essay on power of imagination

Imagination

How imagination can transform your life, unleash the possibilities in your life with this creative tool..

Posted September 14, 2020

“ If you can dream it, you can achieve it .” –Zig Ziglar

I have written in this blog many times about the value of creative thinking . And I’ve written about the various key components of creative thinking . But, I’ve never written about how one of those can transform your life for the better. When you put this component to work, the world will open up for you. You’ve probably already used this tool of creativity.

Most likely, at some point in your life, you planned a vacation or a trip. You chose a place, perhaps it was in an exotic location. Then you figured out where you would stay. Next, you arranged how to get there. Finally, you selected the activities you would do: the amusements, entertainments, and dining experiences ... or maybe it was with the activities that started your plan.

Or, perhaps you’ve planned a party. You came up with a theme. Then you contrived the festivities: dancing, singing, charades, trivia and such. Next, you selected the foods and beverages to serve. And finally, you created a guest list and sent out invitations.

When you made these plans, you utilized this amazing tool of creative thinking. And you can use it to enhance your finances, get the things you want, find the love of your life, and improve your health.

“ Visualize what you want to do before you do it. Visualization is so powerful that when you know what you want, you will get it .” –Audrey Flack

What is this amazing tool, this component of creative thinking? It’s imagination , and it is a natural exercise that we should be doing every day. Everything that comes to us begins with imagination . But, as we enter full adulthood: working, bills, committing to a relationship, raising a family ... we stop using our imagination. And when we stop using it, the progress of our lives slows down or comes to a halt.

“ Imagination is the beginning of creation. You imagine what you desire, you will what you imagine and at last you create what you will .” –George Bernard Shaw

What is it that you want? Is it more freedom to do what you want to do? Is it more money to buy the things you want? Is it less stress and more tranquility in your life ? Is it more confidence to influence others , or to excel further in your career ?

“ Imagination is everything. It is the preview of life's coming attractions .” –Albert Einstein

If you’re not living where you want to live; if you’re not driving the car you want; if you’re not working in the profession of your dreams; if you’ve not in the romantic relationship you desire, it’s because you haven’t been using your imagination, or because you’ve been dreaming too small. The good news is that it is never too late to start.

“ Nothing limits achievement like small thinking; nothing expands possibilities like unleashed imagination .” –William Arthur Ward

When you are anxious or worried , you shut imagination down. Or worse, you are imagining the very thing you don’t want. I find imagination is a great way to stop worrying. You replace negative thinking with positive thinking . It helps with mindfulness too, because it gives you a goal that you can focus on daily or in the moment whenever you feel anxiety or depression coming on.

“ Do not build up obstacles in your imagination .” –Norman Vincent Peale

Imagination is the tool we use to program our subconscious mind to help us achieve our goals and dreams. When we imagine something often enough, when our desire becomes potent enough, our subconscious mind starts working 24/7 to achieve that thing until it is accomplished. You will start to notice opportunities or avenues to achieve your goal. Your powerful subconscious mind is always on the alert to deliver on your desires.

“ It's time to start living the life you've imagined .” –Henry James

Here’s a way to help you understand how your subconscious mind works: Think about the last time you were in the market for a new car. You considered your budget and needs, and then you searched the market. You looked at all the different makes and models that suited your criteria until you finally decided on the one car that would work for you. Before you decided on that particular make and model, you never noticed those cars on the road. But once you made the commitment to buy that car, you started seeing them everywhere. You were probably shocked at how many there were. It was as if the road was littered with them. That was your subconscious mind alerting you to that which will fulfill your desire. And, that is how it works when you put your imagination to work.

Perhaps Mahatma Gandhi said it best, “We but mirror the world. All the tendencies present in the outer world are to be found in the world of our body. If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. This is the divine mystery supreme. A wonderful thing it is and the source of our happiness . We need not wait to see what others do.”

Starting now, take a little time each day to turn your imagination on, and dream about the person you want to be and the world you want to live in. You have the power to make it possible.

Robert Evans Wilson, Jr. is an innovation/change speaker, author, and consultant.

Robert Wilson is a writer and humorist based in Atlanta, Georgia.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

David Brooks

The Awesome Importance of Imagination

By David Brooks

Opinion Columnist

Plato and Aristotle disagreed about the imagination. As the philosopher Stephen Asma and the actor Paul Giamatti pointed out in an essay in March, Plato gave the impression that imagination is a somewhat airy-fairy luxury good. It deals with illusions and make-believe and distracts us from reality and our capacity to coolly reason about it. Aristotle countered that imagination is one of the foundations of all knowledge .

One tragedy of our day is that our culture hasn’t fully realized how much Aristotle was correct. Our society isn’t good at cultivating the faculty that we may need the most.

What is imagination? Well, one way of looking at it is that every waking second your brain is bombarded with a buzzing, blooming confusion of colors, shapes and movements. Imagination is the capacity to make associations among all these bits of information and to synthesize them into patterns and concepts. When you walk, say, into a coffee shop you don’t see an array of surfaces, lights and angles. Your imagination instantly coalesces all that into an image: “coffee shop.”

Neuroscientists have come to appreciate how fantastically complicated and subjective this process of creating mental images really is. You may think perception is a simple “objective” process of taking in the world and cognition is a complicated process of thinking about it. But that’s wrong .

Perception — the fast process of selecting, putting together, interpreting and experiencing facts, thoughts and emotions — is the essential poetic act that makes you you.

For example, you don’t see the naked concept “coffee shop.” The image you create is coated with personal feelings, memories and evaluations. You see: “slightly upscale suburban coffee shop trying and failing to send off a hipster vibe.” The imagination, Charles Darwin wrote, “unites former images and ideas, independently of the will, and thus creates brilliant and novel results.”

Furthermore, imagination can get richer over time. When you go to Thanksgiving dinner, your image of Uncle Frank contains the memories of past Thanksgivings, the arguments and the jokes, and the whole sum of your common experiences. The guy you once saw as an insufferable blowhard you now see — as your range of associations has widened and deepened — as a decent soul struggling with his wounds. “A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees,” William Blake observed.

Can you improve your imagination? Yes. By creating complex and varied lenses through which to see the world. The novelist Zadie Smith once wrote that when she was a girl she was constantly imagining what it would be like to grow up in the homes of her friends.

“I rarely entered a friend’s home without wondering what it might be like to never leave,” she wrote in The New York Review of Books. “That is, what it would be like to be Polish or Ghanaian or Irish or Bengali, to be richer or poorer, to say these prayers or hold those politics. I was an equal-opportunity voyeur. I wanted to know what it was like to be everybody. Above all, I wondered what it would be like to believe the sorts of things I didn’t believe.”

What an awesome way to prepare the imagination for the kind of society we all now live in.

Zora Neale Hurston grew up by a main road in Eatonville, Fla. As a young girl she’d walk up to carriages passing by and call out, “Don’t you want me to go a piece of the way with you?” She’d get invited into the carriage, have a conversation with strangers for a while and then walk back home.

These kinds of daring social adventures were balanced, in Hurston’s case, and in the case of many people with cultivated imaginations, with long periods of reading and solitude and inner adventures in storytelling. “I lived an exciting life unseen,” Hurston later recalled.

A person who feeds his or her imagination with a fuller repertoire of thoughts and experiences has the ability not only to see reality more richly but also — even more rare — to imagine the world through the imaginations of others. This is the skill we see in Shakespeare to such a miraculous degree — his ability to disappear into his characters and inhabit their points of view without ever pretending to explain them.

Different people have different kinds of imagination. Some people mainly focus on the parts of the world that can be quantified. This prosaic form of pattern recognition can be very practical. But it often doesn’t see the subjective way people coat the world with values and emotions and aspirations, which is exactly what we want to see if we want to glimpse how they experience their experience.

Blake and others aspired to the most enchanted form of imagination, which as Mark Vernon writes in Aeon, “bridges the subjective and objective, and perceives the interior vitality of the world as well as its interconnecting exteriors.” This is van Gogh painting starry nights and Einstein imagining himself riding alongside a light beam.

Imagination helps you perceive reality, try on other realities, predict possible futures, experience other viewpoints. And yet how much do schools prioritize the cultivation of this essential ability?

What happens to a society that lets so much of its imaginative capacity lie fallow? Perhaps you wind up in a society in which people are strangers to one another and themselves.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram .

David Brooks has been a columnist with The Times since 2003. He is the author of “The Road to Character” and, most recently, “The Second Mountain.” @ nytdavidbrooks

• University News
• Faculty & Research
• Health & Medicine
• Science & Technology
• Social Sciences
• Humanities & Arts
• Students & Alumni
• Arts & Culture
• Sports & Athletics
• The Professions
• International
• New England Guide

The Magazine

• Current Issue
• Past Issues

Class Notes & Obituaries

• Browse Class Notes
• Browse Obituaries

Collections

• Commencement
• The Context

Harvard Squared

• Harvard in the Headlines

Support Harvard Magazine

• Why We Need Your Support
• How We Are Funded
• Ways to Support the Magazine
• Special Gifts
• Behind the Scenes

Classifieds

• Vacation Rentals & Travel
• Real Estate
• Products & Services
• Harvard Authors’ Bookshelf
• Education & Enrichment Resource
• Ad Prices & Information
• Place An Ad

Follow Harvard Magazine:

The Fringe Benefits of Failure, and the Importance of Imagination

Harry potter author j.k. rowling's delivers harvard's 2008 commencement address.

J.K. Rowling , author of the best-selling Harry Potter book series, delivers her Commencement Address, “The Fringe Benefits of Failure, and the Importance of Imagination,” at the Annual Meeting of the Harvard Alumni Association. For more on the 2008 Commencement Exercises, read  "University Magic."

Text as delivered follows.  Copyright of JK Rowling, June 2008

President Faust, members of the Harvard Corporation and the Board of Overseers, members of the faculty, proud parents, and, above all, graduates. The first thing I would like to say is 'thank you.' Not only has Harvard given me an extraordinary honour, but the weeks of fear and nausea I have endured at the thought of giving this commencement address have made me lose weight. A win-win situation! Now all I have to do is take deep breaths, squint at the red banners and convince myself that I am at the world's largest Gryffindor reunion. Delivering a commencement address is a great responsibility; or so I thought until I cast my mind back to my own graduation. The commencement speaker that day was the distinguished British philosopher Baroness Mary Warnock. Reflecting on her speech has helped me enormously in writing this one, because it turns out that I can't remember a single word she said. This liberating discovery enables me to proceed without any fear that I might inadvertently influence you to abandon promising careers in business, the law or politics for the giddy delights of becoming a gay wizard. You see? If all you remember in years to come is the 'gay wizard' joke, I've come out ahead of Baroness Mary Warnock. Achievable goals: the first step to self improvement. Actually, I have wracked my mind and heart for what I ought to say to you today. I have asked myself what I wish I had known at my own graduation, and what important lessons I have learned in the 21 years that have expired between that day and this. I have come up with two answers. On this wonderful day when we are gathered together to celebrate your academic success, I have decided to talk to you about the benefits of failure. And as you stand on the threshold of what is sometimes called 'real life', I want to extol the crucial importance of imagination. These may seem quixotic or paradoxical choices, but please bear with me. Looking back at the 21-year-old that I was at graduation, is a slightly uncomfortable experience for the 42-year-old that she has become. Half my lifetime ago, I was striking an uneasy balance between the ambition I had for myself, and what those closest to me expected of me. I was convinced that the only thing I wanted to do, ever, was to write novels. However, my parents, both of whom came from impoverished backgrounds and neither of whom had been to college, took the view that my overactive imagination was an amusing personal quirk that would never pay a mortgage, or secure a pension. I know that the irony strikes with the force of a cartoon anvil, now. So they hoped that I would take a vocational degree; I wanted to study English Literature. A compromise was reached that in retrospect satisfied nobody, and I went up to study Modern Languages. Hardly had my parents' car rounded the corner at the end of the road than I ditched German and scuttled off down the Classics corridor. I cannot remember telling my parents that I was studying Classics; they might well have found out for the first time on graduation day. Of all the subjects on this planet, I think they would have been hard put to name one less useful than Greek mythology when it came to securing the keys to an executive bathroom. I would like to make it clear, in parenthesis, that I do not blame my parents for their point of view. There is an expiry date on blaming your parents for steering you in the wrong direction; the moment you are old enough to take the wheel, responsibility lies with you. What is more, I cannot criticise my parents for hoping that I would never experience poverty. They had been poor themselves, and I have since been poor, and I quite agree with them that it is not an ennobling experience. Poverty entails fear, and stress, and sometimes depression; it means a thousand petty humiliations and hardships. Climbing out of poverty by your own efforts, that is indeed something on which to pride yourself, but poverty itself is romanticised only by fools. What I feared most for myself at your age was not poverty, but failure. At your age, in spite of a distinct lack of motivation at university, where I had spent far too long in the coffee bar writing stories, and far too little time at lectures, I had a knack for passing examinations, and that, for years, had been the measure of success in my life and that of my peers. I am not dull enough to suppose that because you are young, gifted and well-educated, you have never known hardship or heartbreak. Talent and intelligence never yet inoculated anyone against the caprice of the Fates, and I do not for a moment suppose that everyone here has enjoyed an existence of unruffled privilege and contentment. However, the fact that you are graduating from Harvard suggests that you are not very well-acquainted with failure. You might be driven by a fear of failure quite as much as a desire for success. Indeed, your conception of failure might not be too far from the average person's idea of success, so high have you already flown. Ultimately, we all have to decide for ourselves what constitutes failure, but the world is quite eager to give you a set of criteria if you let it. So I think it fair to say that by any conventional measure, a mere seven years after my graduation day, I had failed on an epic scale. An exceptionally short-lived marriage had imploded, and I was jobless, a lone parent, and as poor as it is possible to be in modern Britain, without being homeless. The fears that my parents had had for me, and that I had had for myself, had both come to pass, and by every usual standard, I was the biggest failure I knew. Now, I am not going to stand here and tell you that failure is fun. That period of my life was a dark one, and I had no idea that there was going to be what the press has since represented as a kind of fairy tale resolution. I had no idea then how far the tunnel extended, and for a long time, any light at the end of it was a hope rather than a reality. So why do I talk about the benefits of failure? Simply because failure meant a stripping away of the inessential. I stopped pretending to myself that I was anything other than what I was, and began to direct all my energy into finishing the only work that mattered to me. Had I really succeeded at anything else, I might never have found the determination to succeed in the one arena I believed I truly belonged. I was set free, because my greatest fear had been realised, and I was still alive, and I still had a daughter whom I adored, and I had an old typewriter and a big idea. And so rock bottom became the solid foundation on which I rebuilt my life. You might never fail on the scale I did, but some failure in life is inevitable. It is impossible to live without failing at something, unless you live so cautiously that you might as well not have lived at all – in which case, you fail by default. Failure gave me an inner security that I had never attained by passing examinations. Failure taught me things about myself that I could have learned no other way. I discovered that I had a strong will, and more discipline than I had suspected; I also found out that I had friends whose value was truly above the price of rubies. The knowledge that you have emerged wiser and stronger from setbacks means that you are, ever after, secure in your ability to survive. You will never truly know yourself, or the strength of your relationships, until both have been tested by adversity. Such knowledge is a true gift, for all that it is painfully won, and it has been worth more than any qualification I ever earned. So given a Time Turner, I would tell my 21-year-old self that personal happiness lies in knowing that life is not a check-list of acquisition or achievement. Your qualifications, your CV, are not your life, though you will meet many people of my age and older who confuse the two. Life is difficult, and complicated, and beyond anyone's total control, and the humility to know that will enable you to survive its vicissitudes. Now you might think that I chose my second theme, the importance of imagination, because of the part it played in rebuilding my life, but that is not wholly so. Though I personally will defend the value of bedtime stories to my last gasp, I have learned to value imagination in a much broader sense. Imagination is not only the uniquely human capacity to envision that which is not, and therefore the fount of all invention and innovation. In its arguably most transformative and revelatory capacity, it is the power that enables us to empathise with humans whose experiences we have never shared. One of the greatest formative experiences of my life preceded Harry Potter, though it informed much of what I subsequently wrote in those books. This revelation came in the form of one of my earliest day jobs. Though I was sloping off to write stories during my lunch hours, I paid the rent in my early 20s by working at the African research department at Amnesty International's headquarters in London. There in my little office I read hastily scribbled letters smuggled out of totalitarian regimes by men and women who were risking imprisonment to inform the outside world of what was happening to them. I saw photographs of those who had disappeared without trace, sent to Amnesty by their desperate families and friends. I read the testimony of torture victims and saw pictures of their injuries. I opened handwritten, eye-witness accounts of summary trials and executions, of kidnappings and rapes. Many of my co-workers were ex-political prisoners, people who had been displaced from their homes, or fled into exile, because they had the temerity to speak against their governments. Visitors to our offices included those who had come to give information, or to try and find out what had happened to those they had left behind. I shall never forget the African torture victim, a young man no older than I was at the time, who had become mentally ill after all he had endured in his homeland. He trembled uncontrollably as he spoke into a video camera about the brutality inflicted upon him. He was a foot taller than I was, and seemed as fragile as a child. I was given the job of escorting him back to the Underground Station afterwards, and this man whose life had been shattered by cruelty took my hand with exquisite courtesy, and wished me future happiness. And as long as I live I shall remember walking along an empty corridor and suddenly hearing, from behind a closed door, a scream of pain and horror such as I have never heard since. The door opened, and the researcher poked out her head and told me to run and make a hot drink for the young man sitting with her. She had just had to give him the news that in retaliation for his own outspokenness against his country's regime, his mother had been seized and executed. Every day of my working week in my early 20s I was reminded how incredibly fortunate I was, to live in a country with a democratically elected government, where legal representation and a public trial were the rights of everyone. Every day, I saw more evidence about the evils humankind will inflict on their fellow humans, to gain or maintain power. I began to have nightmares, literal nightmares, about some of the things I saw, heard, and read. And yet I also learned more about human goodness at Amnesty International than I had ever known before. Amnesty mobilises thousands of people who have never been tortured or imprisoned for their beliefs to act on behalf of those who have. The power of human empathy, leading to collective action, saves lives, and frees prisoners. Ordinary people, whose personal well-being and security are assured, join together in huge numbers to save people they do not know, and will never meet. My small participation in that process was one of the most humbling and inspiring experiences of my life. Unlike any other creature on this planet, humans can learn and understand, without having experienced. They can think themselves into other people's places. Of course, this is a power, like my brand of fictional magic, that is morally neutral. One might use such an ability to manipulate, or control, just as much as to understand or sympathise. And many prefer not to exercise their imaginations at all. They choose to remain comfortably within the bounds of their own experience, never troubling to wonder how it would feel to have been born other than they are. They can refuse to hear screams or to peer inside cages; they can close their minds and hearts to any suffering that does not touch them personally; they can refuse to know. I might be tempted to envy people who can live that way, except that I do not think they have any fewer nightmares than I do. Choosing to live in narrow spaces leads to a form of mental agoraphobia, and that brings its own terrors. I think the wilfully unimaginative see more monsters. They are often more afraid. What is more, those who choose not to empathise enable real monsters. For without ever committing an act of outright evil ourselves, we collude with it, through our own apathy. One of the many things I learned at the end of that Classics corridor down which I ventured at the age of 18, in search of something I could not then define, was this, written by the Greek author Plutarch: What we achieve inwardly will change outer reality. That is an astonishing statement and yet proven a thousand times every day of our lives. It expresses, in part, our inescapable connection with the outside world, the fact that we touch other people's lives simply by existing. But how much more are you, Harvard graduates of 2008, likely to touch other people's lives? Your intelligence, your capacity for hard work, the education you have earned and received, give you unique status, and unique responsibilities. Even your nationality sets you apart. The great majority of you belong to the world's only remaining superpower. The way you vote, the way you live, the way you protest, the pressure you bring to bear on your government, has an impact way beyond your borders. That is your privilege, and your burden. If you choose to use your status and influence to raise your voice on behalf of those who have no voice; if you choose to identify not only with the powerful, but with the powerless; if you retain the ability to imagine yourself into the lives of those who do not have your advantages, then it will not only be your proud families who celebrate your existence, but thousands and millions of people whose reality you have helped change. We do not need magic to change the world, we carry all the power we need inside ourselves already: we have the power to imagine better. I am nearly finished. I have one last hope for you, which is something that I already had at 21. The friends with whom I sat on graduation day have been my friends for life. They are my children's godparents, the people to whom I've been able to turn in times of trouble, people who have been kind enough not to sue me when I took their names for Death Eaters. At our graduation we were bound by enormous affection, by our shared experience of a time that could never come again, and, of course, by the knowledge that we held certain photographic evidence that would be exceptionally valuable if any of us ran for Prime Minister. So today, I wish you nothing better than similar friendships. And tomorrow, I hope that even if you remember not a single word of mine, you remember those of Seneca, another of those old Romans I met when I fled down the Classics corridor, in retreat from career ladders, in search of ancient wisdom: As is a tale, so is life: not how long it is, but how good it is, is what matters. I wish you all very good lives. Thank you very much.

