Abstract
This chapter reconstructs the theory of knowledge as it operated in the French Enlightenment. It does so initially by questioning the extent to which epistemology was divided between ‘British empiricism’ and ‘Continental rationalism’, and by showing that in the discourse of sensibility, if the theory of knowledge was ‘first philosophy’, then it was so in terms largely set by Enlightenment vitalism. Building on these initial points, the chapter opens with an examination of the interaction between medical vitalism and sensibility, where the latter is understood as both a passive and an active power of the living body. Here, I begin to tease out, not what is continuous between Locke and the French Enlightenment, but what was added to Locke’s thought by the period. In the second section, I examine the implications of this understanding of the body of sensibility for what has been called the period’s ‘philosophical particularism’ and for its practice of science. Here, the body of sensibility was constructed as always particular. The ability of the theory of sensibility to constitute a unifying ground within a discourse which produced a proliferation of particularity is the focus of this section. The chapter moves from considering the body of sensibility as the object of knowledge to considering it as the subject that knew.
Keywords
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Haakonssen 2006, 7.
- 2.
Haakonssen 2006, 7.
- 3.
- 4.
Haakonssen 2006, 13.
- 5.
Anstey 2005, esp. 220, 238.
- 6.
- 7.
John Yolton, in the most comprehensive text on Locke in eighteenth-century France, did not recognise the significance of vitalist medicine for the theory of knowledge in the period. For example, in his brief entry on Le Camus, he quickly noted the continuities between him and Locke without commenting on the significant differences in matter theory which underpinned the ‘medical men’s’ interest in physiology. (Yolton 1991, 15, 68–69.) While Yolton did not mention vitalism, he did devote a chapter to the place of the physiological/medical in the period’s move towards materialism. (Yolton 1991, 86–109.) His focus in this text was the metaphysics of mind and body. His text then had difficulty bringing sensibility into focus (as sensibility did not necessarily imply materialism and was in the period invoked by both dualists and materialists.) For a broad history of the change in matter theory see Gaukroger 2010.
- 8.
See Morris 1990.
- 9.
Anonymous 1765a, 315. My thanks to Kim Hajek for providing the translations.
- 10.
- 11.
Fouquet 1765.
- 12.
Dulieu 1952.
- 13.
‘la faculté de sentir, le principe sensitif, ou le sentiment même des parties, la base & l’agent conservateur de la vie, l’animalité par excellence, le plus beau, le plus singulier phénomène de la nature’. Fouquet 1765, 38.
- 14.
‘La mort n’est que la cessation de la sensibilité’. Diderot 1755, 782.
- 15.
Le Camus 1769. This second edition differs substantially from the first edition published in 1753.
- 16.
- 17.
Le Camus 1769, Vol. 1, 10.
- 18.
Le Camus 1769, Vol. 1, 15.
- 19.
Le Camus 1769, Vol. 1, 15.
- 20.
‘Avant de connoître il faut sentir; avant de sentir il faut être sensible. Il est donc nécessaire de parler de la sensibilité avant d’examiner les sensations que sont le principe de nos connoissances. Matiere difficile, mais digne des recherches de tout Philosophe. Si l’on ne doit pas sortir de soi-même pour la saisir, il faut avoir médité sur toute la nature pour en traiter pertinemment.’ Le Camus 1769, Vol. 1, 19.
- 21.
Le Camus 1769, Vol. 2, 83.
- 22.
Le Camus 1769, Vol. 2, 84.
- 23.
It is worth noting that Le Camus uses the term force vitale to describe sensibilité where Fouquet tends to use the term flamme vitale. Le Camus 1769, Vol. 1, 24; Fouquet 1765, 39, 41. For further discussions on the metaphysics of eighteenth-century vitalism, see Charles Wolfe’s chapter in this volume (Chap. 8). See also Kaitaro 2008; Wolfe 2012. For Senebier’s use of the term forces vitales, see Marx 1974, 213.
- 24.
Le Camus 1769, Vol. 1, 21–22.
- 25.
Le Camus 1769, Vol. 1, 34.
- 26.
Fouquet 1765, 38. Contrast Fouquet’s opinion with Rousseau’s, as discussed by Cook in Chap. 5.
- 27.
Le Camus 1769, Vol. 1, 19.
- 28.
Le Camus 1769, Vol. 1, 35.
- 29.
- 30.
Fouquet 1765, 38. Emphasis in original.
- 31.
Fouquet 1765, 38. Emphasis in original.
- 32.
See Singy 2006.
- 33.
- 34.
Jaucourt 1765, 28.
- 35.
Jaucourt 1765, 28. Emphasis in original.
- 36.
Le Camus 1769, Vol. 2, 85.
- 37.
Jaucourt 1765, 28.
- 38.
- 39.
Condillac 1754/1970, 10.
