The mind in Giambattista Vico's 'New Science'
This thesis is a reading and interpretation of Giambattista Vico's model of the human mind in the <i>New Science</i>. It focuses on the mind because understanding Vico's account of its origin and development is the key to assessing his overall claim of having discovered a new science of humanity. I contend that when the following three broad questions have been addressed the <i>New Science</i> will reveal a deeper and more complete dimension. The first is how Vico arrives at his thesis that the mind's development is a product of natural, social, and linguistic elements, rather than the emergence of innate faculties. Is this formulation coherent, and are there elements whose functions are not explained? The second is how he believed that a science of humanity was possible. Vico thought that true knowledge, or science, consisted in a synthesis of the esoteric and the practical. Was it realistic for him to suppose that these very different paradigms could coalesce and provide a backbone for scientific research? The third question is whether the accounts he gives of sacred and profane history are consistent and do not compromise his main thesis that history is human directed. Was Vico's explanation of the identity
Hepburn, Winthrop Brent
The mind in Giambattista Vico's 'New Science'. This thesis is a reading and interpretation of Giambattista Vico's model of the human mind in the <i>New Science</i>. It focuses on the mind because understanding Vico's account of its origin and development is the key to assessing his overall claim of having discovered a new science of humanity. I contend that when the following three broad questions have been addressed the <i>New Science</i> will reveal a deeper and more complete dimension. The first is how Vico arrives at his thesis that the mind's development is a product of natural, social, and linguistic elements, rather than the emergence of innate faculties. Is this formulation coherent, and are there elements whose functions are not explained? The second is how he believed that a science of humanity was possible. Vico thought that true knowledge, or science, consisted in a synthesis of the esoteric and the practical. Was it realistic for him to suppose that these very different paradigms could coalesce and provide a backbone for scientific research? The third question is whether the accounts he gives of sacred and profane history are consistent and do not compromise his main thesis that history is human directed. Was Vico's explanation of the identity
mind science read interpretation model human_mind new science focus mind account origin_development key assess overall claim discover new science humanity contend follow_three broad_question address new science reveal deeper complete dimension first arrive mind development product natural social linguistic_element rather emergence innate faculty formulation coherent element whose function explain second believe science humanity possible think true knowledge science consist synthesis esoteric practical realistic suppose different paradigm could coalesce provide backbone scientific third question_whether account_give sacred profane history consistent compromise main history human direct explanation identity