Peter Lautner

Le présent texte discute les méthodes utilisées par Philopon et Pseudo-Simplicius lorsqu’ils commentent la théorie de la perception sensible d’Aristote, et il marque leurs différences. Philopon fait un fréquent usage de théories médicales et de matériel empirique, empruntés principalement à Aristote, afin de mettre en lumière non pas seulement les activités des différents sens, mais aussi une certaine conscience ainsi que la façon dont nous expérimentons nos états intérieurs. Par contre, son contemporain Athénien, Pseudo-Simplicius, méconnaît complètement de tels aspects. Sa méthode est déductive: il fait appel à une thèse générale, empruntée en partie à Iamblichus, dont il déduit des thèses relatives à la perception sensible. L’accent est mis ici sur la doctrine de Philopon, car son recours à des perspectives médicales donne lieu à un mélange intéressant de théories platoniciennes et de théories médicales empiriques

Emotions are characteristic activities/states in hylemorphic structure of the Aristotelian soul. Emotional activities/states are physiological processes/states as well, as it is particularly clear in anger. It raises the question about the origin of their intentionality. Sometimes sheer bodily processes can lead to emotions, which implies that intentionality in emotions might also originate in bodily processes. But Aristotle does not generalize this point in saying that all emotions are due to bodily processes. Moreover, since they are complex phenomena, involving opinion, representation, desire, pleasure and pain, their intentional nature must also be a certain amalgamate of the intentionality of the ingredients. It involves that the relevant kinds of pleasure and pain are also intentional states. On the other hand, besides establishing certain general similarities Aristotle does not seem to have worked out a unifi ed theory of emotions. To mention but one well-known example, most of the emotions he discusses in detail are based on representation, whereas hatred is supported by a general statement.

The paper aims to show that Philoponus’ theory of sense-perception does not fit in with the spiritualist claim that the sensory process does not involve an extra material change in the sense-organ. Both the specific sense-organs and the primary sense-organ contract or expand in the perceptual process. On the other hand, the literalist claim needs to be modified as well since only the tactile sense-organ takes on the relevant qualities. Contraction or expansion in the sense-organ is triggered, not by physical changes in the medium, but by the formal activities arising from the perceptible objects: colours make the visual sense-organ contract or expand. At the level of sense-organs, the physiological process underlying sense-perception has three stages. The change in specific sense-organ will be transmitted to the primary sense-organ of the particular sense , and then reaches the common sense-organ, the pneuma. The primary sense-organs are spatially distinguishable parts of the common sense-organ which is otherwise homogeneous, not allowing for qualitative differences. The homogeneity of the pneuma establishes the unity of sense-perception at the level of physiological processes