Cabanis’ enucleation of the notion of instinct in his Rapports du physique et du moral de l’homme articulates through a critique of the use of this notion by Étienne Bonnot de Condillac, who would not have recognised the founding role of physiology in human perceptive and intellectual activity. An analysis of Cabanis’ criticism to Condillac and an investigation of the meaning attributed to the notion of instinct by both philosophers allow to individuate in this notion the expression of (...) two different types of materialism. The different position of Cabanis and Condillac on this notion, in fact, reflects the divergence on a series of notions – e.g. reflexion, sensitivity, habitus – which can be traced back to the different aims of their investigations. In addition to highlighting this basic divergence, this paper aims to bring out – especially referring to Condillac’s Logique – some points of contact, of which Cabanis seems not to have considered, concerning the conception of the human body as ‘organisation physique’. (shrink)

Este capítulo se propone explorar cómo el replanteo de las causas finales en la ciencia natural suscitado por la Revolución Científica impactó en el desarrollo del materialismo y el ateísmo del Siglo de las luces. Con el surgimiento de la ciencia moderna en Europa, en el siglo XVII ocurrieron cambios sustantivos en la concepción de la causalidad. Ciertos estudios pioneros sobre el tema, sostenían que la nueva ciencia anulaba las causas finales y establecía que todos los fenómenos naturales debían explicarse (...) en términos de materia y movimiento (Burtt, 1952:98‒99; Schmitt, 1983:5). Más tarde, otros especialistas —con argumentos más sólidos y pruebas más convincentes— mostraron que la causalidad final no fue anulada por completo; siguió presente en muchos autores, aunque ya no como parte indispensable de la explicación científica, sino como un componente ontológico de la naturaleza (Osler, 1996 y 2001). Ahora bien, ¿qué sucedió con las causas finales en el siglo XVIII europeo, época de profundas turbulencias políticas y controversias filosóficas, en la cual el materialismo, el ateísmo y el deísmo fueron ganando terreno? Para hacer un recorte dentro de la vasta variedad de posiciones existentes en este escenario, comenzaremos por repasar la posición sobre las causas finales de Francis Bacon (1561‒1626), quien fue una figura muy influyente en la Ilustración. 2 Luego, analizaremos la recepción de esa posición por parte de algunos autores británicos (D. Stewart, S. Parker) y franceses en el siglo XVIII (D'Alembert, Naigeon, Diderot, Cabanis). (shrink)

This chapter will explore the reception of Condillac in Argentina from the nineteenth century to the early twentieth century, focusing on two cases. First, the reception by nineteenth-century professors of idéologie (Juan Crisóstomo Lafinur, Juan Manuel Fernández de Agüero, Luis José de la Peña, and Diego Alcorta) that was mediated by the interpretations of Antoine Destutt de Tracy, Pierre Jean Cabanis, and Pierre Laromiguière. Second, the reception in the early twentieth century by José Ingenieros, whose narrative was conditioned by (...) his own political and philosophical agenda. In each case, we can identify different receptions that must be interpreted not only in light of the philosophical concerns of the authors who made them but also in light of the wider cultural and political context in which they emerged. In the first half of the nineteenth century, Condillac was received as a philosopher who integrated the new philosophical canon that would replace the Scholastic canon that had been imposed by the colonial regime. In the early twentieth century, Ingenieros inserted Condillac into a narrative that, starting with Bacon and Locke, culminated in positivism, a current that, in his view, offered the best framework to make Argentina shine in the concert of civilized nations. (shrink)

How does Locke contribute to the development of 18th-century projects for a science of the mind, even though he seems to reject or at least bracket off such an idea himself? Contrary to later understandings of empiricism, Locke goes out of his way to state that his project to investigate and articulate the ‘logic of ideas’ is not a scientific project: “I shall not at present meddle with the Physical consideration of the Mind” (Essay, I.i.2). Locke further specifies that this (...) means his analysis of mental processes will not engage with knowledge of the brain (e.g. in terms of corpuscles and animal spirits), even though he had been the student of Thomas Willis. Now, Kant seemed to make an elementary mistake, given such a clear statement on Locke’s part, when he claimed that Locke’s project was a “physiology of the understanding” (in the Preface to the A edition of the first Critique). One can ask of course what this physiology of the understanding was, and if it existed, in or out of the Lockean intellectual world (as I have sought to investigate in a 2016 paper). This leads me to inquire into the outcome of his empiricism for a scientific treatment of the mind, including in the sense of a ‘naturalization’ of the mind (with implications also for our understanding of empiricism: Anstey’s influential distinction between experimental and speculative philosophy does not seem useful here). Because if Kant made this charge, there were also many 18th-century thinkers who positively treated Locke as their great forerunner in psychology and related fields: Charles Bonnet and Joseph Priestley among them, just as some prominent physicians such as Cabanis claimed to be ‘finishing the job’ that Locke had started in, e.g. their materialist theories of the passions. What one might term ‘the Locke Problem’ here is: how can one reconcile empiricism and claims about cerebral processes, while seeking to remain a Lockean? Differently put, what is the process of naturalization, a naturalization of? (shrink)