Sensualism is one of the areas that stand out in the theory of knowledge. According to him, perceptions and sensations are the main form of reliable knowledge. Sensualism is the opposite of rationalism. Its main principle is that in the mind there is nothing that cannot be found in the senses. Thus, sensualism is a sensory form of cognition. In addition to perception and sensation, it also includes representation.
Representatives of sensualism are numerous, but among them the following major philosophers can be distinguished: the ancient Greek thinker Protagoras (pictured above), Epicurus, J. Locke, and Etienne Bonno de Condillac.
The concept of "sensualism"
Cousin introduced the term "sensualism" into general use. He contrasted it with idealism. Thus, under this term, Cousin denotes the direction that we call materialism today. However, this meaning of the term has not been fixed. Today, sensualism is a direction in epistemology, the opposite of rationalism and intellectualism.
Fundamentals, Sensualism and Materialism
The main provisions of our area of interest are as follows. First of all, the existence of innate ideas is denied. In other words, only the derivative value is recognized by the mind, not the original one. Thus, sensualism and rationalism are opposite in philosophy. Representatives of sensualism reduce all knowledge to sensation. The mind receives all its content precisely from sensations, and the latter from experience. Therefore, the outside world is both a criterion and a source of knowledge. This is the difference, and the similarity of sensualism with materialism. Representatives of both of these areas claim that the outside world is the source of our knowledge. However, he himself is understood by them differently. Representatives of materialism believe that there is a partial or complete identity of sensations with the qualities of an object. The sensualists disagree with this.
Opinion Condillac
In his work, A Treatise on Sensations, Condillac states that a statue gifted with sense of smell perceives an exclusively subjective state when it sniffs a rose. Condillac takes a principled position on the question of the relationship of sensations to the qualities of a particular subject. He considers this question idle and refrains from making a certain judgment about him. Philosophical sensualism, therefore, does not lead us to materialism. On the contrary, it is easier to get subjectivity out of it (denying that the outside world can be known).
Sensualism and subjective idealism
Sensualism is related to subjective idealism (for example, Fichte). However, there is a difference between them. It consists in how the activity of the subject producing it is understood. The essence of consciousness for subjective idealism lies in the synthetic activity of the human mind. Moreover, sensation is only one, the lowest stage of this activity. On the contrary, for sensualism, it is precisely in it that the whole activity of our consciousness lies. Thinking, etc., is derived from sensation. From this identification of thinking and sensation, we can conclude that there are no laws of thought.
Condillac's opinion on the relationship of sensations and thinking
Condillac paid much attention to this issue. He described in detail how sensations bring attention, memory and thinking. Condillac showed how an illusion of spiritual processes is created, proceeding independently, regardless of sensation. The necessity of thought in reality is an association or habit, which has become inextricable due to frequent repetition. At the heart of any knowledge is a known sensation. This means that knowledge is private. Nothing real generalizes. At the same time, the source of knowledge determines both its boundaries and its character. Thus, this source is the criterion of truth. Since the feeling depends on impressions coming from outside (a position accepted by faith by the sensualists), and any experience is something relative, irrational, random, then the relative and random nature should be attributed to all knowledge as a whole.
Definition of the subject from the point of view of sensualism
Based on certain psychological facts, Mill as follows defines matter (object): this is a constant possibility of sensations. Such a view is within the framework of sensualism. Already at Condillac we find hints of him. From the point of view of this thinker, an object is a set of ideas about density, size, hardness, etc. In other words, it is a combination of ideas that we obtained from various categories of sensations, mainly touch. Therefore, in order to make up a definite concept of an object, one does not need to think of a substrate or a bearer of qualities for this. Such is the epistemology of sensualism, presented in general terms.
Criticism of Sensualism
This direction can be credited with the fact that its representatives paid special attention to the psychological analysis of various facts of perception and sensation. They tried to determine how important sensations are in cognition and what role their individual categories play. Of particular note in this regard are the works of Condillac.
The psychological analysis of this direction, however, has its drawbacks. He looks at the facts to be analyzed from a biased point of view. Like a magician, sensualism puts into the sensation something that is not characteristic of him. This is triumphantly extracted then from it. It is not sensation that creates our memory, consciousness, thinking, imagination. On the contrary, the synthetic activity of our consciousness manifests itself in the forms listed above. Their set depends on the material with which you have to work. Representatives of sensualism belittle, mechanize the activity of consciousness. They try to judge its activity as a whole by its elementary discovery. Wrong epistemological findings correspond to an incorrect psychological analysis. The direction we are interested in limits the field of knowledge, misunderstands its features (for example, this concerns the nature of mathematical knowledge), and provides false criteria for truth. Such, in short, is his criticism.
Sensualism and Other Trends
Sensualism in philosophy is a direction that has historically manifested itself at various times and is very diverse. It was intertwined with empiricism, materialism, subjective idealism. Because of this, writing his story is not easy without introducing elements that are alien to him. Materialistic sensualism is paradoxical, since the possibility of sensation alone (and this was perfectly understood by Condillac) inevitably excludes materialism. After all, it assumes the presence of the ability of the spirit. The meaning of materialistic sensationalism is thus difficult to unambiguously determine. But what about the other areas? Sensuality itself is a form of subjective idealism, which is the opposite of the direction where the essence of the spirit is seen in the activity of the human mind (one of the representatives is Fichte Sr.). As for empiricism, sensualism is similar in it in the use of psychological analysis. In addition, both of these directions have the same view on how important experience is in cognition.
Epicureism and Stoicism
Sensuality in antiquity is represented in the systems of the Stoics and Epicurus (pictured above). According to the latter, sensations are formed due to the fact that images are separated from objects. They enter the organs of our sensations and then are forcibly perceived by them. Epicurus believed that any sensation is true. It is in it that the criterion of truth is located. Everything that does not agree with him is false.
Stoicism as a direction developed in an ongoing polemic with epicureism. However, they have a lot in common. According to the Stoics, the soul is material. However, this materialism contains elements of pantheism. They allow us to talk about the unity of the soul, as well as the fact that the power of rational activity is the main feature of the human soul. According to the Stoics, the soul is not passive, as the Epicureans believed. On the contrary, she is active. The Stoics in their doctrine of sensation make a significant addition to the Epicurean theory. They say that everything emerges from sensations (just like the Epicureans), but in them the soul manifests its activity. According to them, everything common is formed from the unit. From the sensations all representations appear.
Sensualism in the philosophy of modern times
In the philosophy of modern times , Locke contributed to the spread of the direction of interest to us (his portrait is presented above). Despite the fact that he considered himself an empiricist and partly a student of Descartes, his work “Experience on Human Understanding” certainly contributed to the development of sensualism. Locke from two sources of our knowledge - reflection and sensations - examined the latter in more detail. The teachings of this thinker on reflection are somewhat vague. The same can be said about his reasoning about substance. Therefore, sensationalist doctrine is easily inferred from Locke's reflections.
And in the works of Condillac (pictured above) we find the consistent sensualism of the new era. Despite the fact that the psychological method of this thinker was imperfect, and in his studies there was no experimental character (they were built on a priori, speculative assumptions), his work is of great importance in the history of psychology. The sensationalism of the new era was further developed in subsequent years. The newest time is called the period from 1918 to the present day. Let us say a few words about how the direction we were interested in developed after the revolution.
Sensationalism in modern times
In modern times, Tolbe defended sensualism in philosophy. This direction in the writings of this thinker again makes a turn from the phenomenalism inherent in Condillac to materialism. This is due to the fact that in 1960-1970, materialistic tendencies intensified significantly in various fields of knowledge.
A type of sensualism in the 20th century is empirio-criticism. This direction was developed by E. Mach (pictured above) and R. Avenarius. The thinkers believed that the sensations underlying the feelings, moods and manifestations of our will are a form of adaptation to the environment. They are the result of evolution.