Skip to main content

The Natural and the Human

This post is by Stephen Gaukroger, Emeritus Professor of History of Philosophy and History of Science at the University of Sydney.




In the course of the eighteenth century, philosophers, physicians, political economists and others began to think about how the study of human behaviour might be taken out of the hands of metaphysicians and theologians, and transformed into an evidence-based scientific enterprise. These projects fall under the general rubric of ‘naturalization’.

The Natural and the Human looks at late eighteenth and early nineteenth century attempts to naturalize the study of human behaviour, and at the way in which this general programmes lead to the naturalization of religion.

Four forms of naturalization of the human are explored. The first is anthropological medicine, in which traditional philosophical understanding of the human condition is replaced with a medical understanding, not least on the grounds that whereas philosophy confines itself to healthy minds and bodies, what is needed is an understanding of the mind and the body in healthy and unhealthy states. In particular, healing the mind becomes, like healing the body, an empirical matter.


Whereas anthropological medicine was primarily a French phenomenon, the second project, philosophical anthropology, was German. From Christian Wolff onwards, there had been a subject called empirical psychology taught in the universities, but only as a prelude to a more philosophical form of psychology. Herder takes empirical psychology as valuable in its own right by concentrating on the development of language its source of empirical evidence about the nature of the mind. Here language was treated not as a mere expression of thought but constitutive of it, providing a window onto mental operations. The aesthetics of language was crucial in this exploration for Herder.

The third project was the natural history of man, in which human behaviour was understood, not in traditional absolute terms, but in comparative terms: comparative anatomy, comparative geography, comparative history. Just what light such studies threw on the nature of the human being was highly contested. The fourth project, social arithmetic, was an especially radical exercise. The development of consequentialism in Bentham involved the naturalization of morality, making the morality of behaviour subject to empirically discernible criteria. In a related development, everyday life began to be quantified, so that behaviour in general was now assessed not with regard to established virtues, but with regard to norms and averages.

The naturalization of religion was perhaps the most radical part of the naturalization programme, in that it required standing back from Christianity and treating it like any historical phenomenon. Not only was Christianity itself historicized (in Gibbon), but so too was Christian dogma (in Strauss), and various forms of religion were located within an evolutionary development that culminated in humanism (Feuerbach).

The Natural and the Human is the third in a series of what will be four volumes, in which the emergence of a scientific culture in the West is critically examined.

Popular posts from this blog

Delusions in the DSM 5

This post is by Lisa Bortolotti. How has the definition of delusions changed in the DSM 5? Here are some first impressions. In the DSM-IV (Glossary) delusions were defined as follows: Delusion. A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith). When a false belief involves a value judgment, it is regarded as a delusion only when the judgment is so extreme as to defy credibility.

Rationalization: Why your intelligence, vigilance and expertise probably don't protect you

Today's post is by Jonathan Ellis , Associate Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Center for Public Philosophy at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and Eric Schwitzgebel , Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Riverside. This is the first in a two-part contribution on their paper "Rationalization in Moral and Philosophical thought" in Moral Inferences , eds. J. F. Bonnefon and B. Trémolière (Psychology Press, 2017). We’ve all been there. You’re arguing with someone – about politics, or a policy at work, or about whose turn it is to do the dishes – and they keep finding all kinds of self-serving justifications for their view. When one of their arguments is defeated, rather than rethinking their position they just leap to another argument, then maybe another. They’re rationalizing –coming up with convenient defenses for what they want to believe, rather than responding even-handedly to the points you're making. Yo...

Models of Madness

In today's post John Read  (in the picture above) presents the recent book he co-authored with Jacqui Dillon , titled Models of Madness: Psychological, Social and Biological Approaches to Psychosis. My name is John Read. After 20 years working as a Clinical Psychologist and manager of mental health services in the UK and the USA, mostly with people experiencing psychosis, I joined the University of Auckland, New Zealand, in 1994. There I published over 100 papers in research journals, primarily on the relationship between adverse life events (e.g., child abuse/neglect, poverty etc.) and psychosis. I also research the negative effects of bio-genetic causal explanations on prejudice, and the role of the pharmaceutical industry in mental health. In February I moved to Melbourne and I now work at Swinburne University of Technology.  I am on the on the Executive Committee of the International Society for Psychological and Social Approaches to Psychosis and am the Editor...