Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T18:56:00.330Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Leibniz on Apperception and Animal Souls*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 April 2010

Murray Miles
Murray Miles
Affiliation:
Brock University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In Leibniz: Perception, Apperception, and Thought, Robert McRae alleges a flat “contradiction” (McRae 1976, p. 30) at the heart of Leibniz's doctrine of three grades of monads: bare entelechies characterized by perception; animal souls capable both of perception and of sensation; and rational souls, minds or spirits endowed not only with capacities for perception and sensation but also with consciousness of self or what Leibniz calls (introducing a new term of art into the vocabulary of philosophy) “apperception.” Apperception is a necessary condition of those distinctively human mental processes associated with understanding and with reason. Insofar as it is also a sufficient condition of rationality, it is not ascribable to animals. But apperception is a necessary condition of sensation or feeling as well; and animals are capable of sensation, according to Leibniz, who decisively rejected the Cartesian doctrine that beasts are nothing but material automata. “On the one hand,” writes McRae, “what distinguishes animals from lower forms of life is sensation or feeling, but on the other hand apperception is a necessary condition of sensation, and apperception distinguishes human beings from animals” (McRae 1976, p. 30). “We are thus left with an unresolved inconsistency in Leibniz's account of sensation, so far as sensation is attributable both to men and animals” (ibid., p. 34).

Type
Critical Notices/Études critiques
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 33 , Issue 4 , Fall 1994 , pp. 701 - 724
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adam, Charles, and Tannery, Paul, eds. 1897–1910 Oeuvres de Descartes. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Belaval, Yvon 1976 Études leibniziennes. De Leibniz à Hegel. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Capesius, Joseph 1894 Der Apperceptionsbegriff bei Leibniz und dessen Nachfolgern. Eine Terminologische Untersuchung. Herrmannstadt: Drotleff.Google Scholar
Cousin, Victor 1873 Philosophic de Locke. Paris: Librarie Académique.Google Scholar
Gibson, James 1960 Locke's Theory of Knowledge and Its Historical Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grau, Kurt 1916 Die Enwicklung des Bewuηtseinsbegriffes im XVII. und XVIII. Jahrhundert. Halle: Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Gurwitch, Aaron 1974 Leibniz. Philosophie des Panlogismus. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jalabert, J. 1946 “La Psychologie de Leibniz. Ses caractères principaux.”.Revue Philosophique de la France et de l'Étranger, 136, 10–12: 453–72.Google Scholar
Lange, Kurt 1902 Über Apperzeption. Eine psychologisch-pädagogische Monographic 7th ed.Leipzig: Voigtländer.Google Scholar
Lee, Henry 1702 Anti-Scepticism, or, Notes upon each Chapter of Mr. Lock's Essay concerning humane Understanding. London.Google Scholar
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm 1965 Die Philosophischen Schriften von Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. 1875–90. Rpt. Edited by Gerhard, C. I.. 7 vols. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Locke, John 1972 An Essay concerning Human Understanding. Abridged and edited with an introduction by John W. Yolton. London: Dent.Google Scholar
Loeb, Louis 1981 From Descartes to Hume. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
McRae, Robert 1976 Leibniz: Perception, Apperception, Thought. Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naërt, Emilienne 1961 Mémoire et conscience de soi selon Leibniz. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Parkinson, G. H. R. 1984 “The ‘Intellectualization of Appearances’: Aspects of Leibniz's Theory of Sensation and Thought.” In Leibniz: Critical and Interpretive Essays. Edited by Hooker, Michael. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Phemister, Pauline 1992 Review of Leibniz on Apperception, Consciousness, and Reflection by Mark Kulstad. Leibniz Society Review, 2: 10–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, Thomas 1785 Essay on the Intellectual Powers of Man. 1st ed.Edinburgh: John Bell and G. G. J. and J. Robinson.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rescher, Nicolas 1976 The Philosophy of Leibniz. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Sticker, Anton 1900 Die Leibnizschen Begriffe der Perception und Apperception. Bonn: Cohen.Google Scholar