Bodily points and the seat of understanding

Use in the book

The point-or-extension dilemma tests both proposed locations for a bodily intellect. A point naturally belongs to a bodily measure as its limit. If it receives a form in that role, it receives only that form's boundary, while the rest extends through the body. If instead the point alone independently receives the whole form, the point would have to exist independently of the line. Applying the same account to the next point leads either to a line deprived of limits or to a line assembled from points.

The three-point demonstration challenges the latter option. If a middle point separates two outer points, it must touch them through different parts, becoming divisible and no longer a point. If it does not separate them, no interval or length arises from their juxtaposition. Ficino therefore rejects a bodily point as an independently actual subject.

Potential points do not solve the problem. Without a differentiating reason, any potential point would be as eligible as every other. The proposed account would yield infinitely many actual forms or simultaneous acts of understanding of one object. Ficino rejects that result. This objection concerns an actually instantiated, simultaneous multitude; it must not be confused with Book VIII's later defence of an indefinitely repeatable reflective operation.

The argument is about the ontological suitability of an extended body's limit as a cognitive subject. It does not settle modern questions about neural localization, nor does it require treating a mathematical point as a miniature atom.

Places to read

1. VIII.4.1A point’s status as limit prevents it from receiving a whole nonextended form independently.
2. VIII.4.2Detached points, the three-point demonstration and potential points are tested in sequence.
3. VIII.5.1The point returns in a separate reductio of cognition as bodily contact.

Translation in this edition

The apparatus records the correction non for nos in VIII.4.2. Proprie existit actu and proprio existet actu preserve the claim of independent actuality being tested. Intelligentiae at the close means acts of understanding, not multiple minds.

accidens

accidens. Printed forms: accidens; accidens quoddam compositum; accidentibus; accidentis.

An accident or dependent feature distinct from substance. Operative power is a quality/accident; bodily harmony is likewise a composite accident and is challenged as an account of rational soul. References: V.13.13, V.15.10. See Creature, power and operation.

An accidental determination inhering in a subject rather than constituting its essential account. A proper subject of an accident must actually exist, and extraneous accidents restrict form in matter; the word does not mean a chance mishap in these passages. References: VIII.4.2, VIII.13.1. See Bodily points and the seat of understanding.

actus proprius

actus proprius. Printed forms: proprie existit actu; proprio existet actu.

Independent actuality as a requirement of a proper subject of an accident. The detached-point hypothesis attributes just such actuality to a boundary, generating the dilemma over a line's remaining limits. References: VIII.4.2. See Bodily points and the seat of understanding.

contingere / concursus

contingere / concursus. Printed forms: concursu; concursum; contingant.

Touching or coincidence in the three-point demonstration. A nonextended middle point cannot keep the outer points apart by distinct contact surfaces without becoming divisible. References: VIII.4.2. See Bodily points and the seat of understanding.

corpus

corpus. Printed forms: corpora; corpore; corpori; corporibus; corporis; corporum; corpus.

Body as extended corporeal reality, and in context the visible organism or a hypothetical subtle animating body. The arguments often isolate body precisely as body, not the whole living composite including soul; quantity, division and causal passivity are tested on that basis. References: VI.1.2, VI.2.1, VI.2.2, VI.4.1, VI.9.1. See Dense, subtle and fifth body.

Body considered as extended, divisible and materially conditioned. The point-and-extension dilemmas concern the proposed bodily status of mind, while food and instrument examples concern its relation to the organism. References: VIII.2.1, VIII.4.1, VIII.5.1, VIII.6.1. See Bodily points and the seat of understanding.

divisibilis / dividuus

divisibilis / dividuus. Printed forms: dividua; dividuis; divisibile; divisibilem; divisibili; divisibilis.

Divisible, particularly as an extended body or a quality distributed through it. The contrast with indivisible intellectual content motivates the location, definition and knowledge arguments; it does not deny that objects known can be physically divided. References: VIII.3.1, VIII.3.6, VIII.3.7, VIII.4.1, VIII.4.2, VIII.4.3, VIII.4.9, VIII.10.2, VIII.15.2. See Bodily points and the seat of understanding.

latitudo / extensio

latitudo / extensio. Printed forms: extensio; latitudine; latitudinem; latitudinis; latitudo.

Bodily breadth or extension distributed in parts. The proposed form spread through extension would share its division; intellect's correspondence to objects cannot be measured this way. References: VIII.4.1, VIII.4.2, VIII.4.3, VIII.5.1. See Bodily points and the seat of understanding.

punctum

punctum. Printed forms: puncta; Puncta; punctis; puncto; punctorum; punctum; Punctum.

A point, the indivisible boundary invoked in the contact argument. If only a point touches the indivisible, the divisible body as such is not the contacting term. References: V.6.1. See Indivisibility and contact.

A nonextended limit of magnitude; it is not an independently actual microscopic body. The three-point dilemma shows why juxtaposed points cannot supply extension or an independent bodily seat for intelligence. References: VIII.4.1, VIII.4.2, VIII.5.1. See Bodily points and the seat of understanding.

sedes / fundamentum

sedes / fundamentum. Printed forms: fundamentum; sedem; sedes.

Seat or sustaining basis, in the question of where an intellectual form could exist. The bodily point must be more than a dependent boundary if it is to serve as the independent subject proposed by the opponent. References: VIII.4.1, VIII.4.2. See Bodily points and the seat of understanding.

tria puncta / medium / extrema

tria puncta / medium / extrema. Printed forms: extrema; extremorum; intervallum; medium; tria.

Three points, their middle member and outer members, used to test the production of length. If the middle separates the others it has parts; if it does not, their conjunction yields no interval. The hypothetical does not make points atoms. References: VIII.4.2. See Bodily points and the seat of understanding.