Does anyone understand the differences between these terms? Hylozoism is a term engaged by Kant in the Critique of Judgment, but he mentions it only to mention its error.
the term comes from the greek hyle, matter, and zoe, life.
Encyclopaedia says: “Hylozoism, in philosophy, any system that views all matter as alive, either in itself or by participation in the operation of a world soul or some similar principle. Hylozoism is logically distinct both from early forms of animism, which personifies nature, and from panpsychism…”
Stanford’s online encyclopaedia of philosophy regards both Spinoza and Leibniz as proponents of some form of panpsychism. Spinoza becase he “regarded both mind and matter as simply aspects of the eternal, infinite and unique substance he indentified with God”.
Leibniz’s panpsychism is found in his theory of monads.
Also, Berkeley apparently is also panpsychistic because empirical idealism is the binary opposition flipside to materialism.
I’m wondering about all this because i’m reading Diderot.
If anyone can further clarify the difference between these three perspectives that would be great.
“Animism is the belief that personalized supernatural beings (or souls) inhabit all objects and govern their existence.”
“Panpsychism, in philosophy, is either the view that all parts of matter involve mind, or the more holistic view that the whole universe is an organism that possesses a mind.”
“Hylozoism is the philosophical doctrine that all material things possess life.”
yes and no. thats about as far as i got. i’m looking for a more in depth discussion about what the definitions of these three terms actually imply. Can hylozoism imply consciousness? does life imply a latent consciousness (think monads, leibniz)? then are panpsychism and hylozoism more similar than different? And what does soul vs. mind mean?
I’m not sure that there is a fixed, in-depth distinction between these terms. Hylozoism is related to the very early philosophical positions, such as Thales, perhaps even Heraclitus, that saw the elemental aspects of the world as forces, and in a way the entire universe could be seen as a “living thing”, or at least a dynamic thing. Animism is used more often to describe primitive religions, rather than a philosophical position. Fundamental here seems to be that there is a “soul” or an “entity” of some kind in individual dynamic things, such as trees or rivers, etc., and some have pointed out that we retain animistic beliefs, for instance when we grow angry at a table corner we hurt ourselves against, or at a car that “fails” us at an inopportune time. So animism has to do more with beliefs and behaviors. Panpsychism is literally “All-souled”, but carries with it that the philosophical position that all things, the entire universe, and all individual things in it, carry within themselves “awareness” however dim. This is also closely linked to “Pantheism”, that all is God, or more subtly “Panentheism”, that God is in all things. Clearly all relate to similar takes on that otherwise judged inanimate or non-conscious. I for one tend towards a Pantheism/Panpsychism, but do so in the sense of questioning what “thinking” or “awareness” is. Invariably some form of dualism has to be dealt with, and most of these positions are an attempt to address the matter/soul distinction that has made up much of philosophy’s history of questions. If you can come up with definitions of “soul”, “mind”, “matter”, “God”, “living” you might be able to narrow your question further.