You might also like

Law Professor Rebecca Tushnet on Who Gets to Keep the Ring

Harvard law professor gets into the details of romantic legal reform.

Faculty Senate Debate Continued

Harvard professors highlight governance concerns.

When to Arrest Protesters

Should civil disobedience merit a police response?

Most popular

Michelle Yeoh’s Three Tips for Success

Oscar-winning actress offers advice in Harvard Law School Class Day address.

The Deadliest War

Drew Faust speaks on how the Civil War’s astounding death toll reshaped American society.

Advertisement

More to explore

Dominica’s “Bouyon” Star

Musician “Shelly” Alfred’s indigenous Caribbean sound

What is the Best Breakfast and Lunch in Harvard Square?

The cafés and restaurants of Harvard Square sure to impress for breakfast and lunch.

University People

Harvard Portraitist Nina Skov Jensen Paints Celebrities and Princesses

Nina Skov Jensen ’25, portraitist for collectors and the princess of Denmark. 

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Imagination

To imagine is to represent without aiming at things as they actually, presently, and subjectively are. One can use imagination to represent possibilities other than the actual, to represent times other than the present, and to represent perspectives other than one’s own. Unlike perceiving and believing, imagining something does not require one to consider that something to be the case. Unlike desiring or anticipating, imagining something does not require one to wish or expect that something to be the case.

Imagination is involved in a wide variety of human activities, and has been explored from a wide range of philosophical perspectives. Philosophers of mind have examined imagination’s role in mindreading and in pretense. Philosophical aestheticians have examined imagination’s role in creating and in engaging with different types of artworks. Epistemologists have examined imagination’s role in theoretical thought experiments and in practical decision-making. Philosophers of language have examined imagination’s role in irony and metaphor.

Because of the breadth of the topic, this entry focuses exclusively on contemporary discussions of imagination in the Anglo-American philosophical tradition. For an overview of historical discussions of imagination, see the sections on pre-twentieth century and early twentieth century accounts of entry on mental imagery ; for notable historical accounts of imagination, see corresponding entries on Aristotle , Thomas Hobbes , David Hume , Immanuel Kant , and Gilbert Ryle ; for a more detailed and comprehensive historical survey, see Brann 1991; and for a sophisticated and wide-ranging discussion of imagination in the phenomenological tradition, see Casey 2000.

1.1 Varieties of Imagination

1.2 taxonomies of imagination, 1.3 norms of imagination, 2.1 imagination and belief, 2.2 imagination and desire, 2.3 imagination, imagery, and perception, 2.4 imagination and memory, 2.5 imagination and supposition, 3.1 mindreading, 3.2 pretense, 3.3 psychopathology.

• Supplement: Puzzles and Paradoxes of Imagination and the Arts

3.5 Creativity

3.6 knowledge, 3.7 figurative language, other internet resources, related entries, 1. the nature of imagination.

A variety of roles have been attributed to imagination across various domains of human understanding and activity ( section 3 ). Not surprisingly, it is doubtful that there is one component of the mind that can satisfy all the various roles attributed to imagination (Kind 2013). Nevertheless, perhaps guided by these roles, philosophers have attempted to clarify the nature of imagination in three ways. First, philosophers have tried to disambiguate different senses of the term “imagination” and, in some cases, point to some core commonalities amongst the different disambiguations ( section 1.1 ). Second, philosophers have given partial taxonomies to distinguish different types of imaginings ( section 1.2 ). Third, philosophers have located norms that govern paradigmatic imaginative episodes ( section 1.3 ).

There is a general consensus among those who work on the topic that the term “ imagination ” is used too broadly to permit simple taxonomy. Indeed, it is common for overviews to begin with an invocation of P.F. Strawson’s remarks in “Imagination and Perception”, where he writes:

The uses, and applications, of the terms “image”, “imagine”, “imagination”, and so forth make up a very diverse and scattered family. Even this image of a family seems too definite. It would be a matter of more than difficulty to identify and list the family’s members, let alone their relations of parenthood and cousinhood. (Strawson 1970: 31)

These taxonomic challenges carry over into attempts at characterization. In the opening chapter of Mimesis as Make-Believe —perhaps the most influential contemporary monograph on imagination—Kendall Walton throws up his hands at the prospect of delineating the notion precisely. After enumerating and distinguishing a number of paradigmatic instances of imagining, he asks:

What is it to imagine? We have examined a number of dimensions along which imaginings can vary; shouldn’t we now spell out what they have in common?—Yes, if we can. But I can’t. (Walton 1990: 19)

Leslie Stevenson (2003: 238) makes arguably the only recent attempt at a somewhat comprehensive inventory of the term’s uses, covering twelve of “the most influential conceptions of imagination” that can be found in recent discussions in “philosophy of mind, aesthetics, ethics, poetry and … religion”.

To describe the varieties of imaginings, philosophers have given partial and overlapping taxonomies.

Some taxonomies are merely descriptive, and they tend to be less controversial. For example, Kendall Walton (1990) distinguishes between spontaneous and deliberate imagining (acts of imagination that occur with or without the one’s conscious direction); between occurrent and nonoccurrent imaginings (acts of imagination that do or do not occupy the one’s explicit attention); and between social and solitary imaginings (episodes of imagining that occur with or without the joint participation of several persons).

One notable descriptive taxonomy concerns imagining from the inside versus from the outside (Williams 1973; Wollheim 1973; see Ninan 2016 for an overview). To imagine from the outside that one is Napoleon involves imagining a scenario in which one is Napoleon. To imagine from the inside that one is Napoleon involves that plus something else: namely, that one is occupying the perspective of Napoleon. Imagining from the inside is essentially first-personal, imagining from the outside is not. This distinction between two modes of imagining is especially notable for its implications for thought experiments about the metaphysics of personal identity (Nichols 2008; Ninan 2009; Williams 1973).

Some taxonomies aim to be more systematic—to carve imaginings at their joints, so to speak—and they, as one might expect, tend to be more controversial.

Gregory Currie and Ian Ravenscroft (2002) distinguishes creative imagination (combining ideas in unexpected and unconventional ways); sensory imagination (perception-like experiences in the absence of appropriate stimuli); and what they call recreative imagination (an ability to experience or think about the world from a perspective different from the one that experience presents). Neil Van Leeuwen (2013, 2014) takes a similar approach to delineate three common uses of “imagination” and cognate terms. First, these terms can be used to refer to constructive imagining , which concerns the process of generating mental representations. Second, these terms can be used to refer to attitude imagining , which concerns the propositional attitude one takes toward mental representations. Third, these terms can be used to refer to imagistic imagining , which concerns the perception-like format of mental representations.

Amy Kind and Peter Kung (2016b) pose the puzzle of imaginative use—on the seeming irreconcilability between the transcendent uses of imagination, which enables one to escape from or look beyond the world as it is, and the instructive uses of imagination, which enables one to learn about the world as it is. Kind and Kung ultimately resolve the puzzle by arguing that the same attitude can be put to these seemingly disparate uses because the two uses differ not in kind, but in degree—specifically, the degree of constraint on imaginings.

Finally, varieties of imagination might be classified in terms of their structure and content. Consider the following three types of imaginings, each illustrated with an example. When one imagines propositionally , one represents to oneself that something is the case. So, for example, Juliet might imagine that Romeo is by her side . To imagine in this sense is to stand in some mental relation to a particular proposition (see the entry on propositional attitude reports ). When one imagines objectually , one represents to oneself a real or make-believe entity or situation (Yablo 1993; see also Martin 2002; Noordhof 2002; O’Shaughnessy 2000). So, for example, Prospero might imagine an acorn or a nymph or the city of Naples or a wedding feast . To imagine in this sense is to stand in some mental relation to a representation of an (imaginary or real) entity or state of affairs. When one imagines X-ing , one simulatively represents to oneself some sort of activity or experience (Walton 1990). So, for example, Ophelia might imagine seeing Hamlet or getting herself to a nunnery . To imagine in this sense is to stand in a first-personal mental relation to some (imaginary or real) behavior or perception.

There are general norms that govern operations of imagination (Gendler 2003).

Mirroring is manifest to the extent that features of the imaginary situation that have not been explicitly stipulated are derivable via features of their real-world analogues, or, more generally, to the extent that imaginative content is taken to be governed by the same sorts of restrictions that govern believed content. For example, in a widely-discussed experiment conducted by Alan Leslie (1994), children are asked to engage in an imaginary tea party. When an experimenter tips and “spills” one of the (empty) teacups, children consider the non-tipped cup to be “full” (in the context of the pretense) and the tipped cup to be “empty” (both within and outside of the context of the pretense). In fact, both make-believe games and more complicated engagements with the arts are governed by principles of generation , according to which prompts or props prescribe particular imaginings (Walton 1990).

Quarantining is manifest to the extent that events within the imagined or pretended episode are taken to have effects only within a relevantly circumscribed domain. So, for example, the child engaging in the make-believe tea party does not expect that “spilling” (imaginary) “tea” will result in the table really being wet, nor does a person who imagines winning the lottery expect that when she visits the ATM, her bank account will contain a million dollars. More generally, quarantining is manifest to the extent that proto-beliefs and proto-attitudes concerning the imagined state of affairs are not treated as beliefs and attitudes relevant to guiding action in the actual world.

Although imaginative episodes are generally governed by mirroring and quarantining, both may be violated in systematic ways.

Mirroring gives way to disparity as a result of the ways in which (the treatment of) imaginary content may differ from (that of) believed content. Imagined content may be incomplete (for example, there may be no fact of the matter (in the pretense) just how much tea has spilled on the table) or incoherent (for example, it might be that the toaster serves (in the pretense) as a logical-truth inverter). And content that is imagined may give rise to discrepant responses , most strikingly in cases of discrepant affect—where, for example, the imminent destruction of all human life is treated as amusing rather than terrifying.

Quarantining gives way to contagion when imagined content ends up playing a direct role in actual attitudes and behavior (see also Gendler 2008a, 2008b). This is common in cases of affective transmission , where an emotional response generated by an imagined situation may constrain subsequent behavior. For example, imagining something fearful (such as a tiger in the kitchen) may give rise to actual hesitation (such as reluctance to enter the room). And it also occurs in cases of cognitive transmission , where imagined content is thereby “primed” and rendered more accessible in ways that go on to shape subsequent perception and experience. For example, imagining some object (such as a sheep) may make one more likely to “perceive” such objects in one’s environment (such as mistaking a rock for a ram).

2. Imagination in Cognitive Architecture

One way to make sense of the nature of imagination is by drawing distinctions, giving taxonomies, and elucidating governing norms ( section 1 ). Another, arguably more prominent, way to make sense of the nature is by figuring out, in a broadly functionalist framework, how it fits in with more well-understood mental entities from folk psychology and scientific psychology (see the entry on functionalism ).

There are two related tasks involved. First, philosophers have used other mental entities to define imagination by contradistinction (but see Wiltsher forthcoming for a critique of this approach). To give an oversimplified example, many philosophers hold that imagining is like believing except that it does not directly motivate actions. Second, philosophers have used other mental entities to understand the inputs and outputs of imagination. To give an oversimplified example, many philosophers hold that imagination does not output to action-generating systems.

Amongst the most widely-discussed mental entities in contemporary discussions of imagination are belief ( section 2.1 ), desire ( section 2.2 ), mental imagery ( section 2.3 ), memory ( section 2.4 ), and supposition ( section 2.5 ). The resolution of these debates ultimately rest on the extent to which the imaginative attitude(s) posited can fulfill the roles ascribed to imagination from various domains of human understanding and activity ( section 3 ).

To believe is to take something to be the case or regard it as true (see the entry on belief ). When one says something like “the liar believes that his pants are on fire”, one attributes to the subject (the liar) an attitude (belief) towards a proposition (his pants are on fire). Likewise, when one says something like “the liar imagines that his pants are on fire”, one attributes to the subject (the liar) an attitude (imagination) towards a proposition (his pants are on fire). The similarities and differences between the belief attribution and the imagination attribution point to similarities and differences between imagining and believing.

Imagining and believing are both cognitive attitudes that are representational. They take on the same kind of content: representations that stand in inferential relationship with one another. On the single code hypothesis , it is the sameness of the representational format that grounds functional similarities between imagining and believing (Nichols & Stich 2000, 2003; Nichols 2004a). As for their differences, there are two main options for distinguishing imagining and believing (Sinhababu 2016).

The first option characterizes their difference in normative terms. While belief aims at truth, imagination does not (Humberstone 1992; Shah & Velleman 2005). If the liar did not regard it as true that his pants are on fire, then it seems that he cannot really believe that his pants are on fire. By contrast, even if the liar did not regard it as true that his pants are on fire, he can still imagine that his pants are on fire. While the norm of truth is constitutive of the attitude of belief, it is not constitutive of the attitude of imagination. In dissent, Neil Sinhababu (2013) argues that the norm of truth is neither sufficient nor necessary for distinguishing imagining and believing.