- 40.
Condillac 1754/1970, 39.
- 41.
Condillac’s presupposition is shared by Hume, though perhaps in a more minimal sense: in Hume, without the metaphysical apparatus of the vital force, vitalism is simply a craving for mental exercise which ‘puts the Humean mind in motion’. (Cunningham 2007, 61.) See also Rey 1995, 279–280; Rey 2000, 405–407.
- 42.
- 43.
Diderot 1758/1875–1877.
- 44.
Helvétius 1758, 46–48, 54.
- 45.
Helvétius 1758, 251, 473–474.
- 46.
- 47.
Diderot 1758/1875–1877, 268.
- 48.
Diderot 1758/1875–1877, 269.
- 49.
Diderot 1758/1875–1877, 272.
- 50.
Diderot 1758/1875–1877, 270–272.
- 51.
- 52.
Locke 1690/1849, Book 2, Chap. 20.
- 53.
See, too, Yolton 1991.
- 54.
Riskin 2002, 145.
- 55.
Fouquet 1765, 40.
- 56.
Fouquet 1765, 40.
- 57.
On the various tastes of the organs and the three main centres of the body’s sensibility see Cheung 2008.
- 58.
Fouquet 1765, 41–45.
- 59.
- 60.
Le Camus 1769, Vol. 1, 383.
- 61.
Le Camus 1769, Vol. 1, 291.
- 62.
Fouquet 1765, 46–49.
- 63.
Le Camus 1769, Vol. 1, 46–47.
- 64.
Fouquet 1765, 45.
- 65.
- 66.
- 67.
- 68.
- 69.
Le Camus 1769, Vol. 1, xv.
- 70.
- 71.
Fouquet 1765, 39.
- 72.
Marx 1974, 210.
- 73.
Le Camus 1769, Vol. 2, 403.
- 74.
Le Camus 1769, Vol. 1, 7–8.
- 75.
Le Camus 1769, Vol. 1, xv.
- 76.
- 77.
Le Camus 1769, Vol. 1, 93.
- 78.
Fouquet 1765, 45.
- 79.
Fouquet 1765, 46.
- 80.
See also Senebier 1775, Vol. 2, 211.
- 81.
Yolton 1990.
- 82.
‘Nous avons, à ce que nous pensons, suffisamment prouvé la puissance des climats, de l’éducation tant morale que physique, du régime de vivre, des tempéraments, des saisons, &c, sur l’esprit. En développant la manière d’agir de toutes ces causes, nous avons vû en mêmes-tems combien elles contribuoient à la diversité des génies, des caracteres, des vertus, des vices, des passions & des mœurs. C’est sur ces principes que nous établissons le pouvoir de la Médecine sur les ames, & le pouvoir du Médecin pour regler les penchans & les fonctions animales des hommes. [… N]ous en déduirons les moyens physique & méchaniques de rectifier les défauts de l’esprit, d’en augmenter la mesure & d’en conserver les bonnes qualités’. Le Camus 1769, Vol. 2, 54–55.
- 83.
Le Camus 1769, Vol. 1, vi–vii.
- 84.
Condillac 1754/1970, 10.
- 85.
- 86.
Note Yolton’s particular reference in this context to texts by Roche and Boullier, in Yolton 1991.
- 87.
See Yolton 1991, 73, 111.
- 88.
- 89.
‘ne voit jamais la nature telle qu’elle est en effet, il prétend par son travail la rendre plus sensible, ôter le masque qui la cache à nos yeux, il la défigure souvent & la rend méconnoissable’. Ménuret 1765, 310.
- 90.
Ménuret 1765, 313.
- 91.
Ménuret 1765, 313.
- 92.
‘suit pas-à-pas la nature, dévoile les plus secrets mysteres, tout le frappe, tout l’instruit, tous les résultats lui sont égaux parce qu’il n’en attend point, il découvre du même oeil l’ordre qui regne dans tout l’univers, & l’irrégularité qui s’y trouve; la nature est pour lui un grand livre qu’il n’a qu’à ouvrir & à consulter; mais pour lire dans cet immense livre, il faut du génie & de la pénétration, il faut beaucoup de lumieres; pour faire des expériences il ne faut que de l’adresse: tous les grands physiciens ont été observateurs’. Ménuret 1765, 310. See, too, Senebier 1775, Vol. 1, 5–6. Senebier also speaks in detail about adresse. (Senebier 1775, Vol. 1, 131–135.)
- 93.
Ménuret 1765, 312, 311.
- 94.
Ménuret 1765, 310.
- 95.
Ménuret 1765, 311.
- 96.
Ménuret 1765, 311.
- 97.
Senebier 1775, Vol. 1, 97.
- 98.
Senebier 1775, Vol. 1, 97, 131.
- 99.
Senebier 1775, Vol. 1, 223–224, citations on 223.
- 100.
Senebier 1775, Vol. 1, 230.
- 101.
Senebier 1775, Vol. 1, 13.
- 102.
‘Le génie suppose toutes les qualités de l’esprit à leur plus haut degré. […] Le génie est donc cette vue perçante de l’ame, qui saisit tout d’un coup toutes les idées rélatives à l’objet que l’occupe, qui les examine séparément, qui démêle d’abord au milieu d’elles ce qui peut l’éclairer, & qui par cet examen complet, prompt & heureux s’élance vers des vérités sublimes, & déchire le voile sombre que la Nature opposait à des efforts ordinaires. [… L]’homme de génie a beaucoup plus d’idées que celui qui en est privé […]: il saisira un plus grand nombre de rapports’. Senebier 1775, Vol. 1, 14–16.
- 103.
- 104.
Senebier 1775, Vol. 2, 86.
- 105.
Senebier 1775, Vol. 2, 148.
- 106.
See the section on ‘Des moyens de faire fleurir l’art d’observer’ in Senebier 1775, Vol. 2, 146.
- 107.
Senebier 1775, Vol. 2, 1–36.
- 108.
‘PEINTRE. s.m. Celui qui fait profession de peindre. […] Il se dit aussi De ceux qui représentent vivement les choses dont ils parlent, dont ils traitent, soit en Prose, soit en Poësie. Cet Orateur est un grand peintre. Ce Poëte est un excellent peintre.’ (Anonymous 1762.)
- 109.
Senebier 1775, Vol. 2, 161–321.
- 110.
Senebier 1775, Vol. 2, 279–280. Emphasis in original.
- 111.
Senebier 1775, Vol. 2, 281.
- 112.
- 113.
Senebier 1775, Vol. 2, 205.
- 114.
- 115.
Diderot 1762.
- 116.
- 117.
Haakonssen 2006.
References
Anonymous. 1762. Peintre. In Dictionnaire de l’Académie française, 2 vols., vol. 2, 4th ed, 337. Paris: Chez la Vve B. Brunet.
Anonymous. 1765a. Observation. In Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des arts et des métiers, 35 vols., vol. 11, ed. Denis Diderot and Jean Le Rond D’Alembert, 313–321. Paris: Briasson, David, Le Breton & Durand.
Anonymous. 1765b. Plaisir (morale). In Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des arts et des métiers, 35 vols., vol. 12, ed. Denis Diderot and Jean Le Rond D’Alembert, 689–691. Paris: Briasson, David, Le Breton & Durand.
Anonymous. 1765c. Sens (Métaphysique). In Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des arts et des métiers, 35 vols., vol. 15, ed. Denis Diderot and Jean Le Rond D’Alembert, 24–27. Paris: Briasson, David, Le Breton & Durand.
Anonymous. 1765d. Sensations (Métaphysique). In Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des arts et des métiers, 35 vols., vol. 15, ed. Denis Diderot and Jean Le Rond D’Alembert, 34–38. Paris: Briasson, David, Le Breton & Durand.
Anstey, Peter R. 2005. Experimental versus speculative natural philosophy. In The science of nature in the seventeenth century, ed. P.R. Anstey and J.A. Schuster, 215–242. Dordrecht: Springer.
Boury, Dominique. 2008. Irritability and sensibility: Key concepts in assessing the medical doctrines of Haller and Bordeu. Science in Context 21(4): 521–535.
Cheung, Tobias. 2008. Regulating agents, functional interactions, and stimulus-reaction-schemes: The concept of ‘Organism’ in the organic system theories of Stahl, Bordeu, and Barthez. Science in Context 21(4): 495–519.
Condillac, Etienne Bonnot de. 1754/1970. Traité des sensations. In Oeuvres complètes, 1–327. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints.
Cunningham, Andrew. 2007. Hume’s vitalism and its implications. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 15(1): 59–73.
Diderot, Denis. 1755. Epicuréisme ou Epicurisme. In Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des arts et des métiers, 35 vols., vol. 5, ed. Denis Diderot and Jean Le Rond D’Alembert, 779–785. Paris: Briasson, David, Le Breton & Durand.
Diderot, Denis. 1758/1875–1877. Réflexions sur le Livre de l’Esprit. In Oeuvres complètes de Diderot, 20 vols., vol. 2, ed. J. Assézat, 267–274. Paris: Garnier.
Diderot, Denis. 1762. Éloge de Richardson, auteur des romans de Paméla, de Clarisse et de Grandisson. In Oeuvres complètes de Diderot, 20 vols., vol. 5, ed. J. Assézat, 211–227. Paris: Garnier.
Dulieu, Luis. 1952. Les articles d’Henri Fouquet dans l’Encyclopédie. Revue d’histoire des sciences et de leurs applications 5(1): 18–25.
