Juan Luis Vives (1493–1540)

Juan Luis Vives, a Spanish humanist and educational theorist in the early 16th century, has been referred to by some as the “father of modern education”, as well as the “father of empirical psychology”.

Born into a family of Jewish cloth merchants, Vives left Spain to study in Paris at the age of 17 (Casini, 2017). At that time, Renaissance Humanism, a philosophy that emphasized the importance of education and questioning societal systems, such as religion, spread across Europe. While in Paris, Vives became associated with the humanist circle. After completing his formal education, although not obtaining any degree, Vives spent several years teaching and writing. Throughout his life and until his death, Vives continued to write influential, innovative works on various topics such as education, philosophy and psychology.

Consciousness and the Soul

Vives’ approach to understanding human consciousness and behaviour, as well as many of his notions regarding this subject are considered to be precursors to the work of Francis Bacon (1561–1626) and René Descartes (1596–1650), respectively (Clements, 1967). Most of his ideas regarding the human soul were contained in his treatise, De anima et vita, published in 1538. Vives’ De anima consisted of three books and addressed several biological and mental phenomena which could be attributed to different faculties within the soul, such as reproduction, perception, memory, dreams, etc. (Casini, 2010). Most notably, Vives’ approach to the discussion of these topics was observational and analytical in nature, reflecting the shift from a solely metaphysical articulation of mental phenomena toward empirical psychology. His conception of the human soul shared common features with Aristotelian, Platonic, and Avicennian notions, such that according to Vives, the soul was an immaterial substance, independent of and animating the body. He added, however, that while the soul is connected to the body (i.e., for the duration of one’s life), consciousness relies on the functions of the physical body. Additionally, he regards the soul as the human life source, performing actions through the use of the physical body. With regard to the highly debated concepts of whether there is one or many souls (corresponding to the different faculties), and where the soul is ‘contained’ in the body, Vives argued that everyone has one soul, which exists throughout the whole body. Regarding the connection between the soul and the body, Vives held a similar view as the philosopher Nemesius, which was the belief that the soul, given its immaterial nature, is united with the body without being fused to it. However, exhaustive analyses of Nemesius’ and Vives’ writings might suggest that, although providing a solution to the current problem, they believed that it was futile to even attempt to describe the connection between the soul and body in physical terms. Instead, their attitudes suggested that this union should simply be accepted as a fact, evidenced by the existence of human life.

Physiology and Psychology

In addition to Vives’ inductive approach to interpreting the human soul, he also gave great consideration to the role of physiology in human behaviour and psychology, including education, memory, and emotions. He believed that human behaviour could be reduced, to a certain extent, to one’s physiological state/events, and therefore, maladaptive behaviour could be treated as one would treat physical illness (Clements, 1967). Along these lines, Vives held a more compassionate view of individuals with mental disorders and argued that individual treatment should be applied to these cases, such as instruction for mild cases and medical care for more severe cases ent, to one’s physiological state/events, and therefore, maladaptive behaviour could be treated as one would treat physical illness. Moreover, he contended that although environment and experience can alter one’s physical and mental states, their temperament and capacity for intellectual and emotional development is predetermined by one’s physiology.

With regard to education, Vives articulated the importance of adequate nourishment for one’s academic prowess, stating that students must be in good physical health in order to progress in their studies (Clements, 1967). For example, he suggests that somewhat fatty foods are necessary for one’s intellectual growth and maintenance. In his discussions of memory and association, Vives described memory as a faculty which performs the function of preserving information that has been derived from one’s external (e.g., sight) or internal (e.g., imagination) sensations. In relation to physiology, he stated that when the ‘spirits’ of the brain are confused, such as in individuals who are mentally ill or under the influence of alcohol, memory is impaired. In contrast, he noted that intense emotional arousal facilitates the formation of memories. Regarding the process of association, Vives argued that some memories can be called to mind by the recollection of another memory, which is associated with the contingent memory via similarity, contrast, or proximity in the sequence in which the original images were perceived. Finally, Vives regarded emotions and physiology as having bidirectional influences on one another. Emotions are affected by physiological changes, while also having the capacity to affect physiological states (i.e., psychosomatic effects). In addition, he asserted that emotions and physiological drives are the underlying mechanisms of human behaviour. Like physiological impulses, emotions are morally indifferent, meaning that there need not be a rationale cause for emotional arousal.

Like many philosophical influences on psychology, there is much of Vives’ work that has since been disavowed. Nonetheless, it is important to note the approaches and beliefs which he held that impacted psychological thought and investigation in the centuries following his work, namely, his particular orientation to psychological and physiological explanations of human experience.

References

Casini, L. (2010). ‘Quid sit anima’: Juan Luis Vives on the soul and its relation to the body. Renaissance Studies, 24, 496–517.

Casini, L. (2017). Juan Luis Vives [Joannes Ludovicus Vives] (E. N. Zalta, Ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vives/

Clements, R. D. (1967). Physiological—psychological thought in Juan Luis Vives. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 3, 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6696(196707)3:3<219::aid-jhbs2300030302>3.0.co;2-r

Contributors

• Julianna Colafranceschi

Teresa of Ávila (1515-1582)

Teresa of Ávila was a Spanish nun and a counter-reformation spiritual leader during the Protestant revolution of the 16th century, whose writings were translated into many languages and were recognized worldwide.

Teresa’s most notable work is the Interior Castle (1588), where she described the interior castle as a metaphor for the soul (Meadow, 1992). Within the castle, there are seven dwelling places or “mansions”, and transitioning from one mansion to the next is made possible through meditative self-exploration. Throughout this work, Teresa provides steps for meditation that will lead the individual toward a better understanding of reality and God through self-exploration. The end goal of this path is ultimately spiritual union with God, but the steps that Teresa describes reflect a profound development of self-awareness on behalf of the meditator.