The second option characterizes their difference in functional terms. One purported functional difference between imagination and belief concerns their characteristic connection to actions. If the liar truly believes that his pants are on fire, he will typically attempt to put out the fire by, say, pouring water on himself. By contrast, if the liar merely imagines that his pants are on fire, he will typically do no such thing. While belief outputs to action-generation system, imagination does not (Nichols & Stich 2000, 2003). David Velleman (2000) and Tyler Doggett and Andy Egan (2007) point to particular pretense behaviors to challenge this way of distinguishing imagining and believing. Velleman argues that a belief-desire explanation of children’s pretense behaviors makes children “depressingly unchildlike”. Doggett and Egan argue that during immersive episodes, pretense behaviors can be directly motivated by imagination. In response to these challenges, philosophers typically accept that imagination can have a guidance or stage-setting role in motivating behaviors, but reject that it directly outputs to action-generation system (Van Leeuwen 2009; O’Brien 2005; Funkhouser & Spaulding 2009; Everson 2007; Kind 2011; Currie & Ravenscroft 2002).

Another purported functional difference between imagination and belief concerns their characteristic connection to emotions. If the liar truly believes that his pants are on fire, then he will be genuinely afraid of the fire; but not if he merely imagines so. While belief evokes genuine emotions toward real entities, imagination does not (Walton 1978, 1990, 1997; see also related discussion of the paradox of fictional emotions in Supplement on Puzzles and Paradoxes of Imagination and the Arts ). This debate is entangled with the controversy concerning the nature of emotions (see the entry on emotion ). In rejecting this purported functional difference, philosophers also typically reject narrow cognitivism about emotions (Nichols 2004a; Meskin & Weinberg 2003; Weinberg & Meskin 2005, 2006; Kind 2011; Spaulding 2015; Carruthers 2003, 2006).

Currently, the consensus is that there exists some important difference between imagining and believing. Yet, there are two distinct departures from this consensus. On the one hand, some philosophers have pointed to novel psychological phenomena in which it is unclear whether imagination or belief is at work—such as delusions (Egan 2008a) and immersed pretense (Schellenberg 2013)—and argued that the best explanation for these phenomena says that imagination and belief exists on a continuum. In responding to the argument from immersed pretense, Shen-yi Liao and Tyler Doggett (2014) argue that a cognitive architecture that collapses distinctive attitudes on the basis of borderline cases is unlikely to be fruitful in explaining psychological phenomena. On the other hand, some philosophers have pointed to familiar psychological phenomena and argued that the best explanation for these phenomena says that imagination is ultimately reducible to belief. Peter Langland-Hassan (2012, 2014) argues that pretense can be explained with only reference to beliefs—specifically, beliefs about counterfactuals. Derek Matravers (2014) argues that engagements with fictions can be explained without references to imaginings.

To desire is to want something to be the case (see the entry on desire ). Standardly, the conative attitude of desire is contrasted with the cognitive attitude of belief in terms of direction of fit: while belief aims to make one’s mental representations match the way the world is, desire aims to make the way the world is match one’s mental representations. Recall that on the single code hypothesis , there exists a cognitive imaginative attitude that is structurally similar to belief. Is there a conative imaginative attitude—call it desire-like imagination (Currie 1997, 2002a, 2002b, 2010; Currie & Ravenscroft 2002), make-desire (Currie 1990; Goldman 2006), or i-desire (Doggett & Egan 2007, 2012)—that is structurally similar to desire?

The debates on the relationship between imagination and desire is, not surprisingly, thoroughly entangled with the debates on the relationship between imagination and belief. One impetus for positing a conative imaginative attitude comes from behavior motivation in imaginative contexts. Tyler Doggett and Andy Egan (2007) argue that cognitive and conative imagination jointly output to action-generation system, in the same way that belief and desire jointly do. Another impetus for positing a conative imaginative attitude comes from emotions in imaginative contexts (see related discussions of the paradox of fictional emotions and the paradoxes of tragedy and horror in Supplement on Puzzles and Paradoxes of Imagination and the Arts ). Gregory Currie and Ian Ravenscroft (2002) and Doggett and Egan (2012) argue the best explanation for people’s emotional responses toward non-existent fictional characters call for positing conative imagination. Currie and Ravenscroft (2002), Currie (2010), and Doggett and Egan (2007) argue that the best explanation for people’s apparently conflicting emotional responses toward tragedy and horror too call for positing conative imagination.

Given the entanglement between the debates, competing explanations of the same phenomena also function as arguments against conative imagination (Nichols 2004a, 2006b; Meskin & Weinberg 2003; Weinberg & Meskin 2005, 2006; Spaulding 2015; Kind 2011; Carruthers 2003, 2006; Funkhouser & Spaulding 2009; Van Leeuwen 2011). In addition, another argument against conative imagination is that its different impetuses call for conflicting functional properties. Amy Kind (2016b) notes a tension between the argument from behavior motivation and the argument from fictional emotions: conative imagination must be connected to action-generation in order for it to explain pretense behaviors, but it must be disconnected from action-generation in order for it to explain fictional emotions. Similarly, Shaun Nichols (2004b) notes a tension between Currie and Ravenscroft’s (2002) argument from paradox of fictional emotions and argument from paradoxes of tragedy and horror.

To have a (merely) mental image is to have a perception-like experience triggered by something other than the appropriate external stimulus; so, for example, one might have “a picture in the mind’s eye or … a tune running through one’s head” (Strawson 1970: 31) in the absence of any corresponding visual or auditory object or event (see the entry on mental imagery ). While it is propositional imagination that gets compared to belief and desire, it is sensory or imagistic imagination that get compared to perception (Currie & Ravenscroft 2002). Although it is possible to form mental images in any of the sensory modalities, the bulk of discussion in both philosophical and psychological contexts has focused on visual imagery.

Broadly, there is agreement on the similarity between mental imagery and perception in phenomenology, which can be explicated as a similarity in content (Nanay 2016b; see, for example, Kind 2001; Nanay 2015; Noordhof 2002). Potential candidates for distinguishing mental imagery and perception include intensity (Hume’s Treatise of Human Nature ; but see Kind 2017), voluntariness (McGinn 2004; Ichikawa 2009), causal relationship with the relevant object (Noordhof 2002); however, no consensus exists on features that clearly distinguish the two, in part because of ongoing debates about perception (see the entries on contents of perception and epistemological problems of perception ).

What is the relationship between imaginings and mental imagery?

Historically, mental imagery is thought to be an essential component of imaginings. Aristotle’s phantasia , which is sometimes translated as imagination, is a faculty that produces images ( De Anima ; see entry on Aristotle’s conception of imagination ; but see Caston 1996). René Descartes ( Meditations on First Philosophy ) and David Hume ( Treatise of Human Nature ) both thought that to imagine just is to hold a mental image, or an impression of perception, in one’s mind. However, George Berkeley’s puzzle of visualizing the unseen ( Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous ) arguably suggests the existence of a non-imagistic hypothetical attitude.

Against the historical orthodoxy, the contemporary tendency is to recognize that there is at least one species of imagination—propositional imagination—that does not require mental imagery. For example, Kendall Walton simply states, “imagining can occur without imagery” (1990: 13). In turn, against this contemporary tendency, Amy Kind (2001) argues that an image-based account can explain three crucial features of imagination—directedness, active nature, and phenomenological character—better than its imageless counterpart. As a partial reconciliation of the two, Peter Langland-Hassan (2015) develops a pluralist position on which there exists a variety of imaginative attitudes, including ones that can take on hybrid contents that are partly propositional and partly sensorily imagistic. (For a nuanced overview of this debate, see Gregory 2016: 103–106.)

Finally, the relationship between mental imagery and perception has potential implications for the connection between imagination and action. The orthodoxy on propositional belief-like imagination holds that imagination does not directly output to action-generation system; rather, the connection between the two is mediated by belief and desire. In contrast, the enactivist program in the philosophy of perception holds that perception can directly output to action-generation system (see, for example, Nanay 2013). Working from the starting point that imagistic imagination is similar to perception in its inclusion of mental imagery, some philosophers have argued for a similar direct connection between imagistic imagination and action-generation system (Langland-Hassan 2015; Nanay 2016a; Van Leeuwen 2011, 2016b). That is, there exist imagery-oriented actions that are analogous to perception-oriented actions. For example, Neil Van Leeuwen (2011) argues that an account of imagination that is imagistically-rich can better explain pretense behaviors than its propositional-imagination-only rivals. Furthermore, Robert Eamon Briscoe (2008, 2018) argues that representations that blend inputs from perception and mental imagery, which he calls “make-perceive”, guide many everyday actions. For example, a sculptor might use a blend of the visual perception of a stone and the mental imagery of different parts of the stone being subtracted to guide their physical manipulation of the stone.

To remember , roughly, is to represent something that is no longer the case. On the standard taxonomy, there are three types of memory. Nondeclarative memory involves mental content that is not consciously accessible, such as one’s memory of how to ride a bike. Semantic declarative memory involves mental content that are propositional and not first-personal, such as one’s memory that Taipei is the capital of Taiwan. Episodic declarative memory involves mental content about one’s own past, such as one’s memory of the birth of one’s child. (See the entry on memory for a detailed discussion of this taxonomy, and especially the criterion of episodicity.) In situating imagination in cognitive architecture, philosophers have typically focused on similarities and differences between imagination and episodic declarative memory.

There are obvious similarities between imagination and memory: both typically involve imagery, both typically concern what is not presently the case, and both frequently involve perspectival representations. Thomas Hobbes ( Leviathan : 2.3) claims that “imagination and memory are but one thing, which for diverse consideration has diverse names”. In making this bold statement, Hobbes represents an extreme version of continuism, a view on which imagination and memory refer to the same psychological mechanisms.

The orthodoxy on imagination and memory in the history of philosophy, however, is discontinuism, a view on which there are significant differences between imagination and memory, even if there are overlaps in their psychological mechanisms. Some philosophers find the distinction in internalist factors, such as the phenomenological difference between imagining and remembering. Most famously, David Hume sought to distinguish the two in terms of vivacity —“the ideas of the memory are much more lively and strong than those of the imagination” ( Treatise of Human Nature : 1.3; but see Kind 2017). Others who have adopted a phenomenological criterion include René Descartes, Bertrand Russell, and William James (De Brigard 2017). Other philosophers find the distinction in externalist factors, such as the causal connection that exists between memories and the past that is absent with imagination. Aristotle uses the causal connection criterion to distinguish between imagination and memory ( De Anima 451a2; 451a8–12; see De Brigard 2017). Indeed, nowadays the idea that a causal connection is essential to remembering is accepted as “philosophical common sense” (see the entry on memory ; but see also De Brigard 2014 on memory traces). As such, it is unsurprising that discontinuism remains the orthodoxy. As J. O. Urmson (1967: 83) boldly claims, “One of these universally admitted distinctions is that between memory and imagination”.

In recent years, two sets of findings from cognitive science has given philosophers reasons to push back against discontinuism.

The first set of findings concern distortions and confabulations. The traditional conception of memory is that it functions as an archive: past experiences are encapsulated and stored in the archive, and remembering is just passively retrieving the encapsulated mental content from the archive (Robins 2016). Behavioral psychology has found numerous effects that challenge the empirical adequacy of the archival conception of memory. Perhaps the most well-known is the misinformation effect, which occurs when a subject incorporates inaccurate information into their memory of an event—even inaccurate information that they received after the event (Loftus 1979 [1996]).

The second set of findings concern the psychological underpinnings of “mental time travel”, or the similarities between remembering the past and imagining the future, which is also known as mental time travel (see Schacter et al. 2012 for a review). Using fMRI, neuroscientists have found a striking overlap in the brain activities for remembering the past and imagining the future, which suggest that the two psychological processes utilize the same neural network (see, for example, Addis et al. 2007; Buckner & Carroll 2007; Gilbert & Wilson 2007; Schacter et al. 2007; Suddendorf & Corballis 1997, 2007). The neuroscientific research is preceded by and corroborated by works from developmental psychology (Atance & O’Neill 2011) and on neurodivergent individuals: for example, the severely amnesic patient KC exhibits deficits with remembering the past and imagining the future (Tulving 1985), and also exhibits deficits with the generation of non-personal fictional narratives (Rosenbaum et al. 2009). Note that, despite the evocative contrast between “remembering the past” and “imagining the future”, it is questionable whether temporality is the central contrast. Indeed, some philosophers and psychologists contend that temporality is orthogonal to the comparison between imagination and memory (De Brigard & Gessell 2016; Schacter et al. 2012).

These two set of findings have given rise to an alternative conception that sees memory as essentially constructive, in which remembering is actively generating mental content that more or less represent the past. The constructive conception of memory is in a better position to explain why memories can contain distortions and confabulations (but see Robins 2016 for complications), and why remembering makes use of the same neural networks as imagining.

In turn, this constructive turn in the psychology and philosophy of memory has revived philosophers’ interest in continuism concerning imagination and memory. Kourken Michaelian (2016) explicitly rejects the causal connection criterion and defends a theory on which remembering, like imagining, centrally involves simulation. Karen Shanton and Alvin Goldman (2010) characterizes remembering as mindreading one’s past self. Felipe De Brigard (2014) characterizes remembering as a special instance of hypothetical thinking. Robert Hopkins (2018) characterizes remembering as a kind of imagining that is controlled by the past. However, the philosophical interpretation of empirical research remain contested; in dissent, Dorothea Debus (2014, 2016) considers the same sets of findings but ultimately concludes that remembering and imagining remain distinct mental kinds.

To suppose is to form a hypothetical mental representation. There exists a highly contentious debate on whether supposition is continuous with imagination, which is also a hypothetical attitude, or whether there are enough differences to make them discontinuous. There are two main options for distinguishing imagination and supposition, by phenomenology and by function.

The phenomenological distinction standardly turns on the notion of vivacity: whereas imaginings are vivid, suppositions are not. Indeed, one often finds in this literature the contrast between “merely supposing” and “vividly imagining”. Although vivacity has been frequently invoked in discussions of imagination, Amy Kind (2017) draws on empirical and theoretical considerations to argue that it is ultimately philosophically untenable. If that is correct, then the attempt to demarcate imagination and supposition by their vivacity is untenable too. More rarely, other phenomenological differences are invoked; for example, Brian Weatherson (2004) contends that “supposing can be coarse in a way that imagining cannot”.

Table 1. Architectural similarities and differences between imagination and supposition (Weinberg & Meskin 2006).

There have been diverse functional distinctions attributed to the discontinuity between imagination and supposition, but none has gained universal acceptance. Richard Moran (1994) contends that imagination tends to give rise to a wide range of further mental states, including affective responses, whereas supposition does not (see also Arcangeli 2014, 2017). Tamar Szabó Gendler (2000a) contends that while attempting to imagine something like that female infanticide is morally right seems to generate imaginative resistance, supposing it does not (see the discussion on imaginative resistance in Supplement on Puzzles and Paradoxes of Imagination and the Arts ). Gregory Currie and Ian Ravenscroft (2002) contend that supposition involves only cognitive imagination, but imagination involves both cognitive and conative imagination. Alvin Goldman contends that suppositional imagination involves supposing that particular content obtains (for example, supposing that I am elated) but enactment imagination involves “enacting, or trying to enact, elation itself.” (2006: 47–48, italics omitted). Tyler Doggett and Andy Egan (2007) contend that imagination tends to motivate pretense actions, but supposition tends not to. On Jonathan Weinberg and Aaron Meskin (2006)’s synthesis, while there are a few functional similarities, there are many more functional differences between imagination and supposition (Table 1).

There remain ongoing debates about specific alleged functional distinctions, and about whether the functional distinctions are numerous or fundamental enough to warrant discontinuism or not. Indeed, it remains contentious which philosophers count as continuists and which philosophers count as discontinuists (for a few sample taxonomies, see Arcangeli 2017; Balcerak Jackson 2016; Kind 2013).

3. Roles of Imagination

Much of the contemporary discussion of imagination has centered around particular roles that imagination is purported to play in various domains of human understanding and activity. Amongst the most widely-discussed are the role of imagination in understanding other minds ( section 3.1 ), in performing and recognizing pretense ( section 3.2 ), in characterizing psychopathology ( section 3.3 ), in engaging with the arts ( section 3.4 ), in thinking creatively ( section 3.5 ), in acquiring knowledge about possibilities ( section 3.6 ), and in interpreting figurative language ( section 3.7 ).

The variety of roles ascribed to imagination, in turn, provides a guide for discussions on the nature of imagination ( section 1 ) and its place in cognitive architecture ( section 2 ).

