Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sensibilité, Embodied Epistemology, and the French Enlightenment

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Discourse of Sensibility

Part of the book series: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science ((AUST,volume 35))

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Haakonssen 2006, 7.

  2. 2.

    Haakonssen 2006, 7.

  3. 3.

    Knight 1968, 8. See also Yolton 1991, 4, 72–74, 210.

  4. 4.

    Haakonssen 2006, 13.

  5. 5.

    Anstey 2005, esp. 220, 238.

  6. 6.

    Reill 2005, 5–7, 33–70. See also Gaukroger 2010, 387–420.

  7. 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. 8.

    See Morris 1990.

  9. 9.

    Anonymous 1765a, 315. My thanks to Kim Hajek for providing the translations.

  10. 10.

    Vila 1998, 80. See also Moravia 1978.

  11. 11.

    Fouquet 1765.

  12. 12.

    Dulieu 1952.

  13. 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. 14.

    ‘La mort n’est que la cessation de la sensibilité’. Diderot 1755, 782.

  15. 15.

    Le Camus 1769. This second edition differs substantially from the first edition published in 1753.

  16. 16.

    Vila 1998, 81. See also Rey 2000, 252–255.

  17. 17.

    Le Camus 1769, Vol. 1, 10.

  18. 18.

    Le Camus 1769, Vol. 1, 15.

  19. 19.

    Le Camus 1769, Vol. 1, 15.

  20. 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. 21.

    Le Camus 1769, Vol. 2, 83.

  22. 22.

    Le Camus 1769, Vol. 2, 84.

  23. 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. 24.

    Le Camus 1769, Vol. 1, 21–22.

  25. 25.

    Le Camus 1769, Vol. 1, 34.

  26. 26.

    Fouquet 1765, 38. Contrast Fouquet’s opinion with Rousseau’s, as discussed by Cook in Chap. 5.

  27. 27.

    Le Camus 1769, Vol. 1, 19.

  28. 28.

    Le Camus 1769, Vol. 1, 35.

  29. 29.

    Anonymous 1765b, c.

  30. 30.

    Fouquet 1765, 38. Emphasis in original.

  31. 31.

    Fouquet 1765, 38. Emphasis in original.

  32. 32.

    See Singy 2006.

  33. 33.

    Fouquet 1765, 40, 42. See also Le Camus 1769, Vol. 1, 45.

  34. 34.

    Jaucourt 1765, 28.

  35. 35.

    Jaucourt 1765, 28. Emphasis in original.

  36. 36.

    Le Camus 1769, Vol. 2, 85.

  37. 37.

    Jaucourt 1765, 28.

  38. 38.

    Fouquet 1765, 38. See also Boury 2008, 523.

  39. 39.

    Condillac 1754/1970, 10.

  40. 40.

    Condillac 1754/1970, 39.

  41. 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. 42.

    Condillac 1754/1970, 45–47, 70–71, 74. This is consistent with Le Camus 1769, Vol. 1, 398–411.

  43. 43.

    Diderot 1758/1875–1877.

  44. 44.

    Helvétius 1758, 46–48, 54.

  45. 45.

    Helvétius 1758, 251, 473–474.

  46. 46.

    Diderot 1758/1875–1877, 272. See also Diderot 1758/1875–1877, 267.

  47. 47.

    Diderot 1758/1875–1877, 268.

  48. 48.

    Diderot 1758/1875–1877, 269.

  49. 49.

    Diderot 1758/1875–1877, 272.

  50. 50.

    Diderot 1758/1875–1877, 270–272.

  51. 51.

    Yolton 1991, 38; Tipton 1996, 78–81.

  52. 52.

    Locke 1690/1849, Book 2, Chap. 20.

  53. 53.

    See, too, Yolton 1991.

  54. 54.

    Riskin 2002, 145.

  55. 55.

    Fouquet 1765, 40.

  56. 56.

