makin. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bruno, Giordano. 1989. Summa terminorum metaphysicorum. Lessico intellettuale europeo. Edited by Eugenio Canone. Roma: Edizioni dell’Ateneo.Google Scholar
  3. Bruno, Giordano. 2002. Opere italiane. Classici italiani. Edited by Giovanni Aquilecchia. Torino: UTET.Google Scholar
  4. Bruno, Giordano. 2010. Das Buch über die Monade, die Zahl und die Figur. Frankfurt 1591. Edited by Wolfgang Neuser, Michael Spang, and Erhard Wicke. Nordhausen: Traugott Bautz.Google Scholar
  5. Ficino, Marsilio. 2001. Platonic theology. Books I–IV. Edited by Michael J.B. Allen and James Hankins. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Goclenius, Rudolph. 1613. Lexicon philosophicum, quo tanquam clave philosophiae fores aperiuntur. Francofurti: Typis Mathiae Beckeri.Google Scholar
  7. Pomponazzi, Pietro. 1999. Trattato sull’ immortalità del’ anima. Firenze: Leo S. Olschki Editore.Google Scholar
  8. Pomponazzi, Pietro. 2012. Fragmenta super libros De anima Aristotelis. https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lspost15/Pomponatius/pom_fr12.html
  9. Zabarella, Giacomo. 2016. De rebus naturalibus. Edited by José Manuel García Valverde. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Secondary Literature

  1. Alfsvåg, Knut. 2012. Explicatio and Complicatio: On the understanding of the relationship between God and the World in the work of Nicholas Cusanus. International Journal of Systematic Theology 14 (3): 295–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brickman, Benjamin. 1941. An introduction to Francesco Patrizi’s nova de universis philosophia. New York: Columbia University.Google Scholar
  3. Cassirer, Ernst. 1922. Das Erkenntnisproblem in der Philosophie und Wissenschaft der neueren Zeit, Zweiter Band. Berlin: Bruno Cassirer.Google Scholar
  4. Des Chene, Dennis. 1996. Physiologia: Natural philosophy in late Aristotelian and Cartesian thought. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Des Chene, Dennis. 2000. Life’s form: Late Aristotelian conceptions of the soul. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Flasch, Kurt. 1998. Nikolaus von Kues. Geschichte einer Entwicklung. Vorlesungen zur Einführung in seine Philosophie. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.Google Scholar
  7. George, Marie I. 2014. On the meaning of “immanent activity” according to Aquinas. The Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly Review 78 (4): 537–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Knox, Dilwyn. 2013. Bruno: Immanence and transcendence in De la causa, Principio et Uno, Dialog II. Bruniana & Campanelliana 19 (2): 463–482.Google Scholar
  9. Kristeller, Paul Oskar. 1964. Eight philosophers of the Italian Renaissance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Lecón, Mauricio. 2013. Francis Suárez on the efficiency of substantial forms. The Review of Metaphysics 67 (1): 107–124.Google Scholar
  11. O’Meara, Dominic, ed. 1982. Neoplatonism and Christian thought. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  12. Rubini, Rocco. 2014. The other Renaissance. Italian humanism between Hegel and Heidegger. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. South, James B. 2002. Zabarella and the intentionality of sensation. Rivista di storia della filosofia 57 (1): 5–25.Google Scholar
  14. Spruit, Leen. 2008. Renaissance views of active perception. In Theories of perception in medieval and early modern philosophy, ed. Simo Knuuttila and Pekka Kärkkäinen, 203–224. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Thomas, Peter. 2009. The Gramscian moment. Philosophy, hegemony and Marxism. Leiden/Boston: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Renaissance Texts, Department of Philosophy, Faculty of ArtsPalacky UniversityOlomoucCzech Republic

Section editors and affiliations

  • Anna Laura Puliafito
    • 1
  1. 1.Universität BaselBaselSwitzerland