Sensibility
Sensibility refers to the capacity of the mind for receptivity to sensory representations, through which external objects affect cognition and provide the basis for empirical knowledge.[1] In the empiricist tradition, as articulated by John Locke, all simple ideas originate from sensation or internal reflection, rejecting innate knowledge and grounding understanding in perceptual experience.[2] This view posits that the mind at birth is a tabula rasa, acquiring complex ideas by combining sensory inputs, thereby emphasizing causal interactions between the perceiver and the world as the source of justified beliefs.[2] Immanuel Kant distinguished sensibility from understanding, defining it as the faculty yielding intuitions via a priori forms of space and time, which structure sensory data prior to conceptualization.[3] Sensibility thus enables the apprehension of phenomena but not noumena, resolving empiricist skepticism by integrating sensory receptivity with rational structures, though debates persist over whether this synthesis adequately accounts for synthetic a priori judgments.[3] In 18th-century thought, sensibility extended to moral and aesthetic domains, denoting heightened responsiveness to emotions and ethical sentiments, influencing sentimental literature where characters exhibit refined feeling as a marker of virtue.[4] Critics, including rationalists like Descartes, contested empiricist reliance on sensibility, arguing for innate ideas and deductive reason as superior paths to certainty, highlighting ongoing tensions between sensory evidence and intellectual intuition in epistemology.[5]Definitions and Etymology
Core Concepts and Historical Usage
![John Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690)][float-right]The term sensibility derives from the Late Latin sensibilis, meaning "perceptible by the senses" or "capable of feeling," entering English in the late 14th century to denote the capacity for physical sensation or perception of stimuli.[6][7] Initially, it emphasized the physiological power of sensation, aligning with empiricist views that positioned sensory experience as the foundation of knowledge, as articulated in John Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), where sense perception serves as the primary inlet for ideas.[8] By the 17th century, the concept began extending beyond mere physical responsiveness to include refined perceptual delicacy, particularly in response to emotional or intellectual stimuli, as reflected in Samuel Johnson's Dictionary (1755), defining it as "quickness of sensation; quickness of perception; delicacy."[9] In philosophical discourse, sensibility evolved into a core concept denoting an innate faculty for moral discernment through immediate feeling rather than rational calculation, central to moral sense theory pioneered by Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury (1671–1713). Shaftesbury posited a "moral sense" as an internal, instinctive capacity to approve virtuous actions and disapprove vice, akin to aesthetic taste, arguing in An Inquiry Concerning Virtue (1699) that this sense enables natural benevolence without reliance on self-interest or divine command.[10] This framework influenced Francis Hutcheson (1694–1746), who systematized the theory in An Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue (1725), describing the moral sense as a distinct internal faculty that generates disinterested pleasure in contemplating benevolent affections and actions in others, distinct from personal utility or reason alone.[11] Hutcheson's view held that moral approbation arises from an immediate, sensory-like response to public-spirited conduct, positioning sensibility as foundational to ethical judgment.[12] Historically, usage shifted during the Enlightenment from passive sensory reception to active, cultivated responsiveness, emphasizing emotional refinement and empathy as markers of civilized character. In the 18th century, particularly in Britain and France, sensibility connoted heightened susceptibility to moral sentiments, beauty, and human suffering, influencing ethical theories that prioritized feeling over abstract deduction.[4] This development reflected broader cultural valorization of innate human capacities, countering rationalist overemphasis on intellect, though critics like rationalists contended it risked subjectivity in moral evaluation. By the mid-18th century, the term encompassed both individual temperament—delicate nerves prone to sympathetic tears—and societal ideals of polite, benevolent conduct, as seen in contemporaneous literature and moral philosophy.[13]