    Fouquet 1765, 40.

  57. 57.

    On the various tastes of the organs and the three main centres of the body’s sensibility see Cheung 2008.

  58. 58.

    Fouquet 1765, 41–45.

  59. 59.

    Le Roy 1765, 275. Emphasis in original. This idea is repeated in the article Sensations (Métaphysique), Anonymous 1765d, 25.

  60. 60.

    Le Camus 1769, Vol. 1, 383.

  61. 61.

    Le Camus 1769, Vol. 1, 291.

  62. 62.

    Fouquet 1765, 46–49.

  63. 63.

    Le Camus 1769, Vol. 1, 46–47.

  64. 64.

    Fouquet 1765, 45.

  65. 65.

    Anonymous 1765b, c, 689, 691.

  66. 66.

    Senebier 1775, Vol. 1, 111–112. This is also a feature of the article Sensations (Métaphysique), Anonymous 1765d, 24–25.

  67. 67.

    Singy 2006, 54. See also Marx 1974, 205; Legée 1991.

  68. 68.

    Senebier 1775, Vol. 2, 251–252. Senebier’s list of particulars which must be noted when observing a society include climate, government, religion, the state of the sciences, and the state of the women. Senebier 1775, Vol. 2, 222–239.)

  69. 69.

    Le Camus 1769, Vol. 1, xv.

  70. 70.

    Le Camus 1769, Vol. 1, 93; Yolton 1991, 69.

  71. 71.

    Fouquet 1765, 39.

  72. 72.

    Marx 1974, 210.

  73. 73.

    Le Camus 1769, Vol. 2, 403.

  74. 74.

    Le Camus 1769, Vol. 1, 7–8.

  75. 75.

    Le Camus 1769, Vol. 1, xv.

  76. 76.

    Le Camus 1769, Vol. 2, 119. See also Senebier 1775, 98–99.

  77. 77.

    Le Camus 1769, Vol. 1, 93.

  78. 78.

    Fouquet 1765, 45.

  79. 79.

    Fouquet 1765, 46.

  80. 80.

    See also Senebier 1775, Vol. 2, 211.

  81. 81.

    Yolton 1990.

  82. 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. 83.

    Le Camus 1769, Vol. 1, vi–vii.

  84. 84.

    Condillac 1754/1970, 10.

  85. 85.

    See also Wolfe and Terada 2008, 565–568; Wolfe 2012.

  86. 86.

    Note Yolton’s particular reference in this context to texts by Roche and Boullier, in Yolton 1991.

  87. 87.

    See Yolton 1991, 73, 111.

  88. 88.

    Ménuret 1765, 310–313; Vila 1998, 52–65. Ménuret features heavily in Rey’s study as ‘représentant exemplaire des vitalistes qui ont collaboré a l’Encyclopédie’. (Rey 2000, 60.)

  89. 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. 90.

    Ménuret 1765, 313.

  91. 91.

    Ménuret 1765, 313.

  92. 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. 93.

    Ménuret 1765, 312, 311.

  94. 94.

    Ménuret 1765, 310.

  95. 95.

    Ménuret 1765, 311.

  96. 96.

    Ménuret 1765, 311.

  97. 97.

    Senebier 1775, Vol. 1, 97.

  98. 98.

    Senebier 1775, Vol. 1, 97, 131.

  99. 99.

    Senebier 1775, Vol. 1, 223–224, citations on 223.

  100. 100.

    Senebier 1775, Vol. 1, 230.

  101. 101.

    Senebier 1775, Vol. 1, 13.

  102. 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. 103.

    ‘La science de l’Observateur n’est autre chose que la connaissance des rapports que les divers Etres ont entr’eux’. (Senebier 1775, Vol. 1, 32.) See also Senebier 1775, Vol. 1, 93–94, 97, 137, 152, 155, Vol. 2, 42, 48–50; Singy 2006, 64–65.

  104. 104.