Fouquet, Henri. 1765. Sensibilité, Sentiment (Médecine). In Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des arts et des métiers, 35 vols., vol. 15, ed. Denis Diderot and Jean Le Rond D’Alembert, 38–52. Paris: Briasson, David, Le Breton & Durand.
Gaukroger, Stephen. 2010. The collapse of mechanism and the rise of sensibility: Science and the shaping of modernity, 1680–1760. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haakonssen, Knud. 2006. The history of eighteenth-century philosophy: History or philosophy? In The Cambridge history of eighteenth-century philosophy, ed. Knud Haakonssen, 3–25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Helvétius, Claude A. 1758. De L’Esprit. Paris: Durand.
Jaucourt, Louis de. 1765. Sens moral. In Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des arts et des métiers, 35 vols., vol. 15, ed. Denis Diderot and Jean Le Rond D’Alembert, 28–29. Paris: Briasson, David, Le Breton & Durand.
Kaitaro, Timo. 2008. Can matter mark the hours? Eighteenth-century vitalist materialism and functional properties. Science in Context 21(4): 581–592.
Knight, Isabel. 1968. The geometric spirit: The Abbé de Condillac and the French enlightenment. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.
Le Camus, Antoine. 1769. Medecine de l'esprit, 2nd ed, 2 vols. Paris: Ganeau.
Le Roy, Charles-Georges. 1765. Homme (Morale). In Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des arts et des métiers, 35 vols., vol. 8, ed. Denis Diderot and Jean Le Rond D’Alembert, 274–278. Paris: Briasson, David, Le Breton & Durand.
Legée, Georgette. 1991. La physiologie dans l’œuvre de Jean Senebier. Gesnerus 49(3–4): 307–322.
Locke, John. 1690/1849. An essay concerning human understanding, 30th ed. London: William Tegg & Co.
Marx, Jacques. 1974. L’art d’observer au XVIIIe siècle: Jean Senebier et Charles Bonnet. Janus 61: 201–220.
Ménuret de Chambaud, Jean-Joseph. 1765. Observateur. In Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des arts et des métiers, 35 vols., vol. 11, ed. Denis Diderot and Jean Le Rond D’Alembert, 310–313. Paris: Briasson, David, Le Breton & Durand.
Moravia, Sergio. 1978. From Homme machine to Homme sensible: Changing eighteenth-century models of man’s image. Journal of the History of Ideas 39(1): 45–60.
Morris, David B. 1990. The Marquis de Sade and the discourses of pain: Literature and medicine at the revolution. In The languages of psyche: Mind and body in enlightenment thought, ed. G.S. Rousseau and Roy Porter, 291–330. Oxford/Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Packham, Catherine. 2012. Eighteenth-century vitalism: Bodies, culture, politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Reill, Peter Hanns. 2005. Vitalizing nature in the enlightenment. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Rey, Roselyne. 1995. Vitalism, disease and society. In Medicine in the enlightenment, ed. Roy Porter, 274–288. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Rey, Roselyne. 2000. Naissance et développement du vitalisme en France de la deuxième moitié du 18 e siècle à la fin du Premier Empire. Oxford: Voltaire Foundation.
Riskin, Jessica. 2002. Science in the age of sensibility: The sentimental empiricists of the French enlightenment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Senebier, Jean. 1775. L’art d’observer, 2 vols. Geneva.
Singy, Patrick. 2006. Huber’s eyes: The art of scientific observation before the emergence of positivism. Representations 95(1): 54–75.
Tipton, Ian. 1996. Locke: Knowledge and its limits. In British philosophy and the age of enlightenment, Routledge History of Philosophy, vol. 5, ed. Stuart Brown, 69–95. London/New York: Routledge.
Vila, Anne C. 1998. Enlightenment and pathology. Sensibility in the literature and medicine of eighteenth-century France. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Wolfe, Charles T. 2012. Forms of materialist embodiment. In Anatomy and the organization of knowledge, 1500–1850, ed. Matthew Landers and Brian Muñoz, 129–144. London: Pickering and Chatto.
Wolfe, Charles T., and Motoichi Terada. 2008. The animal economy as object and program in Montpellier vitalism. Science in Context 21(4): 537–579.
Yolton, John W. 1990. The way of ideas: A retrospective. The Journal of Philosophy 87(10): 510–516.
Yolton, John W. 1991. Locke and French materialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Acknowledgments
I would particularly like to thank Alexander Cook, Peter Cryle, and Kim Hajek for their assistance in helping me preparing this chapter.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lloyd, H.M. (2013). Sensibilité, Embodied Epistemology, and the French Enlightenment. In: Lloyd, H. (eds) The Discourse of Sensibility. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, vol 35. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02702-9_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02702-9_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-02701-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-02702-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawHistory (R0)