Mindreading is the activity of attributing mental states to oneself and to others, and of predicting and explaining behavior on the basis of those attributions. Discussions of mindreading in the 1990s were often framed as debates between “theory theory”—which holds that the attribution of mental states to others is guided by the application of some (tacit) folk psychological theory—and “simulation theory”—which holds that the attribution of mental states is guided by a process of replicating or emulating the target’s (apparent) mental states, perhaps through mechanisms involving the imagination. (Influential collections of papers on this debate include Carruthers & Smith (eds.) 1996; Davies & Stone (eds.) 1995a, 1995b.) In recent years, proponents of both sides have increasingly converged on common ground, allowing that both theory and simulation play some role in the attribution of mental states to others (see Carruthers 2003; Goldman 2006; Nichols & Stich 2003). Many such hybrid accounts include a role for imagination.

On theory theory views, mindreading involves the application of some (tacit) folk psychological theory that allows the subject to make predictions and offer explanations of the target’s beliefs and behaviors. On pure versions of such accounts, imagination plays no special role in the attribution of mental states to others. (For an overview of theory theory, see entry on folk psychology as a theory ).

On simulation theory views, mindreading involves simulating the target’s mental states so as to exploit similarities between the subject’s and target’s processing capacities. It is this simulation that allows the subject to make predictions and offer explanations of the target’s beliefs and behaviors. (For early papers, see Goldman 1989; Gordon 1986; Heal 1986; for recent dissent, see, for example, Carruthers 2009; Gallagher 2007; Saxe 2005, 2009; for an overview of simulation theory, see entry on folk psychology as mental simulation ).

Traditional versions of simulation theory typically describe simulation using expressions such as “imaginatively putting oneself in the other’s place”. How this metaphor is understood depends on the specific account. (A collection of papers exploring various versions of simulation theory can be found in Dokic & Proust (eds.) 2002.) On many accounts, the projection is assumed to involve the subject’s imaginatively running mental processes “off-line” that are directly analogous to those being run “on-line” by the target (for example Goldman 1989). Whereas the “on-line” mental processes are genuine, the “off-line” mental processes are merely imagined. For example, a target that is deciding whether to eat sushi for lunch is running their decision-making processes “on-line”; and a subject that is simulating the target’s decision-making is running the analogous processes “off-line”—in part, by imagining the relevant mental states of the target. Recent empirical work in psychology has explored the accuracy of such projections (Markman, Klein, & Suhr (eds.) 2009, section V; Saxe 2005, 2006, 2009.)

Though classic simulationist accounts have tended to assume that the simulation process is at least in-principle accessible to consciousness, a number of recent simulation-style accounts appeal to neuroscientific evidence suggesting that at least some simulative processes take place completely unconsciously. On such accounts of mindreading, no special role is played by conscious imagination (see Goldman 2009; Saxe 2009.)

Many contemporary views of mindreading are hybrid theory views according to which both theorizing and simulation play a role in the understanding of others’ mental states. Alvin Goldman (2006), for example, argues that while mindreading is primarily the product of simulation, theorizing plays a role in certain cases as well. Many recent discussions have endorsed hybrid views of this sort, with more or less weight given to each of the components in particular cases (see Carruthers 2003; Nichols & Stich 2003.)

A number of philosophers have suggested that the mechanisms underlying subjects’ capacity to engage in mindreading are those that enable engagement in pretense behavior (Currie & Ravenscroft 2002; Goldman 2006; Nichols & Stich 2003; for an overview of recent discussions, see Carruthers 2009.) According to such accounts, engaging in pretense involves imaginatively taking up perspectives other than one’s own, and the ability to do so skillfully may rely on—and contribute to—one’s ability to understand those alternate perspectives (see the entry on empathy ). Partly in light of these considerations, the relative lack of spontaneous pretense in children with autistic spectrum disorders is taken as evidence for a link between the skills of pretense and empathy.

Pretending is an activity that occurs during diverse circumstances, such as when children make-believe, when criminals deceive, and when thespians act (Langland-Hassan 2014). Although “imagination” and “pretense” have been used interchangeably (Ryle 1949), in this section we will use “imagination” to refer to one’s state of mind, and “pretense” to refer to the one’s actions in the world.

Different theories of pretense disagree fundamentally about what it is to pretend (see Liao & Gendler 2011 for an overview). Consequently, they also disagree about the mental states that enable one to pretend. Metarepresentational theories hold that engaging in pretend play requires the innate mental-state concept pretend (Baron-Cohen, Leslie, & Frith 1985; Friedman 2013; Friedman & Leslie 2007; Leslie 1987, 1994). To pretend is to represent one’s own representations under the concept pretend. Behaviorist theories hold that engaging in pretend play requires a process of behaving-as-if (Harris 1994, 2000; Harris & Kavanaugh 1993; Jarrold et al. 1994; Lillard & Flavell 1992; Nichols & Stich 2003; Perner 1991; Rakoczy, Tomasello, & Striano 2004; Stich & Tarzia 2015). Different behaviorist theories explicate behaving-as-if in different ways, but all aim to provide an account of pretense without recourse to the innate mental-state concept pretend.

Philosophical and psychological theories have sought to explain both the performance of pretense and the recognition of pretense, especially concerning evidence from developmental psychology (see Lillard 2001 for an early overview). On the performance side, children on a standard developmental trajectory exhibit early indicators of pretend play around 15 months; engage in explicit prop-oriented play by 24 months; and engage in sophisticated joint pretend play with props by 36 months (Harris 2000; Perner, Baker, & Hutton 1994; Piaget 1945 [1951]). On the recognition side, children on a standard developmental trajectory distinguish pretense and reality via instinctual behavioral cues around 15–18 months; and start to do so via conventional behavioral cues from 36 months on (Friedman et al. 2010; Lillard & Witherington 2004; Onishi & Baillargeon 2005; Onishi, Baillargeon, & Leslie 2007; Richert and Lillard 2004).

Not surprisingly, the debate between theories of pretense often rest on interpretations of such empirical evidence. For example, Ori Friedman and Alan Leslie (2007) argue that behavioral theories cannot account for the fact that children as young as 15 months old can recognize pretend play and its normativity (Baillargeon, Scott, & He 2010). Specifically, they argue that behavioral theories do not offer straightforward explanations of this early development of pretense recognition, and incorrectly predicts that children systematically mistake other acts of behaving-as-if—such as those that stem from false beliefs—for pretense activities. In response, Stephen Stich and Joshua Tarzia (2015) has acknowledged these problems for earlier behaviorist theories, and developed a new behaviorist theory that purportedly explains the totality of empirical evidence better than metarepresentational rivals. Importantly, Stich and Tarzia argue that their account can better explain Angeline Lillard (1993)’s empirical finding that young children need not attribute a mental concept such as pretend to someone else in order to understand them as pretending.

The debate concerning theories of pretense has implications for the role of imagination in pretense. Behaviorist theories tend to take imagination as essential to explaining pretense performance; metarepresentational theories do not. (However, arguably the innate mental-state concept pretend posited by metarepresentational theories serve similar functions. See Nichols and Stich’s (2000) discussion of the decoupler mechanism, which explicitly draws from Leslie 1987. Currie and Ravenscroft (2002) give a broadly behaviorist theory of pretense that does not require imagination.) Specifically, on most behaviorist theories, imagination is essential for guiding elaborations of pretense episodes, especially via behaviors (Picciuto & Carruthers 2016; Stich & Tarzia 2015).

Most recently, Peter Langland-Hassan (2012, 2014) has developed a theory that aims to explain pretense behavior and pretense recognition without appeal to either metarepresentation or imagination. Langland-Hassan argues that pretense behaviors can be adequately explained by beliefs, desires, and intentions—including beliefs in counterfactuals; and that the difference between pretense and sincerity more generally can be adequately characterized in terms of a person’s beliefs, intentions, and desires. While Langland-Hassan does not deny that pretense is in some sense an imaginative activity, he argues that we do not need to posit a sui generis component of the mind to account for it.

Autism and delusions have been—with much controversy—characterized as disorders of imagination. That is, the atypical patterns of cognition and behavior associated with each psychopathology have been argued to result from atypical functions of imagination.

Autism can be characterized in terms of a trio of atypicalities often referred to as “Wing’s triad”: problems in typical social competence, communication, and imagination (Happé 1994; Wing & Gould 1979). The imaginative aspect of autism interacts with other prominent roles of imagination, namely mindreading, pretense, and engagement with the arts (Carruthers 2009). Children with autism do not engage in spontaneous pretend play in the ways that typically-developing children do, engaging instead in repetitive and sometimes obsessional activities; and adults with autism often show little interest in fiction (Carpenter, Tomasello, & Striano 2005; Happé 1994; Rogers, Cook, & Meryl 2005; Wing & Gould 1979). The degree to which an imaginative deficit is implicated in autism remains a matter of considerable debate. Most radically, Gregory Currie and Ian Ravenscroft (2002) have argued that, with respect to Wing’s triad, problems in typical social competence and communication are rooted in an inability to engage in imaginative activities.

Delusions can be characterized as belief-like mental representations that manifest an unusual degree of disconnectedness from reality (Bortolotti & Miyazono 2015). Particularly striking examples would include Capgras and Cotard delusions. In the former, the sufferer takes her friends and family to have been replaced by imposters; in the latter, the sufferer takes himself to be dead. More mundane examples might include ordinary cases of self-deception.

One approach to delusions characterize them as beliefs that are dysfunctional in their content or formation. (For a representative collection of papers that present and criticize this perspective, see Coltheart & Davies (eds.) 2000). However, another approach to delusions characterize them as dysfunctions of imaginings. Currie and Ravenscroft (2002: 170–175) argue that delusions are imaginings that are misidentified by the subject as the result of an inability to keep track of the sources of one’s thoughts. That is, a delusion is an imagined representation that is misidentified by the subject as a belief. Tamar Szabó Gendler (2007) argues that in cases of delusions and self-deceptions, imaginings come to play a role in one’s cognitive architecture similar to that typically played by beliefs. Andy Egan (2008a) likewise argues that the mental states involved in delusions are both belief-like (in their connection to behaviors and inferences) and imagination-like (in their circumscription); however, he argues that these functional similarities suggest the need to posit an in-between attitude called “bimagination”.

3.4 Engagement with the Arts

There is an entrenched historical connection between imagination and the arts. David Hume and Immanuel Kant both invoke imagination centrally in their exploration of aesthetic phenomena (albeit in radically different ways; see entries on Hume’s aesthetics and Kant’s aesthetics ). R.G. Collingwood (1938) defines art as the imaginative expression of feeling (Wiltsher 2018; see entry on Collingwood’s aesthetics ). Roger Scruton (1974) develops a Wittgensteinian account of imagination and accords it a central role in aesthetic experience and aesthetic judgment.

In contemporary philosophy, the most prominent theory of imagination’s role in engagement with the arts is presented in Kendall Walton’s Mimesis as Make-Believe (1990). (Although Walton uses “fictions” as a technical term to refer to artworks, his conception of the arts is broad enough to include both high-brow and low-brow; popular and obscure; a variety of specific arts such as poetry and videogames; and—as Stacie Friend (2008) clarifies—both fictive and non-fictive works.) Walton’s core insight is that engagement with the arts is fundamentally similar to children’s games of make-believe. When one engages with an artwork, one uses it as a prop in a make-believe game. As props, artworks generate prescriptions for imaginings. These prescriptions also determine the representational contents of artworks (that is, “fictionality”, or what is true in a fictional world). When one correctly engages with an artwork, then, one imagines the representational contents as prescribed.

Out of all the arts, it is the engagement with narratives that philosophers have explored most closely in conjunction with imagination (see Stock 2013 for an overview). Gregory Currie (1990) offers an influential account of imagination and fiction, and Peter Lamarque and Stein Haugom Olsen (1996) discuss literature specifically. Indeed, this research program—despite many criticisms of Walton’s specific theory—remains lively today (see, for example, papers in Nichols (ed.) 2006b). For example, Kathleen Stock (2017) argues that a specific kind of propositional imagination is essential for engagement with fictions. In dissent, Derek Matravers (2014) argues that, contra Walton, imagination is not essential for engagement with fictions.

Philosophers have also done much to articulate the connection between imagination and engagement with music (see the entry on philosophy of music ; see also Trivedi 2011). Some philosophers focus on commonalities between engagement with narratives and engagement with music. For example, even though Walton (1990, 1994a, 1999) acknowledges that fictional worlds of music are much more indeterminate than fictional worlds of narratives, he maintains that the same kind of imagining used in experiencing narratives is also used in experiencing various elements of music, such as imagining continuity between movements and imagining feeling musical tension. Similarly, Andrew Kania (2015) argues that experiencing musical space and movement is imaginative like our experience of fictional narratives. Other philosophers draw parallels between engagement with music and other imaginative activities, namely as understanding other minds ( section 3.1 ) and interpreting metaphor ( section 3.7 ). As an example of the former, Jerrold Levinson (1996) argues that the best explanation of musical expressiveness requires listeners to experience music imaginatively—specifically, imagining a persona expressing emotions through the music. As an example of the latter, Scruton (1997) argues that musical experience is informed by spatial concepts applied metaphorically, and so imaginative perception is necessary for musical understanding (but see Budd 2003 for a criticism; see also De Clercq 2007 and Kania 2015). Stephen Davies (2005, 2011) and Peter Kivy (2002) notably criticize the imaginative accounts of engagement with music on empirical and theoretical grounds.

Other imaginative accounts of engagement with the arts can be found in entries on philosophy of film and philosophy of dance . Indeed, imagination’s aesthetic significance extends beyond the arts; philosophical aestheticians have recognized the role of imagination in appreciating nature (Brady 1998) and in appreciating mundane objects, events, and activities (see the entry on aesthetics of the everyday ).

Philosophers have sought to clarify the role of imagination in engagement with the arts by focusing on a number of puzzles and paradoxes in the vicinity. The puzzle of imaginative resistance explores apparent limitations on what can be imagined during engagements with the arts and, relatedly, what can be made fictional in artworks. The paradox of emotional response to fictions (widely known as “paradox of fiction”) examines psychological and normative similarities between affective responses prompted by imaginings versus affective responses by reality-directed attitudes. The paradox of tragedy and the paradox of horror examine psychological and normative differences between affective responses prompted by imaginings versus affective responses by reality-directed attitudes. Finally, the puzzle of moral persuasion is concerned with real-world outputs of imaginative engagements with artworks; specifically, whether and how artworks can morally educate or corrupt. For more detail on each of these artistic phenomena, see the Supplement on Puzzles and Paradoxes of Imagination and the Arts .

The idea that imagination plays a central role in creative processes can be traced back to Immanuel Kant ( Critique of Pure Reason ), who takes artistic geniuses as paradigmatic examples of creativity. On Kant’s account, when imagination aims at the aesthetic, it is allowed to engage in free play beyond the understanding available to oneself. The unconstrained imagination can thereby take raw materials and produce outputs that transcend concepts that one possesses.

While the precise characterization of creativity remains controversial (see Gaut & Kieran (eds.) 2018; Paul & Kaufman (eds.) 2014), contemporary philosophers typically conceive of it more broadly than Kant did. In addition to creative processes in the aesthetic realm, they also consider creative processes in, for example, “science, craft, business, technology, organizational life and everyday activities” (Gaut 2010: 1034; see also Stokes 2011). As an example, Michael Polanyi (1966) gives imagination a central role in the creative endeavor of scientific discovery, by refining and narrowing the solution space to open-ended scientific problems (see Stokes 2016: 252–256). And, in addition to creative processes of geniuses, contemporary philosophers also consider creative processes of ordinary people.

With this broadened scope, contemporary philosophers have followed Kant’s lead in exploring the role of imagination in creativity (see Stokes 2016 for an overview). Berys Gaut (2003) and Dustin Stokes (2014) argue that two characteristic features of imagination—its lack of aim at truth and its dissociation from action—make it especially suitable for creative processes. Peter Carruthers (2002) argues that the same cognitive resources, including imagination, underlie children’s pretend play and adults’ creative thinking. Specifically, Carruthers hypothesizes that children’s play evolutionarily developed as precursors to and practices for adults’ creative thinking.

There are two points of disagreement regarding the role of imagination in creative processes. First, philosophers disagree about the nature and the strength of the connection between imagination and creativity. Kant takes imagination to be constitutive of creativity: what makes a creative process creative is the involvement of imagination aiming at the aesthetic (see also A. Hills & Bird forthcoming). Gaut and Stokes, by contrast, thinks there is only an imperfect causal connection between imagination and creativity: while imagination is useful for creative processes, there are creative processes that do not involve imagination and there are imaginings that are uncreative (see also Beaney 2005). Second, philosophers disagree about the type of imagination involved in creative processes. By hypothesizing a common evolutionary cause, Carruthers suggests that the same imaginative capacity is involved in pretense and in creativity. By contrast, perhaps echoing Kant’s distinction of productive versus reproductive imagination, Currie and Ravenscroft (2002) sharply distinguish recreative imagination, which is involved in pretense and mindreading, from creative imagination.

Imagination plays a role in the acquisition of knowledge. Many philosophical arguments call on imagination when they appeal to metaphysical modal knowledge (see the entry on epistemology of modality ; the papers collected in Gendler & Hawthorne (eds.) 2002; and Kung 2016 and Strohminger & Yli-Vakkuri 2017 for overviews). The kind of thought experiments that are regularly used in scientific theorizing is also plausibly premised on imaginative capacities (see the entry on thought experiments ). As already discussed, people use imagination to understand the perspectives of others ( section 3.1 ). Moreover, people often make decisions via thinking about counterfactuals, or what would happen if things had been different from how they in fact are (see the entries on causation and counterfactual conditionals ). However, the phenomenon of transformative experience has recently called into question which kind of imaginary scenarios are truly epistemically accessible. (For a representative collection of papers that explore different epistemic roles of imagination, see Kind & Kung (eds.) 2016a.)

Broadly speaking, thought experiments use imaginary scenarios to elicit responses that (ideally) grant people knowledge of possibilities. A special, but prominent, type of thought experiment in philosophy concerns the link between imagination, conceivability, and metaphysical possibility. René Descartes famously offered a modal argument in the Sixth Meditation , reasoning from the fact that he could clearly and distinctly conceive of his mind and body as distinct to the real distinctness between them. The current prevalence of similar modal arguments can be verified by entries on zombies and dualism . These modal arguments all rely, in some way, on the idea that what one can imagine functions as a fallible and defeasible guide to what is really possible in the broadest sense.

Pessimists, notably Peter Van Inwagen (1998: 70), doubt that imagination can give us an accurate understanding of scenarios that are “remote from the practical business of everyday life”, such as those called upon in philosophical modal arguments. Optimists typically take it as a given that there is some connection between imagination and metaphysical modal knowledge, but focus on understanding where the connection is imperfect, such as when one (apparently) imagines the impossible. To just give a few examples, Saul Kripke (1972 [1980]), Stephen Yablo (1993), David Chalmers (2002), Dominic Gregory (2004), Timothy Williamson (2007, 2016), Peter Kung (2010), and Magdalena Balcerak Jackson (2018) have each developed a distinctive approach to this task. For example, Kripke adopts a redescription approach to modeling (some) modal errors: in some cases where one is apparently imagining the impossible, one is in fact imagining a possible scenario but misconstruing it as an impossible one. On this diagnosis, in such cases, the error resides not with imaginative capacities, but with the capacity to describe one’s own imaginings.

Other thought experiments are scoped more narrowly; for example, scientific thought experiments are intended to allow people to explore nomic possibilities. Galileo ( On Motion ) famously offered a thought experiment that disproved Aristotle’s theory of motion, which predicts that heavier objects fall more quickly. In this thought experiment, Galileo asked people to imagine the falling of a composite of a light and heavy object versus the falling of the heavy object alone. When one runs the thought experiment—that is, when one elaborates on the starting point of this imaginary scenario—one notices an incoherence in Aristotle’s theory: on the one hand, it should predict that the composite would fall more slowly because the light object would slow down the heavy object; on the other hand, it should also predict that the composite would fall more quickly because the composite is heavier than the heavy object alone. While it is incontrovertible that imagination is central to thought experiments, debates remain on whether imagination can be invoked in the context of justification (Gendler 2000b; Williamson 2016) or only in the context of discovery (Norton 1991, 1996; Spaulding 2016).

The role of imagination in counterfactual reasoning—and, in particular, the question of what tends to be held constant when one contemplates counterfactual scenarios—has been explored in detail in recent philosophical and psychological works (Byrne 2005; Williamson 2005, 2007, 2016). Williamson suggests that

When we work out what would have happened if such-and-such had been the case, we frequently cannot do it without imagining such-and-such to be the case and letting things run. (2005: 19)

It is imagination that lets one move from counterfactuals’ antecedents to their consequents. Williamson (2016) argues that our imaginings have evolved to be suitably constrained, such that such counterfactual reasoning can confer knowledge. Indeed, he argues that if one were to be skeptical about gaining knowledge from such a hypothetical reasoning process, then one would be forced to be (implausibly) skeptical about much of ordinary reasoning about actuality. Developing an idea anticipated by Williamson (2007), Margot Strohminger and Juhani Yli-Vakkuri (forthcoming) argue that the same imaginative mechanisms that capable of producing metaphysical modal knowledge are also capable of producing knowledge of other restricted modalities, such as nomic and practical modality. In parallel, Amy Kind (2016c, 2018) argues that imaginings can confer knowledge when they are guided by reality-sensitive constraints, in a manner akin to computer simulations.

Thinking about counterfactuals is just one way that imagination can factor into mundane decision-making. Neil Van Leeuwen (2011, 2016a, 2016b) and Bence Nanay (2016a) have recently started to elaborate on the connection between imagination and actions via decision-making. Although neither authors focus on the epistemic status of imagination, their accounts of decision-making seem to suggest that imagination is used to gain practical knowledge about the probability and value of actions’ possible outcomes.

At the same time, the recently prominent discussion of transformative experiences calls into question the extent to which imagination can be epistemically useful for making life-altering decisions. L.A. Paul (2014, 2015, 2018; see also Jackson 1982, 1986; D. Lewis 1988) argues that some types of knowledge—especially de se knowledge concerning one’s values—are inaccessible by imaginings; only actual experiences can confer these types of knowledge. For example, one cannot really know whether one wants to become a parent without experiencing being a parent because parenthood itself can transform one’s values. If one cannot reasonably imagine oneself with radically different values, then plausibly one cannot appropriately imagine the values associated with the outcomes of one’s actions. As such, despite their epistemic worth in ordinary contexts, imaginings might not help in making life-altering decisions.

Finally, imagination might play a role in interpreting figurative language. The exact role ascribed to imagination varies greatly from theory to theory. In part, this variation arose from a longstanding debate in philosophy of language concerning the divide between literal and figurative language: while some imaginative theories of figurative language (such as Walton 1990) accept a strong divide, others (such as Lepore & Stone 2015) reject it. Although this controversy cannot be avoided entirely, it is worth reiterating that the present aim is only to highlight the possible role(s) that imagination might play in the psychology of irony, metaphor, and nearby linguistic phenomena.

Despite immense differences between them, numerous theories of irony have converged on the idea that interpreting irony involves imagination. Kendall Walton (1990) treats ironic and metaphoric speech as props in momentary games of make-believe. On Walton’s theory, imagination is central to understanding and interpreting such figurative speech. Herbert Clark and Richard Gerrig (1984) and Gregory Currie (2006) connect irony to pretense, but without further linking all cases of pretense to imaginative capacities. Elisabeth Camp (2012) similarly endorses a role for pretense in the interpretation of irony and the related case of sarcasm. Finally, this idea that interpreting irony involves imagination is corroborated by psychological research: irony recognition is difficult for neurodivergent individuals who lack imaginative capacities (Happé 1991)—specifically, in individuals with Asperger’s syndrome, who have deficits with meta-representation—and in individuals with schizophrenia, who have deficits with theory-of-mind (Langdon et al. 2002).

Again, despite immense differences between them, numerous theories of metaphor have also converged on the idea that interpreting metaphor involves imagination (see the entry on metaphor ). The first family of theories focus on imagination’s role in pretense. As mentioned earlier, Walton (1990) takes metaphors to be props in momentary games of make-believe. Walton (1993, 2000) and David Hills (1997) further develop this idea. (Importantly, Walton (1993) notes that interpretation of a metaphor may not involve actual imaginings, but only the recognition of the type of imaginings prescribed.) Andy Egan (2008b) extends the idea to account for idioms. These theories remain controversial: in particular, Camp (2009) and Catherine Wearing (2011) have offered forceful criticisms. The second family of theories focus on imagination’s role in providing novel perspectives. While Camp (2009) criticizes the first family of theories, she also acknowledges a role for imagination. On her account, pretense and metaphor typically involve distinct types of imaginings: pretense-imaginings allow one to access counterfactual content, but metaphor-imaginings allow one to re-interpret actual content from a novel perspective. Indeed Camp (2007) argues that the kind of imagination involved in interpreting metaphors is also used to interpret similes and juxtapositions. The third family of theories focus on imagination’s role in providing mental images. Paul Ricoeur (1978), Richard Moran (1989), and Robyn Carston (2010) all propose theories on which mental imagery plays an important role in processing metaphors. Outside of philosophy of language, James Grant (2011) argues that metaphors are prevalent in art criticism because they prompt readers’ imaginings.

• Addis, Donna Rose, Alana T. Wong, and Daniel L. Schacter, 2007, “Remembering the Past and Imagining the Future: Common and Distinct Neural Substrates During Event Construction and Elaboration”, Neuropsychologia 45(7): 1363–1377. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.10.016
• Arcangeli, Margherita, 2014, “Against Cognitivism about Supposition”, Philosophia , 42(3): 607–624. doi:10.1007/s11406-014-9535-9
• –––, 2017, “Interacting with Emotions: Imagination and Supposition”, The Philosophical Quarterly , 67(269): 730–750. doi:10.1093/pq/pqx007
• De Anima (One the Soul), volume 1: 641–692.
• Poetics , volume 2: 2316–2340.
• Atance, Cristina M. and Daniela K. O’Neill, 2001, “Episodic Future Thinking”, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5(12): 533–539. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01804-0
• Baillargeon, Renée, Rose M. Scott, and Zijing He, 2010, “False-Belief Understanding in Infants”, Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 14(3): 110–118. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.12.006
• Balcerak Jackson, Magdalena, 2016, “On the Epistemic Value of Imagining, Supposing, and Conceiving”, in Kind and Kung (eds.) 2016a: 41–60. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198716808.003.0002
• –––, 2018, “Justification by Imagination”, in Macpherson and Dorsch (eds.) 2018: 209–226. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198717881.003.0010
• Baron-Cohen, Simon, Alan M. Leslie, and Uta Frith, 1985, “Does the Autistic Child Have a ‘Theory of Mind’?”, Cognition , 21(1): 37–46. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(85)90022-8
• Beaney, Michael, 2005, Imagination and Creativity , Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
• Berkeley, George, 1713, Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous , in The Works of George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne, Vol. 1–9 , A. A. Luce and T. E. Jessop (eds.), London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1948–1957.
• Black, Jessica E., Stephanie C. Capps, and Jennifer L. Barnes, 2018, “Fiction, Genre Exposure, and Moral Reality”, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts , 12(3): 328–340. doi:10.1037/aca0000116
• Bortolotti, Lisa and Kengo Miyazono, 2015, “Recent Work on the Nature and Development of Delusions”, Philosophy Compass , 10(9): 636–645. doi:10.1111/phc3.12249
• Brady, Emily, 1998, “Imagination and the Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature”, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism , 56(2): 139–147. doi:10.2307/432252
• Brann, Eva T.H., 1991, The World of the Imagination , Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Briscoe, Robert Eamon, 2008, “Vision, Action, and Make-Perceive”, Mind and Language , 23(4): 457–497. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.2008.00351.x
• –––, 2018, “Superimposed Mental Imagery: On the Uses of Make-Perceive”, in Macpherson and Dorsch (eds.) 2018: 161–185. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198717881.003.0008
• Brock, Stuart, 2012, “The Puzzle of Imaginative Failure”, The Philosophical Quarterly , 62(248): 443–463. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9213.2012.00058.x
• Buckner, Randy L. and Daniel C. Carroll, 2007, “Self-Projection and the Brain”, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11(2): 49–57. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.004
• Budd, Malcolm, 2003, “Musical Movement and Aesthetic Metaphors”, British Journal of Aesthetics , 43(3): 209–223. doi:10.1093/bjaesthetics/43.3.209
• Byrne, Ruth M.J., 2005, The Rational Imagination: How People Create Alternatives to Reality , Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Camp, Elisabeth, 2007, “Showing, Telling, and Seeing: Metaphor and ‘Poetic’ Language”, The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic, and Communication , 3: 1–24. doi:10.4148/biyclc.v3i0.20
• –––, 2009, “Two Varieties of Literary Imagination: Metaphor, Fiction, and Thought Experiments”, Midwest Studies in Philosophy , 33(1): 107–130. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4975.2009.00186.x
• –––, 2012, “Sarcasm, Pretense, and The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction”, Noûs , 46(4): 587–634. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0068.2010.00822.x
• Carpenter, Malinda, Michael Tomasello, and Tricia Striano, 2005, “Role Reversal Imitation and Language in Typically-Developing Infants and Children with Autism”, Infancy , 8(3): 253–278. doi:10.1207/s15327078in0803_4
• Carroll, Noël, 1990, The Philosophy of Horror, or, Paradoxes of the Heart , New York: Routledge.
• –––, 2000, “Art and Ethical Criticism: An Overview of Recent Directions of Research”, Ethics , 110(2): 350–387. doi:10.1086/233273
• –––, 2002, “The Wheel of Virtue: Art, Narrative and Moral Knowledge”, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism , 60(1): 3–26. doi:10.1111/1540-6245.00048
• Carroll, Noël and John Gibson (eds.), 2016, The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Literature , New York: Routledge.
• Carruthers, Peter, 2002, “Human Creativity: Its Cognitive Basis, Its Evolution, and Its Connections with Childhood Pretence”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 53(2): 225–249. doi:10.1093/bjps/53.2.225
• –––, 2003, “Review of Recreative Minds , by Gregory Currie and Ian Ravenscroft”, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews , 2003.11.12. [ Carruthers 2003 available online ]
• –––, 2006, “Why Pretend?”, in Nichols 2006b: 89–109. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199275731.003.0006
• –––, 2009, “How We Know our Own Minds: The Relationship between Mindreading and Metacognition”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 32(2): 121–138. doi:10.1017/S0140525X09000545
• Carruthers, Peter and Peter K. Smith (eds.), 1996, Theories of Theories of Mind , New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511597985
• Carston, Robyn, 2010, “Metaphor: Ad Hoc Concepts, Literal Meaning and Mental Images”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , 110(3pt3): 295–321. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9264.2010.00288.x
• Casey, Edward S., 2000, Imagining: A Phenomenological Study , second edition, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• Caston, Victor, 1996, “Why Aristotle Needs Imagination”, Phronesis , 41(1): 20–55. doi:10.1163/156852896321051774
• Chalmers, David J., 2002, “Does Conceivability Entail Possibility?”, in Gendler and Hawthorne (eds.) 2002: 145–200.
• Clark, Herbert H. and Richard J. Gerrig, 1984, “On the Pretense Theory of Irony”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General , 113(1): 121–126. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.113.1.121
• Clavel-Vazquez, Adriana, 2018, “Sugar and Spice, and Everything Nice: What Rough Heroines Tell Us about Imaginative Resistance”, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism , 76(2): 201–212. doi:10.1111/jaac.12440
• Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, 1817, Biographia Literaria , John Shawcross (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1907.
• Collingwood, R.G., 1938, The Principles of Art , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Coltheart, Max and Martin Davies (eds.), 2000, Pathologies of Belief , Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• Currie, Gregory, 1990, The Nature of Fiction , New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511897498
• –––, 1995, “The Moral Psychology of Fiction”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 73(2): 250–259. doi:10.1080/00048409512346581
• –––, 1997, “The Paradox of Caring: Fiction and the Philosophy of Mind”, in Hjort and Laver (eds.) 1997: 63–77.
• –––, 2002a, “Desire in Imagination”, in Gendler and Hawthorne (eds.) 2002: 201–221.
• –––, 2002b, “Imagination as Motivation”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , 102(1): 201–216. doi:10.1111/j.0066-7372.2003.00050.x
• –––, 2006, “Why Irony is Pretence”, in Nichols (ed.) 2006b: 111–133. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199275731.003.0007
• –––, 2010, “Tragedy”, Analysis , 70(4): 632–638. doi:10.1093/analys/anq076
• Currie, Gregory and Ian Ravenscroft, 2002, Recreative Minds: Imagination in Philosophy and Psychology , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198238089.001.0001
• D’Arms, Justin and Daniel Jacobson, 2000, “The Moralistic Fallacy: On the ‘Appropriateness’ of Emotions”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 61(1): 65–90. doi:10.2307/2653403
• Davies, Martin and Tony Stone (eds.), 1995a, Folk Psychology: The Theory of Mind Debate , Cambridge: Blackwell.
• ––– (eds.), 1995b, Mental Simulation , Cambridge: Blackwell.
• Davies, Stephen, 2005, “Artistic Expression and the Hard Case of Pure Music”, in Kieran 2005: 179–191.
• –––, 2011, “Music and Metaphor”, in Musical Understandings and Other Essays on the Philosophy of Music , New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 21–33. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199608775.003.0003
• De Brigard, Felipe, 2014, “The Nature of Memory Traces”, Philosophy Compass , 9(6): 402–414. doi:10.1111/phc3.12133
• –––, 2017, “Memory and Imagination”, in Sven Bernecker and Kourken Michaelian (eds.) 2017, The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Memory , New York: Routledge, pp. 127–140.
• De Brigard, Felipe and Bryce S. Gessell, 2016, “Time is Not of the Essence”, in Kourken Michaelian, Stanley B. Klein, and Karl K. Szpunar (eds.), 2016, Seeing the Future: Theoretical Perspectives on Future-Oriented Mental Time Travel , New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 153–179. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190241537.003.0008
• De Clercq, Rafael, 2007, “Melody and Metaphorical Movement”, British Journal of Aesthetics , 47(2): 156–168. doi:10.1093/aesthj/ayl053
• Debus, Dorothea, 2014, “Mental Time Travel: Remembering the Past, Imagining the Future, and the Particularity of Events”, Review of Philosophy and Psychology , 5(3): 333–350. doi:10.1007/s13164-014-0182-7
• –––, 2016, “Imagination and Memory”, in Kind (ed.) 2016a: 135–148.
• Descartes, René, 1642, Meditations on First Philosophy , in volume 2 of John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, Dugald Murdoch, and A. Kenny (trans.), The Philosophical Writings of Descartes , Vol. 1–3, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984–1991.
• Doggett, Tyler and Andy Egan, 2007, “Wanting Things You Don’t Want: The Case for an Imaginative Analogue of Desire”, Philosophers’ Imprint , 7(9): 1–17. [ Doggett & Egan 2007 available online ]
• –––, 2012, “How We Feel About Terrible, Non-Existent Mafiosi”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 84(2): 277–306. doi:10.1111/j.1933-1592.2010.00437.x
• Dokic, Jérôme and Joëlle Proust (eds.), 2002, Simulation and Knowledge of Action , Philadelphia; John Benjamins.
• Eaton, A.W., 2016, “Literature and Morality”, in Carroll and Gibson (eds.) 2016: 433–450.
• Egan, Andy, 2008a, “Imagination, Delusion, and Self-Deception”, in Delusion and Self-Deception: Affective Influences on Belief-formation , Tim Bayne and John Fernandez (eds.), 2008, New York: Psychology Press, pp. 263–280.
• –––, 2008b, “Pretense for the Complete Idiom”, Noûs , 42(3): 381–409. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0068.2008.00686.x
• Everson, Stephen, 2007, “Belief in Make-Believe”, European Journal of Philosophy , 15(1): 63–81. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0378.2007.00242.x
• Feagin, Susan L., 1983, “The Pleasures of Tragedy”, American Philosophical Quarterly , 20(1): 95–104.
• –––, 1996, Reading With Feeling: The Aesthetics of Appreciation , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Friedman, Ori, 2013, “How Do Children Represent Pretend Play?”, in Marjorie Taylor (ed.), 2013, The Oxford Handbook of the Development of Imagination , New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 186–195.
• Friedman, Ori and Alan M. Leslie, 2007, “The Conceptual Underpinning of Pretense: Pretending is Not ‘Behaving as if’”, Cognition , 105(1): 103–124. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2006.09.007
• Friedman, Ori, Karen R. Neary, Corinna L. Burnstein, and Alan M. Leslie, 2010, “Is Young Children’s Recognition of Pretense Metarepresentational or Merely Behavioral? Evidence from 2- and 3-year-olds’ Understanding of Pretend Sounds and Speech”, Cognition , 115(2): 314–319. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.02.001
• Friend, Stacie, 2008, “Imagining Fact and Fiction”, in Kathleen Stock and Katherine Thomsen-Jones (eds.), 2008, New Waves in Aesthetics , New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 150–169.
• –––, 2010, “Getting Carried Away: Evaluating the Emotional Influence of Fiction Film”, in Midwest Studies in Philosophy , 34(1): 77–105. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4975.2010.00196.x
• –––, 2016, “Fiction and Emotion”, in Kind (ed.) 2016a: 217–229.
• Funkhouser, Eric and Shannon Spaulding, 2009, “Imagination and Other Scripts”, Philosophical Studies , 143(3): 291–314. doi:10.1007/s11098-009-9348-z
• Galilei, Galileo, c.1590, De Motu Antiquiora ( On Motion ), unpublished manuscript, not published until 1687. Translated as part of On motion, and On mechanics; comprising De motu , I.E. Drabkin (trans/ed.), Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1960.
• Gallagher, Shaun, 2007, “Simulation Trouble”, Social Neuroscience , 2(3–4): 353–365. doi:10.1080/17470910601183549
• Gaut, Berys, 2003, “Creativity and Imagination”, in Berys Gaut and Paisley Livingston (eds.), 2003, The Creation of Art: New Essays in Philosophical Aesthetics , New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 148–173.
• –––, 2010, “The Philosophy of Creativity”, Philosophy Compass , 5(12): 1034–1046. doi:10.1111/j.1747-9991.2010.00351.x
• Gaut, Berys and Matthew Kieran (eds.), 2018, Creativity and Philosophy , New York: Routledge.
• Gendler, Tamar Szabó, 2000a, “The Puzzle of Imaginative Resistance”, The Journal of Philosophy , 97(2): 55–81. doi:10.2307/2678446
• –––, 2000b, “Thought Experiments Rethought—and Reperceived”, Philosophy of Science , 71(5): 1152–1163. doi:10.1086/425239
• –––, 2003, “On the Relation between Pretence and Belief”, in Matthew Kieran and Dominic M. Lopes (eds.), 2003, Imagination, Philosophy, and the Arts , New York: Routledge, pp. 124–141.
• –––, 2006, “Imaginative Resistance Revisited”, in Nichols (ed.) 2006b: 149–173. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199275731.003.0009
• –––, 2007, “Self-Deception as Pretense”, Philosophical Perspectives , 21(1): 231–258. doi:10.1111/j.1520-8583.2007.00127.x
• –––, 2008a, “Alief and Belief”, The Journal of Philosophy , 105(10): 634–663. doi:10.5840/jphil20081051025
• –––, 2008b, “Alief in Action (and Reaction)”, Mind and Language , 23(5): 552–585. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.2008.00352.x
• Gendler, Tamar Szabó and John Hawthorne (eds.), 2002, Conceivability and Possibility , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Gendler, Tamar Szabó and Karson Kovakovich, 2005, “Genuine Rational Fictional Emotions”, in Kieran 2005: 241–253.
• Gendler, Tamar Szabó and Shen-yi Liao, 2016, “The Problem of Imaginative Resistance”, in Carroll and Gibson (eds.) 2016: 405–418.
• Gilbert, Daniel T. and Timothy D. Wilson, 2007, “Prospection: Experiencing the Future”, Science , 317(5843): 1351–1354. doi:10.1126/science.1144161
• Gilmore, Jonathan, 2011, “Aptness of Emotions for Fictions and Imaginings”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 92(4): 468–489. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0114.2011.01407.x
• Goldman, Alvin I., 1989, “Interpretation Psychologized”, Mind and Language 4(3): 161–185. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.1989.tb00249.x
• –––, 2006, Simulating Minds: The Philosophy, Psychology, and Neuroscience of Mindreading , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0195138929.001.0001x
• –––, 2009, “Précis of Simulating Minds: The Philosophy, Psychology, and Neuroscience of Mindreading ”, Philosophical Studies , 144(3): 431–434. doi:10.1007/s11098-009-9355-0
• Gordon, Robert M., 1986, “Folk Psychology as Simulation”, Mind and Language 1(2): 158–171. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.1986.tb00324.x
• Grant, James, 2011, “Metaphor and Criticism”, British Journal of Aesthetics 51(3): 237–257. doi:10.1093/aesthj/ayr016
• Gregory, Dominic, 2016, “Imagination and Mental Imagery”, in Kind (ed.) 2016a: 97–110.
• Hakemulder, F. Jèmeljan, 2000, The Moral Laboratory: Experiments Examining the Effects of Reading Literature on Social Perception and Moral Self-Knowledge , Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Happé, Francesca G.E., 1991, “The Autobiographical Writings of Three Asperger Syndrome Adults: Problems of Interpretation and Implications for Theory”, in Uta Frith (ed.), 1991, Autism and Asperger Syndrome , New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 207–242. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511526770.007
• –––, 1994. Autism: An Introduction to Psychological Theory , London: UCL Press.
• Harris, Paul L., 1994, “Understanding Pretense”, in C. Lewis and Mitchell 1994: 235–259.
• –––, 2000, The Work of the Imagination , Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• Harris, Paul L. and Robert D. Kavanaugh, 1993, “Young Children’s Understanding of Pretense”, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development , 58(1): serial no. 231. doi:10.2307/1166074
• Heal, Jane, 1986, “Replication and Functionalism”, in Jeremy Butterfield (ed.), Language, Mind, and Logic , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 135–150.
• Hills, Alison and Alexander Bird, forthcoming, “Against Creativity”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , early online: 3 June 2018. doi:10.1111/phpr.12511
• Hills, David, 1997, “Aptness and Truth in Verbal Metaphor”, Philosophical Topics , 25(1): 117–153. doi:10.5840/philtopics199725118
• Hjort, Mette and Sue Laver (eds.), 1997, Emotion and the Arts , New York: Oxford University.
• Hobbes, Thomas, 1651 [1991], Leviathan , Richard Tuck (ed.), New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
• Hopkins, Robert, 2018, “Imagining the Past: On the Nature of Episodic Memory”, in Macpherson and Dorsch (eds.) 2018: 46–71. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198717881.003.0004
• Humberstone, I.L., 1992, “Direction of Fit”, Mind , 101(401): 59–83. doi:10.1093/mind/101.401.59
• Hume, David, 1738 [1975], A Treatise of Human Nature , L. A. Selby-Bigge (ed.), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.
• –––, 1757, “Of Tragedy”, in The Philosophical Works of David Hume , Vol. 1–4, T.H. Green and T.H. Gross (eds.), London: Longman, Green, 1874–1875.
• Ichikawa, Jonathan, 2009, “Dreaming and Imagination”, Mind and Language , 24(1): 103–121. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.2008.01355.x
• Jackson, Frank, 1982, “Epiphenomenal Qualia”, The Philosophical Quarterly , 32(127): 127–136. doi:10.2307/2960077
• –––, 1986, “What Mary Didn’t Know”, The Journal of Philosophy , 83(5): 291–295. doI:10.2307/2026143
• Jacobson, Daniel, 1996, “Sir Philip Sidney’s Dilemma: On the Ethical Function of Narrative Art”, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism , 54(4): 327–336. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.1994.tb00318.x
• Jarrold, Chris, Peter Carruthers, Peter K. Smith, and Jill Boucher, 1994, “Pretend Play: Is it Metarepresentational?”, Mind and Language, 9(4): 445–468. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.1994.tb00318.x
• Kania, Andrew, 2015, “An Imaginative Theory of Musical Space and Movement”, British Journal of Aesthetics , 55(2): 157–172. doi:10.1093/aesthj/ayu100
• Kant, Immanuel, 1781 [2000], Critique of the Power of Judgment , in Eric Matthews Guyer (ed.), New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
• Kieran, Matthew, 1996, “Art, Imagination, and the Cultivation Of Morals”, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism , 54(4): 337–351. doi:10.2307/431916
• ––– (ed.), 2005, Contemporary Debates in Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art , Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• Kim, Hanna, Markus Kneer, and Michael T. Stuart, 2018, “The Content-Dependence of Imaginative Resistance”, in Florian Cova and Sébastien Réhault (eds.), 2018, Advances in Experimental Philosophy of Aesthetics , New York: Bloomsbury, 143–165.
• Kind, Amy, 2001, “Putting the Image Back in Imagination”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 62(1): 85–109. doi:10.1111/j.1933-1592.2001.tb00042.x
• –––, 2011, “The Puzzle of Imaginative Desire”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 89(3): 421–439. doi:10.1080/00048402.2010.503763
• –––, 2013, “The Heterogeneity of the Imagination”, Erkenntnis , 78(1): 141–159. doi:10.1007/s10670-011-9313-z
• ––– (ed.), 2016a, The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Imagination , New York: Routledge.
• –––, 2016b, “Desire-like Imagination”, in Kind (ed.) 2016a: 163–176.
• –––, 2016c, “Imagining Under Constraints”, in Kind and Kung (eds.) 2016a: 145–159. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198716808.003.0007
• –––, 2017, “Imaginative Vividness”, Journal of the American Philosophical Association , 3(1): 32–50. doi:10.1017/apa.2017.10
• –––, 2018, “How Imagination Gives Rise to Knowledge”, in Macpherson and Dorsch (eds.) 2018: 227–246. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198717881.003.0011
• Kind, Amy and Peter Kung (eds.), 2016a, Knowledge Through Imagination , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198716808.001.0001
• –––, 2016b, “Introduction: The Puzzle of Imaginative Use”, in Kind and Kung (eds.) 2016a: 1–37. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198716808.003.0001
• Kivy, Peter, 2002, Introduction to a Philosophy of Music , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Kripke, Saul, 1972 [1980], Naming and Necessity , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Kung, Peter, 2010, “Imagining as a Guide to Possibility”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 81(3): 621–663. doi:10.1111/j.1933-1592.2010.00377.x
• –––, 2016, “Imagination and Modal Knowledge”, in Kind (ed.) 2016a: 437–450.
• Lamarque, Peter, 1981, “How Can We Fear and Pity Fictions?” British Journal of Aesthetics , 21(4): 291–304. doi:10.1093/bjaesthetics/21.4.291
• Lamarque, Peter and Stein Haugom Olsen, 1996, Truth, Fiction, and Literature: A Philosophical Perspective , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198236818.001.0001
• Langdon, Robyn, M. Coltheart, P.B. Ward, and S.V. Catts, 2002, “Disturbed Communication in Schizophrenia: The Role of Poor Pragmatics and Poor Mind-reading”, Psychological Medicine , 32(7): 1273–1284. doi:10.1017/S0033291702006396
• Langland-Hassan, Peter, 2012, “Pretense, Imagination, and Belief: the Single Attitude Theory”, Philosophical Studies , 159(2): 155–179. doi:10.1007/s11098-011-9696-3
• –––, 2014, “What It is to Pretend”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 95(3): 397–420. doi:10.1111/papq.12037
• –––, 2015, “Imaginative Attitudes”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 90(3): 664–686. doi:10.1111/phpr.12115
• Lepore, Ernie and Matthew Stone, 2015, Imagination and Convention: Distinguishing Grammar and Inference in Language , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198717188.001.0001
• Leslie, Alan M., 1987, “Pretense and Representation: The Origins of ‘Theory of Mind’”, Psychological Review , 94(4): 412–426. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.94.4.412
• –––, 1994, “Pretending and Believing: Issues in the Theory of ToMM”, Cognition , 50(1–3): 211–238. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)90029-9
• Levinson, Jerrold, 1996, “Musical Expressiveness”, in The Pleasures of Aesthetics , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 90–125.
• Lewis, Charlie and Peter Mitchell (eds.), 1994, Children’s Early Understanding of Mind: Origins and Development , Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Lewis, David K., 1998, “What Experience Teaches”, Proceedings of the Russellian Society 13: 29–57.
• Liao, Shen-yi, 2013, “Moral Persuasion and the Diversity of Fictions”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 94(3): 269–289. doi:10.1111/papq.12000
• –––, 2016, “Imaginative Resistance, Narrative Engagement, Genre”, Res Philosophica , 93(2): 461–482. doi:10.11612/resphil.2016.2.93.3
• Liao, Shen-yi and Tyler Doggett, 2014, “The Imagination Box”, The Journal of Philosophy , 111(5): 259–275. doi:10.5840/jphil2014111521
• Liao, Shen-yi and Tamar Szabó Gendler, 2011, “Pretense and Imagination”, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science , 2(1): 79–94. doi:10.1002/wcs.91
• Liao, Shen-yi, Nina Strohminger, and Chandra Sekhar Sripada, 2014, “Empirically Investigating Imaginative Resistance”, British Journal of Aesthetics 54(3): 339­–355. doi:10.1093/aesthj/ayu027
• Lillard, Angeline S., 1993, “Young Children’s Conceptualization of Pretend: Action or Mental Representation State?” Child Development , 64(2): 372–386. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1993.tb02915.x
• –––, 2001, “Pretend Play as Twin Earth: A Social-Cognitive Analysis”, Developmental Review , 21(4): 495–531. doi:10.1006/drev.2001.0532
• Lillard, Angeline S. and John H. Flavell, 1992, “Young Children’s Understanding of Different Mental States”, Developmental Psychology , 28(4): 626–634. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.28.4.626
• Lillard, Angeline S. and David C. Witherington, 2004, “Mothers’ Behavior Modifications During Pretense Snacks and Their Possible Signal Value for Toddlers”, Developmental Psychology , 40(1): 95–113. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.1.95
• Loftus, Elizabeth F., 1979 [1996], Eyewitness Testimony , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Macpherson, Fiona and Fabian Dorsch (eds.), 2018, Perceptual Memory and Perceptual Imagination , New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780198717881.001.0001
• Markman, Keith D., William M.P. Klein, and Julie A. Suhr (eds.), 2009, Handbook of Imagination and Mental Simulation , New York: Taylor & Francis.
• Martin, M.G.F., 2002, “The Transparency of Experience”, Mind and Language , 17(4): 376–425. doi:10.1111/1468-0017.00205
• Matravers, Derek, 1998, Art and Emotion , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199243167.001.0001
• –––, 2014, Fiction and Narrative , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199647019.001.0001
• McGinn, Colin, 2004, Mindsight: Image, Dream, Meaning , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Meskin, Aaron and Jonathan M. Weinberg, 2003, “Emotions, Fiction, and Cognitive Architecture”, British Journal of Aesthetics , 43(1): 18–34. doi:10.1093/bjaesthetics/43.1.18
• Michaelian, Kourken, 2016, Mental Time Travel: Episodic Memory and Our Knowledge of the Personal Past , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Miyazono, Kengo and Shen-yi Liao, 2016, “The Cognitive Architecture of Imaginative Resistance”, in Kind (ed.) 2016: 233–246.
• Moran, Richard, 1989, “Seeing and Believing: Metaphor, Image, and Force”, Critical Inquiry , 16(1): 87–112. doi:10.1086/448527
• –––, 1994, “The Expression of Feeling in Imagination”, The Philosophical Review , 103(1): 75–106. doi:10.2307/2185873
• Mothersill, Mary, 2003, “Make-Believe Morality and Fictional Worlds”, in José Luis Bermúdez and Sebastian Gardner (eds.), Arts and Morality , New York: Routledge, pp. 74–94.
• Murdoch, Iris, 1970, The Sovereignty of Good , London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Nanay, Bence, 2010, “Imaginative Resistance and Conversational Implicatures”, The Philosophical Quarterly , 60(240): 586–600. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9213.2009.625.x
• –––, 2013, Between Perception and Action , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199695379.001.0001
• –––, 2015, “Perceptual Content and the Content of Mental Imagery”, Philosophical Studies , 172(7): 1723–1736. doi:10.1007/s11098-014-0392-y
• –––, 2016a, “The Role of Imagination in Decision-Making”, Mind and Language , 31(1): 127–143. doi:10.1111/mila.12097
• –––, 2016b, “Imagination and Perception”, in Kind (ed.) 2016a: 124–134.
• Nichols, Shaun, 2004a, “Imagining and Believing: The Promise of a Single Code”, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism , 62(2): 129–139. doi:10.1111/j.1540-594X.2004.00146.x
• –––, 2004b, “Review of Recreative Minds , by Gregory Currie and Ian Ravenscroft”, Mind , 113(450): 329–334. doi:10.1093/mind/113.450.329
• –––, 2006a, “Just the Imagination: Why Imagining Doesn’t Behave Like Believing”, Mind and Language , 21(4): 459–474. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00286.x
• ––– (ed.), 2006b, The Architecture of the Imagination: New Essays on Pretense, Possibility, and Fiction , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199275731.001.0001
• –––, 2008, “Imagination and the I ”, Mind and Language 23(5): 518–535. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.2008.00356.x
• Nichols, Shaun and Stephen P. Stich, 2000, “A Cognitive Theory of Pretense”, Cognition , 74(2): 115–147. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00070-0
• –––, 2003, Mindreading: An Integrated Account of Pretense, Self-Awareness and Understanding Other Minds , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0198236107.001.0001
• Ninan, Dilip, 2009, “Persistence and the First-Person Perspective”, The Philosophical Review , 118(4): 425–464. doi:10.1215/00318108-2009-014
• –––, 2016, “Imagination and the Self”, in Kind (ed.) 2016a: 274–285.
• Noordhof, Paul, 2002, “Imagining Objects and Imagining Experiences”, Mind and Language , 17(4): 426–455. doi:10.1111/1468-0017.00206
• Norton, John D., 1991, “Thought Experiments in Einstein’s Work”, in Tamara Horowitz and Gerald J. Massey (eds.), 1991, Thought Experiments in Science and Philosophy , Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 129–148.
• –––, 1996, “Are Thought Experiments Just What You Thought?”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 26(3): 333–366. doi:10.1080/00455091.1996.10717457
• Nussbaum, Martha C., 1990. Love’s Knowledge: Essays on Philosophy and Literature , New York: Oxford University Press.
• O’Brien, Lucy, 2005, “Imagination and the Motivational Role of Belief”, Analysis , 65(1): 55–62. doi:10.1093/analys/65.1.55
• O’Shaughnessy, Brian, 2000, Consciousness and the World , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0199256721.001.0001
• Onishi, Kristine H. and Renée Baillargeon, 2005, “Do 15-month-old Infants Understand False Beliefs?”, Science , 308(5719): 255–258. doi:10.1126/science.1107621
• Onishi, Kristine H., Renée Baillargeon, and Alan M. Leslie, 2007, “15-month-old Infants Detect Violations in Pretend Scenarios”, Acta Psychologica , 124(1): 106–128. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.09.009
• Paul, Elliot Samuel and Scott Barry Kaufman (eds.), 2014, The Philosophy of Creativity: New Essays , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199836963.001.0001
• Paul, L.A., 2014, Transformative Experience , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198717959.001.0001
• –––, 2015, “What You Can’t Expect When You’re Expecting”, Res Philosophica , 92(2): 149–170. doi:10.11612/resphil.2015.92.2.1
• –––, 2018, “ De Se Preferences and Empathy for Future Selves”, Philosophical Perspectives , 31(1): 7–39. doi:10.1111/phpe.12090
• Perner, Josef, 1991, Understanding the Representational Mind , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Perner, Josef, Sarah Baker, and Deborah Hutton, 1994, “Prelief: The Conceptual Origins of Belief and Pretense”, in C. Lewis and Mitchell 1994: 261–286.
• Piaget, Jean, 1945 [1951], La formation du symbole chez l’enfant . Translated as Play, Dreams, and Imitation in Childhood , C. Gattegno and F. M. Hodgson (trans.), London: Rougledge, 1951.
• Picciuto, Elizabeth and Peter Carruthers, 2016, “Imagination and Pretense”, in Kind (ed.) 2016a: 314–325.
• Plato, Republic , in J. M. Cooper (ed.), Plato: Complete Works , Indianapolis: Hackett, 1970.
• Polanyi, Michael, 1966 [2009], “Creative Imagination”, Chemical & Engineering News , 44(17): 85–94,104. Reprinted in Karen Bardsley, Denis Dutton, and Michael Krausz (eds.), 2009, The Idea of Creativity , Boston: Brill, pp. 147–163. doi:10.1021/cen-v044n017.p085 doi:10.1163/ej.9789004174443.i-348.52
• Radford, Colin, 1975, “How Can We Be Moved by the Fate of Anna Karenina?” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes , 49: 67–80. doi:10.1093/aristoteliansupp/49.1.67
• Rakoczy, Hannes, Michael Tomasello, and Tricia Striano, 2004, “Young Children Know that Trying is not Pretending: a Test of the ‘Behaving-as-If’ Construal of Children’s Understanding of Pretense”, Developmental Psychology , 40(3): 388–399. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.3.388
• Ricoeur, Paul, 1978, “The Metaphorical Process as Cognition, Imagination, and Feeling”, Critical Inquiry , 5(1): 143–159. doi:10.1086/447977
• Richert, Rebekah A. and Angeline S. Lillard, 2004, “Observers’ Proficiency at Identifying Pretend Acts Based on Different Behavioral Cues”, Cognitive Development , 19(2): 223–240. DOI:10.1016/j.cogdev.2004.01.001
• Robinson, Jenefer, 2005, Deeper Than Reason: Emotion And Its Role In Literature, Music, And Art , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0199263655.001.0001
• Rogers, Sally J., Ian Cook, and Adrienne Meryl, 2005, “Imitation and Play in Autism”, in Fred R. Volkmar, Rhea Paul, Ami Klin, and Donald Cohen (eds.), 2005, Handbook of Autism and Pervasive Developmental Disorders , third edition, John Wiley and Sons, pp. 382–405. doi:10.1002/9780470939345.ch14
• Robins, Sarah K., 2016, “Misremembering”, Philosophical Psychology 29(3): 432–447. doi:10.1080/09515089.2015.1113245
• Rosenbaum, R. Shayna, Asaf Gilboa, Brian Levine, Gordon Winocur, and Morris Moscovitch, 2009, “Amnesia as an Impairment of Detail Generation and Binding: Evidence from Personal, Fictional, and Semantic Narratives in K.C.”, Neuropsychologia 47(11): 2181–2187. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.11.028
• Ryle, Gilbert, 1949, The Concept of Mind , London: Hutchinson.
• Saxe, Rebecca, 2005, “Against Simulation: The Argument From Error”, Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 9(4): 174–179. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.01.012
• –––, 2006, “Why and How to Study Theory of Mind with fMRI”, Brain Research , 1079(1): 57–65. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2006.01.001
• –––, 2009, “The Neural Evidence for Simulation is Weaker Than I Think You Think It Is”, Philosophical Studies , 144(3): 447–456. doi:10.1007/s11098-009-9353-2
• Schacter, Daniel L., Donna Rose Addis, and Randy L. Buckner, 2007, “Remembering the Past to Imagine the Future: the Prospective Brain”, Nature Reviews Neuroscience , 8(9): 657–661. doi:10.1038/nrn2213
• Schacter, Daniel L., Donna Rose Addis, Dennis Hassabis, Victoria C. Martin, R. Nathan Spreng, and Karl K. Szpunar, 2012, “The Future of Memory: Remembering, Imagining, and the Brain”, Neuron , 76(4): 677–694. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2012.11.001
• Schellenberg, Susanna, 2013, “Belief and Desire in Imagination and Immersion”, The Journal of Philosophy , 110(9): 497–517. doi:10.5840/jphil2013110914
• Scruton, Roger, 1974, Art and Imagination , London: Methuen.
• –––, 1997, The Aesthetics of Music , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/019816727X.001.0001
• Shah, Nishi and J. David Velleman, 2005, “Doxastic Deliberation”, The Philosophical Review , 114(4): 497–534. doi:10.1215/00318108-114-4-497
• Shanton, Karen and Alvin Goldman, 2010, “Simulation Theory”, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science , 1(4): 527–538. doi:10.1002/wcs.33
• Sinhababu, Neil, 2013, “Distinguishing Belief and Imagination”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 94(2): 152–165. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0114.2012.01449.x
• –––, 2016, “Imagination and Belief”, in Kind (ed.) 2016a: 111–123.
• Smuts, Aaron, 2007, “The Paradox of Painful Art”, Journal of Aesthetic Education , 41(3): 59–77.
• –––, 2009, “Art and Negative Affect”, Philosophy Compass , 4(1): 39–55. doi:10.1111/j.1747-9991.2008.00199.x
• Spaulding, Shannon, 2015, “Imagination, Desire, and Rationality”, The Journal of Philosophy , 112(9): 457–476. doi:10.5840/jphil2015112929
• –––, 2016, “Imagination Through Knowledge”, in Kind and Kung (eds.) 2016a: 207–226. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198716808.003.0010
• Stear, Nils-Hennes, 2015, “Imaginative and Fictionality Failure: A Normative Approach”, Philosophers’ Imprint , 15(34): 1–18. [ Stear 2015 available online ]
• Stevenson, Leslie, 2003, “Twelve Conceptions of Imagination”, British Journal of Aesthetics , 43(3): 238–259. doi:10.1093/bjaesthetics/43.3.238
• Stich, Stephen and Joshua Tarzia, 2015, “The Pretense Debate”, Cognition , 143: 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2015.06.007
• Stock, Kathleen, 2005, “Resisting Imaginative Resistance”, Philosophical Quarterly , 55(221): 607–624. doi:10.1111/j.0031-8094.2005.00419.x
• –––, 2013, “Imagining and Fiction: Some Issues”, Philosophy Compass , 8(10): 887–896. doi:10.1111/phc3.12068
• –––, 2017, Only Imagine: Fiction, Interpretation, and Imagination , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198798347.001.0001
• Stokes, Dustin R., 2006, “The Evaluative Character of Imaginative Resistance”, British Journal of Aesthetics , 46(4): 347–405. doi:10.1093/aesthj/ayl022
• –––, 2011, “Minimally Creative Thought”, Metaphilosophy 42(5): 658–681. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9973.2011.01716.x
• –––, 2014, “The Role of Imagination in Creativity”, in Paul and Kaufman (eds.) 2014: 157–184. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199836963.003.0009
• –––, 2016, “Imagination and Creativity”, in Kind (ed.) 2016a: 247–261.
• Strawson, P.F., 1970, “Imagination and Perception”, in Experience and Theory , L. Foster and J. W. Swanson (eds.), Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, pp. 31–54.
• Strohl, Matthew, forthcoming, “Art and Painful Emotion”, Philosophy Compass , early online: 29 October 2018. doi:10.1111/phc3.12558
• Strohminger, Margot and Juhani Yli-Vakkuri, 2017, “The Epistemology of Modality”, Analysis , 77(4): 825–838. doi:10.1093/analys/anx058
• –––, forthcoming, “Knowledge of Objective Modality”, Philosophical Studies , early online: 28 February 2018. doi:10.1007/s11098-018-1052-4
• Suddendorf, Thomas and Michael C. Corballis, 1997, “Mental Time Travel and the Evolution of the Human Mind”, Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs , 123(2): 133–167.
• –––, 2007, “The Evolution of Foresight: What is Mental Time Travel, and is it Unique to Humans?”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 30(3): 299–313. doi:10.1017/S0140525X07001975
• Tanner, Michael, 1994, “Morals in Fiction and Fictional Morality”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes , 68: 51–66. doi:10.1093/aristoteliansupp/68.1.27
• Todd, Cain Samuel, 2009, “Imaginability, Morality, and Fictional Truth: Dissolving the Puzzle of ‘Imaginative Resistance’”, Philosophical Studies , 143(2): 187–211. doi:10.1007/s11098-007-9198-5
• Trivedi, Saam, 2011, “Music and Imagination”, in Theodore Gracyk and Andrew Kania (eds.), 2011, The Routledge Companion to Philosophy and Music , New York: Routledge, pp. 113–122.
• Tulving, Endel, 1985, “Memory and Consciousness”, Canadian Psychology , 26(1): 1–12. doi:10.1037/h0080017
• Urmson, J. O., 1967, “Memory and Imagination”, Mind , 76(301): 83–91. doi:10.1093/mind/LXXVI.301.83
• Van Inwagen, Peter, 1998, “Modal Epistemology”, Philosophical Studies , 92(1–2): 67–84. doi:10.1023/A:1017159501073
• Van Leeuwen, D.S. Neil, 2009, “The Motivational Role of Belief”, Philosophical Papers , 38(2): 219–246. doi:10.1080/05568640903146534
• –––, 2011, “Imagination is Where the Action is”, The Journal of Philosophy , 108(2): 55–77. doi:10.5840/jphil201110823
• –––, 2013, “The Meaning of ‘Imagine’ Part I: Constructive Imagination”, Philosophy Compass , 8(3): 220–230. doi:10.1111/j.1747-9991.2012.00508.x
• –––, 2014, “The Meaning of ‘Imagine’ Part II: Attitude and Action”, Philosophy Compass , 9(11): 791–802. doi:10.1111/phc3.12141
• –––, 2016a, “Imagination and Action”, in Kind (ed.) 2016a: 286–299.
• –––, 2016b, “The Imaginative Agent”, in Kind and Kung (eds.) 2016a: 85–109. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198716808.003.0004
• Velleman, J. David, 2000, “On the Aim of Belief”, in The Possibility of Practical Reason . New York: Oxford University Press. [ Velleman 2000 available online ]
• Walton, Kendall L., 1978, “Fearing Fictions”, The Journal of Philosophy , 75(1): 5–27. doi:10.2307/2025831
• –––, 1990, Mimesis as Make-Believe , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 1993, “Metaphor and Prop-Oriented Make-Believe”, European Journal of Philosophy , 1(1): 39–57. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0378.1993.tb00023.x
• –––, 1994a, “Listening with Imagination: Is Music Representational?”, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism , 52(1): 47–61. doi:10.2307/431584
• –––, 1994b, “Morals in Fiction and Fictional Morality”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes , 68: 27–50. doi:10.1093/aristoteliansupp/68.1.27
• –––, 1997, “Spelunking, Simulation, and Slime: On Being Moved by Fiction”, in Hjort and Laver (eds.) 1997: 37–49.
• –––, 1999, “Projectivism, Empathy, and Musical Tension”, Philosophical Topics , 26(1–2): 407–440. doi:10.5840/philtopics1999261/231
• –––, 2000, “Existence as Metaphor?”, in Anthony Everett and Thomas Hofweber (eds.), Empty Names, Fiction, and the Puzzles of Non-Existence , Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 69–94.
• –––, 2006, “On the (So-called) Puzzle of Imaginative Resistance”, in Nichols (ed.) 2006b: 137–148. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199275731.003.0008
• Wearing, Catherine, 2011, “Metaphor, Idiom, and Pretense”, Noûs , 46(2): 1–26. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0068.2010.00819.x
• Weatherson, Brian, 2004, “Morality, Fiction, and Possibility”, Philosophers’ Imprint , 4(3): 1–27. [ Weatherson 2004 available online ]
• Weinberg, Jonathan M. and Aaron Meskin, 2005, “Imagine That!”, in Kieran 2005: 222–235.
• –––, 2006, “Puzzling Over the Imagination: Philosophical Problems, Architectural Solutions”, in Nichols (ed.) 2006b: 175–202. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199275731.003.0010
• Williams, Bernard, 1973, “Imagination and the Self”, in his Problems of the Self: Philosophical Papers 1956–1972 , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 26–45. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511621253.005
• Williamson, Timothy, 2005, “Armchair Philosophy, Metaphysical Modality, and Counterfactual Thinking”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , 105(1): 1–23. doi:10.1111/j.0066-7373.2004.00100.x
• –––, 2007, The Philosophy of Philosophy , Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• –––, 2016, “Knowing by Imagining”, in Kind and Kung (eds.) 2016a: 113–123. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198716808.003.0005
• Wiltsher, Nick, 2018, “Feeling, Emotion, and Imagination: In Defence of Collingwood’s Expression Theory of Art”, British Journal for the History of Philosophy , 26(4): 759–781. doi:10.1080/09608788.2017.1379001
• –––, forthcoming, “Imagination: A Lens, Not a Mirror”, Philosophers’ Imprint .
• Wing, Lorna and Judith Gould, 1979, “Severe Impairments of Social Interaction and Associated Abnormalities in Children: Epidemeology and Classification”, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders , 9(1): 11–29. doi:10.1007/BF01531288
• Wollheim, Richard, 1973, “Imagination and Identification”, in On Art and the Mind , London: Allen Land, pp. 54–83.
• Yablo, Stephen, 1993, “Is Conceivability a Guide to Possibility?” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 53(1): 1–42. doi:10.2307/2108052
• Yablo, Stephen, 2002, “Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda”, in Gendler and Hawthorne (eds.) 2002: 441–492.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• The Junkyard , a scholarly blog on imagination
• Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Imagery and Imagination
• Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Imagination
• PhilPapers collection of papers on Imagination