Teresa’s meditative process in the Interior Castle has been compared to a stage model of personal development (Meadow, 1992). Teresa’s progression through the seven mansions of the interior castle resembles modern stage theories because one must pass through each stage (mansion) and successfully conquer the obstacles presented to them before reaching the next stage of self-exploration. Aside from the structural similarities between Teresa’s meditative path and stage theories in general, Meadow compares the steps presented in the Interior Castle with the stages of Loevinger’s (1976) model of ego development in particular. Some of the common features between Teresa’s teachings and Loevinger’s model include: initial preoccupation with the external world, increasing self-awareness, the requirement of effortful self-control, awareness and acceptance of inner conflicts, and decreasing effort required for self-control. This comparison demonstrates how the spiritual journey described in the Interior Castle is fundamentally based on the development of the soul (i.e., the self) and illuminates the psychological nature of Teresa’s teachings.

Due to the similarity of Teresa’s Interior Castle to Rene Descartes’ Meditations (1641), an argument can be made that Descartes was influenced by Teresa’s work (Mercer, 2016). Given Descartes’ early spiritual education and the prominence of Teresa’s writings during late 16th and early 17th century Europe, it is likely that he was well-acquainted with her teachings during the time that he wrote Meditations. Regardless of the validity of this argument, it is important to acknowledge the similarities between the two works, which both lead readers through meditative contemplation in pursuit of ultimate truths. The steps that are presented in the two works share many resemblances including: recognizing one’s ignorance or false beliefs, letting go of certain preoccupations or past beliefs, practicing self-control, the mention of demons (hypothetical in Descartes’ case) as a test of one’s self-control, and the emphasis on moving toward self-knowledge. While there is no way of knowing for certain if Descartes was influenced by Teresa’s Interior Castle, it is still important to recognize Teresa’s ideas and her significance not only as a spiritual teacher but also as a philosophical thinker.

Although Teresa’s teachings have long been ignored in the history of philosophy, her written works, specifically the Interior Castle, illustrate both philosophical and psychological elements that are becoming widely recognized today.

References

Meadow, M. (1992). Personality maturity and Teresa’s interior castle. Pastoral Psychology, 40, 293–302.

Mercer, C. (2016). Descartes’ debt to Teresa of Ávila, or why we should work on women in the history of philosophy. Philosophical Studies, 174, 2539–2555.

A translation of Descartes’ Meditations 1 & 2 by John Cottingham (1984) can be found here: https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil201/Meditations.pdf

Contributors

• Emilia Flores Anaya
• Maha Salman Cheema

Dharmarāja Adhvarin (17th century)

Dharmarāja Adhvarin was an Indian scholar in the 17th century and the author of the Vedānta Paribhāṣā, which was a discourse on the Indian philosophy of Advaita Vedanta. The purpose of this text was to serve as an introduction to the Vedanta school of thought (Pellegrini, 2015). The first six chapters discuss the processes that contribute to knowledge, which, according to the Vedanta philosophy, are perception, inference, comparison, verbal testimony, presumption, and non-apprehension (Sastri, 2018). With regards to perception, Dharmarāja describes perceptual knowledge as “pure consciousness” (Sastri, 2018). He explains that the knowledge that is produced through consciousness is in the form of a mental state or “cognition”(Sastri, 2018). Although consciousness itself is continuous and therefore has no beginning, each cognition (mental state) has a beginning to it (i.e., the point in time a mental state is produced) (Sastri, 2018). Dharmarāja compares the occurrence of perceptual cognitions to water taking the shape of a container. Through the external senses, the mind “takes the form of” the object which is being perceived (i.e., using sight, hearing, etc., the mind morphs into the object of perception so that a cognition is produced in the form of the object) (Madhavananda, 1972). In the remainder of this text, Dharmarāja provides a comprehensive explanation of the function of these six faculties of knowledge according to the Vedanta school of thought. He ends Vedānta Paribhāṣā by stating the subject matter and goals of Vedanta philosophy.

References

D’Onza, M. (1972). East and West, 22, 340. http://www.jstor.org/stable/29755787

Pellegrini, G. (2015). On the alleged indebtedness of the Vedānta Paribhāṣā towards the Vedānta Kaumudī: Some considerations on an almost forgotten Vivaraṇa text (Studies in Vedānta Kaumudī I). Journal of Indian Philosophy, 44, 485–505.

Sastri, S. N. (2018, July 1). Vedanta Paribhasha [summary]. Vedanta Shastras Library. Retrieved from https://www.shastras.com/articles-and-summary/vedanta-paribhasha-summary/

The Royal Society of London

Founded in London, England on November 18, 1660, in London, the Royal Society is the world’s oldest “learned society”, which, throughout history, has brought together the brightest minds of every generation (“History of the Royal Society”, n.d.). Scientists Christopher Wren, Robert Boyle, and William Petty formed the society with approval from King Charles II of England, with the aim of creating a scientific society which relies on sharing scientific information backed by experimental evidence, free from outside influence. Five years after the founding of the society, the society’s journal Philosophical Transactions was launched. Created on the principles of peer review and giving credit to the scientists who make a discovery first, the journal is the world’s oldest running scientific journal. Over the hundreds of years of its existence, the society published the works of many scientific giants, such as Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, and many more. Today, the society funds scientific projects around the world, promoting science and its value.

References

History of the Royal Society. Royal Society. (n.d.). Retrieved  from https://royalsociety.org/about-us/history/