    Senebier 1775, Vol. 2, 86.

  105. 105.

    Senebier 1775, Vol. 2, 148.

  106. 106.

    See the section on ‘Des moyens de faire fleurir l’art d’observer’ in Senebier 1775, Vol. 2, 146.

  107. 107.

    Senebier 1775, Vol. 2, 1–36.

  108. 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. 109.

    Senebier 1775, Vol. 2, 161–321.

  110. 110.

    Senebier 1775, Vol. 2, 279–280. Emphasis in original.

  111. 111.

    Senebier 1775, Vol. 2, 281.

  112. 112.

    Senebier 1775, Vol. 2, 201. See also Ménuret 1765, 311–312.

  113. 113.

    Senebier 1775, Vol. 2, 205.

  114. 114.

    See my introductory chapter for a more detailed discussion of this relationship. See also Vila 1998; Packham 2012.

  115. 115.

    Diderot 1762.

  116. 116.

    Reill 2005. See also Packham 2012.

  117. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Boury, Dominique. 2008. Irritability and sensibility: Key concepts in assessing the medical doctrines of Haller and Bordeu. Science in Context 21(4): 521–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Condillac, Etienne Bonnot de. 1754/1970. Traité des sensations. In Oeuvres complètes, 1–327. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, Andrew. 2007. Hume’s vitalism and its implications. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 15(1): 59–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dulieu, Luis. 1952. Les articles d’Henri Fouquet dans l’Encyclopédie. Revue d’histoire des sciences et de leurs applications 5(1): 18–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaukroger, Stephen. 2010. The collapse of mechanism and the rise of sensibility: Science and the shaping of modernity, 1680–1760. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Helvétius, Claude A. 1758. De L’Esprit. Paris: Durand.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaitaro, Timo. 2008. Can matter mark the hours? Eighteenth-century vitalist materialism and functional properties. Science in Context 21(4): 581–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, Isabel. 1968. The geometric spirit: The Abbé de Condillac and the French enlightenment. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Camus, Antoine. 1769. Medecine de l'esprit, 2nd ed, 2 vols. Paris: Ganeau.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Legée, Georgette. 1991. La physiologie dans l’œuvre de Jean Senebier. Gesnerus 49(3–4): 307–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, John. 1690/1849. An essay concerning human understanding, 30th ed. London: William Tegg & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, Jacques. 1974. L’art d’observer au XVIIIe siècle: Jean Senebier et Charles Bonnet. Janus 61: 201–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Packham, Catherine. 2012. Eighteenth-century vitalism: Bodies, culture, politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reill, Peter Hanns. 2005. Vitalizing nature in the enlightenment. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rey, Roselyne. 1995. Vitalism, disease and society. In Medicine in the enlightenment, ed. Roy Porter, 274–288. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riskin, Jessica. 2002. Science in the age of sensibility: The sentimental empiricists of the French enlightenment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Senebier, Jean. 1775. L’art d’observer, 2 vols. Geneva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singy, Patrick. 2006. Huber’s eyes: The art of scientific observation before the emergence of positivism. Representations 95(1): 54–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vila, Anne C. 1998. Enlightenment and pathology. Sensibility in the literature and medicine of eighteenth-century France. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, Charles T., and Motoichi Terada. 2008. The animal economy as object and program in Montpellier vitalism. Science in Context 21(4): 537–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yolton, John W. 1990. The way of ideas: A retrospective. The Journal of Philosophy 87(10): 510–516.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yolton, John W. 1991. Locke and French materialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

  1. Centre for the History of European Discourses and School of History, Philosophy, Religion and Classics, The University of Queensland, 4072, St Lucia, QLD, Australia

    Henry Martyn Lloyd

Authors
  1. Henry Martyn Lloyd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henry Martyn Lloyd .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for the History of European Discourses and School of History, Philosophy, Religion and Classics, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Henry Martyn Lloyd

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation