Thomas Reid’s philosophy is a philosophy of mind—a Pneumatology in the idiom of 18th century Scotland. His overarching philosophical project is to construct an account of the nature and operations of the human mind, focusing on the two-way correspondence, in perception and action, between the thinking principle within and the material world without. Like his contemporaries, Reid’s treatment of these topics aimed to incorporate the lessons of the scientific revolution. What sets Reid’s philosophy of mind apart is his commitment (...) to a set of intuitive contingent truths he called the principles of common sense. This difference, as this chapter will show, enables Reid to construct an account of mind that resists the temptation to which so many philosophers in his day and ours succumb, i.e., the temptation, in his words, to materialize minds or spiritualize bodies. (shrink)

Ideas about soul and body – about thinking or remembering, mind and life, brain and self – remain both diverse and controversial in our neurocentric age. The history of these ideas is significant both in its own right and to aid our understanding of the complex sources and nature of our concepts of mind, cognition, and psychology, which are all terms with puzzling, difficult histories. These topics are not the domain of specialists alone, and studies of emotion, perception, or reasoning (...) have never been isolated theoretical endeavours. As Francis Bacon described human philosophy or ‘the knowledge of ourselves’, within which he located the study of body, soul, and mind, it ‘deserveth the more accurate handling, by how much it toucheth us more nearly’ (1605/ 2000: 93). The history of ideas in these domains is particularly challenging given the practical dimensions and implications of theories of mind. Because theories of human nature and debates about body and mind do ‘touch us’ so ‘nearly’, they attract and can thus reveal, in specific historical contexts, interconnected discourses or associations which may be quite unlike our own. So there are no neat boundaries around a historical category of ‘seventeenth-century British philosophy of the soul’. The central topic of this chapter can be thought of either as pneumatology, the doctrine or science of spirits and souls, or as continuous with the ‘psychologia’ or psychology of Aristotelian traditions (Park and Kessler 1988; Hatfield 1995: 184-6). In neither case, however, should we expect any deep unity to be provided by history, geography, discipline, or subject-matter. (shrink)

This study investigates the debt owed by contemporary theological anthropology to the philosophical anthropology of the first half of the twentieth century (considered in its interest in interpersonal character of human identity). It should be recognized that there was a fairly complex relationship between them: sometimes anthropology ended up in some way forgetting theology, sometimes theology was sustained by anthropology and, often, invited to self-criticism. Analyzing «pneumatological» anthropology (and its Christological roots) elaborated by Ferdinand Ebner (1882- 1931) helps theological anthropology (...) not to forget that its method of investigation has to clarify both sides of the analogy between God and man in order to fully integrate the «expressive» meaning of both logics: theo-logic and anthropo-logic. (shrink)

Dominus Vobiscum is undoubtedly one of Peter Damian’s most original works, and has experienced a renewed interest thanks to the re-emergence of the ecclesiology of communion around Vatican II, but in-depth studies of the work as a whole are missing and its sources seem quite limited. In this analysis of the text and its argumentative structure, the conceptual development is built on the dialectic of contrasts, starting from the binomial of “solitudo pluralis” and “multitudo singularis”, typical of the hermit. The (...) theme is unfolded in its pneumatological, Christological and ecclesiological aspects. A formal analysis seems to demonstrate that the theses presented by Peter Damian are mainly the result of the power of rhetoric, which he undoubtedly mastered. (shrink)

This extensive review explores the nature of human individuality through a broad spectrum of themes which all relate in an unwavering manner back to the fundamental question of “Who Am I?” The paradox of being fully human is that it depends on transcending the human condition itself. Integral individuality exists at the intersection between the horizontal and the vertical or the human and the Divine. Modern psychology, especially humanistic and transpersonal psychology has, much to its credit, done a great deal (...) to facilitate the rightful place of the human within the spiritual dimension; yet, to date, it has been unable to situate what human individuality is. In fact, modern psychology has grossly overlooked that each of the spiritual traditions of the world has its own corresponding and complete psychology or rather pneumatology (“science of the Spirit”). It is by turning to the integral psychology of the perennial philosophy that human identity can be recovered. (shrink)

L’obra Somnis d’un visionari, il·lustrats mitjançant els somnis de la metafísica (1766) d’Immanuel Kant presenta un tractament juxtaposat i obertament irònic de dues temàtiques a primera vista heterogènies: la manera de fer metafísica habitual al context germànic del s. xvii i les visions sobrenaturals d’Emmanuel Swedenborg. Aquest article revisa una ambivalència interpretativa interna a l’obra, inicialment identificada per Moses Mendelssohn, que sorgeix d’aquesta juxtaposició temàtica. Segons les dues postures oposades de l’ambivalència pot classificar-se la recepció històrica de l’obra. Seguidament, es (...) mostra la insuficiència d’algunes estratègies habituals d’interpretació del text, i se’n proposa una de nova basada en dues nocions del text, a saber, la voluntat d’assegurar un món comú i la noció de saviesa. A partir d’aquestes nocions i d’una carta que Kant escriu a Mendelssohn s’aporta una lectura del text que, finalment, se situa en referència a les dues lectures de l’ambivalència interpretativa presentada inicialment. -/- Immanuel Kant’s Dreams of a spirit-seer elucidated by dreams of metaphysics (1766) presents a juxtaposed and openly ironic treatment of two apparently heterogeneous subjects: the way of doing metaphysics common in the Seventeenth-Century German context and Emmanuel Swedenborg’s supernatural visions. This article reviews an interpretative ambivalence internal to the work originally identified by Moses Mendelssohn, which springs from its thematic juxtaposition. One may classify the work’s historical reception according to the two stances on the ambivalence. Furthermore, the insufficiency of some common strategies for interpreting the text will be shown, and a new one is proposed on the basis of two notions that appear within the text, that is, the will to ensure a common world and the notion of wisdom. As a result of these notions and on the basis of a letter that Kant wrote to Mendelssohn, a reading of this work is proposed, which is finally situated with respect to the two readings of the interpretative ambivalence initially presented. (shrink)