The term “coenesthesia” was introduced at the end of the eighteenth century by the German physiologist Johann Christian Reil to designate the general perception of the living body through the nerves. Over the course of the nineteenth century, this notion circulated widely not only in Germany, but also in France, where it was developed in particular by Théodule Ribot. However, a good sixty years before Ribot, Maine de Biran had already employed the notion of “coenesthesia” to indicate the “immediate feeling (...) of existence,” which he distinguished from the apperception of the self in relation to the body. What Biran emphasized, in his philosophical appropriation of “coenesthesia,” is the impersonal and mostly unconscious nature of this feeling, which never leaves us and plays a key role in the shaping of our personal and conscious life, unnoticeably influencing the course of our ideas, our character, and the emotional tone of our perception of the world. The purpose of this article is to study Biran’s philosophical use of the notion of “coenesthesia” in the last phase of his philosophical reflection (1823–1824) in relation to the emergence of the problem of the unconscious. (shrink)

The similarities between William James’ Stream of Consciousness and Henri Bergson’s La durée réelle have often been noted. Both emphasize the fundamentally temporal nature of our conscious experience and its constant flow. However, in this article, I argue that despite surface similarities between the OP theories, they are fundamentally different. The ultimate reason for the differences between the theories is that James believed that we should reject psychological explanations that depend on synthesis within the mental sphere. This is because such (...) explanations are incompatible with empiricism. Instead, we should look to the physiological mechanisms underpinning mental states. In contrast, Bergson was an adamant defender of a form of mental processing which he called qualitative synthesis. Duration itself, for Bergson, is a form of qualitative synthesis. However, in 1906, less than five years before James died, Bergson convinced him to change his mind. This results in a huge shift in James’ thought. Unless we understand how far apart James and Bergson were prior to this shift, we will not have a proper picture of the full influence of Bergson on James’ thought, nor of the major changes to James’ philosophy that occurred near the end of his life. (shrink)

Volume 28, Issue 5, September 2020, Page 966-986.

Rejections of Hume’s account of agency as ‘implausible’ and ‘defective’ have not been uncommon in recent commentary, but these responses have been elaborated without acknowledgement that Maine de Biran offered a critique of the Scottish philosopher on this point two centuries earlier. In criticizing Hume, Biran argues that awareness of the power of the will in effort, understood as the relation of will to resistance, is the fundamental fact of all consciousness. This article revisits Biran's critique in the light of (...) a recent defence of Hume and with reference to the first Enquiry's crucial footnote denying that effort can ground the idea of causal power. The article also addresses one of the background motivations for Hume’s sceptical account of agency to which Biran does not respond directly, namely what the first Enquiry presents as the ‘inconsistency’ of the idea of free will as a power removed from all causal determination. I conclude by arguing that Biran cannot offer an adequate response to Hume on this point, and that a fuller, more compelling response can be found in the development of the French spiritualist tradition. (shrink)