Aristotle, General Topics: psychology | belief | causation: counterfactual theories of | Collingwood, Robin George: aesthetics | conditionals | dance, philosophy of | desire | dualism | emotion | empathy | film, philosophy of | folk psychology: as a theory | folk psychology: as mental simulation | functionalism | Hobbes, Thomas | Hume, David | Hume, David: aesthetics | Kant, Immanuel | Kant, Immanuel: aesthetics and teleology | memory | mental imagery | metaphor | modality: epistemology of | music, philosophy of | perception: epistemological problems of | perception: the contents of | propositional attitude reports | Ryle, Gilbert | thought experiments | zombies

Acknowledgments

No one can have an encyclopedic knowledge on a topic as vast as imagination. The previous iteration of the entry could not have existed without the help of Paul Bloom, David Chalmers, Gregory Currie, Tyler Doggett, Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa, Shaun Nichols, Zoltán Gendler Szabó, Jonathan Weinberg, Ed Zalta, an anonymous referee, and—most of all—Aaron Norby. This iteration of the entry could not exist without the help of Tyler Doggett, Elisabeth Camp, Felipe De Brigard, Anna Ichino, Andrew Kania, Amy Kind, Peter Langland-Hassan, Aaron Meskin, Kengo Miyazono, Eric Peterson, Mark Phelan, Dustin Stokes, Margot Strohminger, Mike Stuart, Neil Van Leeuwen, Jonathan Weinberg, Nick Wiltsher, and two anonymous referees.

Copyright © 2019 by Shen-yi Liao < liao . shen . yi @ gmail . com > Tamar Gendler < tamar . gendler @ yale . edu >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

education that inspires learners of all ages

The Power of Imagination (I): Myths, Stories, & Thought Experiments

A word of introduction….

During World Creativity & Innovation Week 2018 I had the pleasure of moderating a week-long conversation on imagination with the Google+ Creative Higher Education (#CreativeHE) community . I ended the week with an electronic file overflowing (if such a thing is possible) with intriguing resources and reference on imagination and creativity. Dr. Kevin Byron posted a compelling series of graphics/text about the power of imagination. They resonate strongly with the theory and practice of Imaginative Education. This is the first of a 3-part mini-series entitled The Power of Imagination that shares those posts. I hope you find it informative and inspiring!

Myths & Stories: Speaking in Pictures

One can easily invent a story from imagination. It could range from an embellishment to a personal anecdote that one has heard, to a full blown flight of fancy based on a day-dream. Life-changing dramas apart, such stories form part of a healthy diet in our daily attention exchange with other people, though they are soon superseded by the next mini-incident or imagined idea. There is however another order of stories in circulation that have stood the test of time, sometimes originating many hundreds of years earlier, and that appear around the world in numerous forms having been adapted locally by various cultures. Generally known as traditional tales, these stories often have a social element to them, but they are more than mere inventions of the imagination, because they also carry with them a significance that can resonate deeper within our minds. Such stories created by the wise require one to search them out.

The social element of traditional tales fulfils the various functions illustrated in the slide above. This includes providing an early education, sustaining the mores of a culture or tribe, providing entertainment, and enabling groups of people to bond at times of trouble.

This social dimension in a traditional tale is the means of transport for the deeper meaning that somehow by-passes our analytical, literally interpretive mind. To quote from the writer Idries Shah in his book ‘World Tales’ (1): “Perhaps above all the tale fulfils the function not of escape, but of hope. The suspending of ordinary constraints helps people to reclaim optimism, and to fuel the imagination with energy for the attainment of goals: whether moral or material.”

(1) Idries Shah; World Tales. ISBN 0 7226 6860 0.

The Thought Experiment:  The Imaginative Laboratory in your Head

A thought experiment enables one to solve problems conceptually without recourse (initially) to an experiment. This technique was first described by the Greeks with their reliance on deduction from a set of premises to solve mathematical problems. Many great scientists have invented their own thought experiments to test and make sense of abstract concepts, prior to their verification by a real experiment. Examples in physics include Shrodinger’s Cat and Maxwell’s Demon, and other disciplines such as philosophy and law draw on this technique occasionally.

One of Einstein’s thought experiments that helped him to develop the theory of special relativity is illustrated below. Here he was wondering what would happen to his image in a mirror if he was travelling at the speed of light. According to classical Newtonian physics, the light from Einstein’s face would travel at his rocket speed plus the speed of light, and be reflected off the mirror so that Einstein would still see himself. However he had already postulated that nothing could travel faster than light, so in theory his image would disappear, because the light would never reach the mirror. But according to his theory what would happen if he travelled very close to the speed of light? Would his image form very slowly as the light took longer to reach the mirror? This did not make sense, given that the laws of physics are supposed to be invariant. Einstein resolved this dilemma by suggesting that the speed of light always remained constant, and instead it was time and distance (space) that varied with speed.

This idea turned Classical theory upside down, and counter-intuitive as it seemed, it was correct and later verified experimentally. Interestingly, like all good scientific progress the earlier Newtonian physics didn’t turn out to be wrong, but was a specific case of Einstein’s relativity in which the speeds involved are slower than the speed of light. So we live in a Newtonian world, but whenever you use your Sat Nav you enter Einstein’s world because a small timing correction, due to relativistic time dilation, needs to be made due to the high altitude and speed of the orbiting satellites. Einstein developed this famous theory of special relativity in the earlier 1900’s along with four other great ideas that changed the world of physics.

Thought experiments are a great way to teach, and indeed to develop ourselves. All it requires is one to say: “What if…….?” and then take a journey into your imagination, draw on your existing knowledge, but with a flexibility of mind that imagination allows, to enable you to challenge the assumptions you already hold.

Stay tuned:  The Power of Imagination (II)–Abstractions, Analogy & Metaphor

About The Author

Dr. Kevin Byron ( [email protected] ) received his Ph.D in Physics from the University of Hull, and pursued a career in commercial research in photonics for some twenty five years. During this time he was an honorary visiting lecturer at the Universities of Glasgow and Salford, and elected to Fellowship of the Institute of Physics. Throughout his time in industry he developed a growing interest in education and the development of transferable skills. The award of a NESTA fellowship in 2002 enabled him to pursue these interests further and following election as an honorary fellow of the HEA in 2006, he took up a post at the University of Leicester as a research skills developer, and then at Queen Mary University of London as an enterprise developer. He has published over 150 academic papers and patents, and contributed to a number of book publications on his earlier research interests, and more recently on innovation and creativity. He has presented his work on creativity, innovation and enterprise at several international conferences in Italy, Canada, the USA, Qatar, South Africa and the UK. More recently he has worked as an independent skills developer for a number of higher education institutions and industries in the UK and Europe.

Share this:

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Login with:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Get Updates!

Subscribe by email.

Your Email Leave this field blank

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

• About Edublogs
• Edublogs.org
• Documentation

Insight and inspiration in turbulent times.

• All Latest Articles
• Environment
• Food & Water
• Featured Topics
• Get Started
• Online Course
• Holding the Fire
• What Could Possibly Go Right?
• About Resilience
• Fundamentals
• Submission Guidelines
• Commenting Guidelines
• Resilience+

David Graeber: The Power of the Imagination

By Aaron Vansintjan , originally published by Green European Journal

June 7, 2021

David Graeber (1961-2020) was an American anthropologist, activist, and social movement intellectual. His insights on the imagination and the practice of democracy have inspired many not just to see the world differently, but to seek to change it.

For almost every important political moment in Western Europe and North America over the past 20 years, there was an article or book by David Graeber that could be said to have helped define it.

Written in the early 2000s, Graeber’s essays on the alter-globalisation movements circulated so widely in activist circles that they had been made into a clandestine compilation and translated into several different languages before he was able to print them as a book.  Debt: The First 5,000 Years,  published in 2011 while Graeber was active in the Occupy movement, has since become a touchstone for anyone interested in learning about economics. And almost everyone seems to have heard of “bullshit jobs” without necessarily being able to name Graeber as the author of the 2013 essay that coined the term.

How did he do it? What insight allowed Graeber to capture the moment and articulate what so many felt but were afraid to think, let alone say? How did his work lead readers to a new understanding of democracy and the possibility of working together to change the world?

Graeber’s commitment to the power of the imagination was a driving force behind his work and one of the reasons why it resonated with so many people. It was his sense of wonder and intimate knowledge of how the imagination operates that helped shape his insights on topics as diverse as the nature of democracy, the origins of civilisation, and the meaning of value.

For Graeber, there were two kinds of imagination. The first was “imaginative identification”. This refers to the capacity to imagine another’s point of view – the foundation of all caring and supportive social relations. The ability to put oneself in another’s shoes is necessary for a functioning democratic system: without it, there would be no compromise, no working together towards common goals. Another term he used to describe this was “interpretive labour”.

The second kind of imagination was “immanent imagination”: the capacity to imagine, and to bring about, new social and political ways of being. Graeber asserted that it is this imagination that constitutes the human ability to be political: to decide collectively what we want to do with our lives.

One way to think of immanent imagination is by considering its opposite, “ideological naturalisation”. This refers to the deadening effect of hierarchy and domination, where the mutable social convention is misconstrued as the natural, immutable order of being. Social Darwinism is a classic example. Its proponents assume that “survival of the fittest” is a universal order rather than a recent ideology that serves to justify a political and economic system in which individuals must compete in order to survive.

Graeber was especially interested in the place where ideological naturalisation is manifested in daily lives: alienation. Echoing Karl Marx, he suggested that

“if there is anything essentially human, it’s the capacity to imagine things and bring them into being […] alienation occurs when we lose control over the process”.

Working, as so many of us do, “mind-numbing, boring, mechanical jobs” invariably squashes the desire to do things differently. Graeber argued that the problem with capitalism is not just that it is exploitative, environmentally destructive, or unjust – which he agreed it is — but that it depends on immense bureaucracy, which in turn requires a hierarchical social order. It is in this sense, then, that Graeber argued that what may define the Left, and distinguish it from the Right, is its insistence that “creativity and imagination were the fundamental ontological principles” – that is, we can (and should) creatively produce the world and remake it as we wish.

It was also this insight that drove Graeber’s anthropological work. He understood anthropology as a discipline that studied social difference in order to arrive at the politically possible, and he was especially interested in the political structures of Native American groups. Many Indigenous peoples, such as the Plains Indians and Amazonian tribes, had a cultural memory of centralised, hierarchical societies and had intentionally built democratic structures that would prevent a return to these. On many occasions, Graeber pointed out that the encounter with democratic and egalitarian peoples in the New World encouraged the Enlightenment, deconstructing the myth of democracy as a European export.

His more recent work with archaeologist David Wengrow looks back at the historical and ethnographic research on Indigenous peoples to show that many societies intentionally vacillated between democratic, non-hierarchical structures and hierarchical ones. In so doing, Wengrow and Graeber debunked another myth that characterised pre-modern peoples as “noble savages” who were only democratic because their societies were insufficiently advanced or complex not to be.

For many people, Graeber turned the concept of democracy on its head. Rather than a bureaucratic process that must be engaged in every few years, democracy for Graeber was imaginative, active, and intensely personal. There is no inevitable arc of progress towards more or deeper democracy. Rather, democracy must be fought for, actively built into institutions, protected, and constantly renewed. Seeing how the political and economic system inhibits the imagination can foster a desire for democracy.

Though Graeber rarely touched on ecological concerns, he has without a doubt influenced thinking in political ecology. His work on direct democracy informed the shift towards municipalism, especially in the wake of the 2011 Spanish anti-austerity movement, 15-M. His writing on bullshit jobs breathed new life into the movement for basic income and the radical critique of work, paving the way for proposals such as a reduced workweek, now part of several versions of the Green New Deal. His work on debt and the origin of money spurred interest in radical fiscal policy and modern monetary theory. Democratisation, rethinking work, and transforming the monetary system are now central to post-growth policy platforms.

David Graeber is no longer with us, but his insights into the power of the human imagination continue to inspire us to dismantle and reconfigure the building blocks of reality. In decades to come, we may find that his work has helped us to imagine, and build, a better world. As Graeber wrote:

“The ultimate, hidden truth of the world is that it is something that we make, and could just as easily make differently.”

Teaser photo credit: Graeber (left) at a rally for immigrant rights at Union Square , New York City in 2007. By Thomas Good – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=17520886

Aaron Vansintjan

Related articles.

Nation-states are destroying the world. Could ‘bioregions’ be the answer?

By Shrishtee Bajpai , Juan Manuel Crespo , Ashish Kothari , Open Democracy

Now, from the war-torn border regions of South Asia to the Amazon rainforest, people are questioning whether sustainability can ever be achieved through the framework of nation-states. They are turning to other ways of organising society based on Indigenous worldviews and practices that respect all humans and the rest of nature.

May 16, 2024

Listening the New Into Being

By Otto Scharmer , Presencing Institute

There is no limit to what we can collectively create once we align our intention, attention, and agency on the scale of the whole.

Both/and: The Climate Majority Project and the Radical Flank

By Rupert Read , Resilience.org

When we adapt transformatively to the climate damage that is HERE and the significantly worse climate damage that is coming, and when we do so in a manner that is inviting rather than alienating, then we make this horrific crisis real to people in a manner that merely ‘raising the alarm’ can no longer do…

Introduction:

Imagination, an extraordinary gift within us all, opens the gateway to boundless possibilities. From childhood to adulthood, its influence shapes our lives, igniting innovation, fostering creativity, and transcending the limitations of reality. This essay explores the profound impact of imagination, its significance in various spheres of life, and how it empowers us to pursue dreams and aspirations beyond imagination's horizon.

Unleashing the Creative Fire:

Imagination serves as the wellspring of creativity, igniting the spark that fuels innovation and invention. Within its vivid landscapes, artists paint masterpieces, writers craft captivating stories, and musicians compose melodies that resonate with our souls. Imagination invites us to break free from the ordinary, opening our minds to novel perspectives and embracing the extraordinary.

A Constant Source of Inspiration:

Imagination acts as an unwavering wellspring of inspiration, breathing life into our endeavors and propelling us forward. It nurtures our passions and dreams, instilling within us the unwavering determination to pursue our goals. When we allow our imaginations to soar, we are inspired to take risks, venture beyond our comfort zones, and embrace new experiences. Imagination reveals the untapped potential within ourselves and the world, compelling us to seek greatness and make a profound impact.

Problem-Solving and Innovative Thinking:

Imagination emerges as a potent tool for problem-solving and innovative thinking. By engaging our creative minds and envisioning alternative solutions, we confront challenges with fresh perspectives. Imagination encourages us to question conventional wisdom, explore uncharted paths, and push the boundaries of possibility. It empowers us to break free from limitations, envision new paradigms, and create groundbreaking solutions that propel progress.

Fostering Empathy and Understanding:

Imagination plays a significant role in fostering empathy and understanding. By imaginatively stepping into the shoes of others, we develop a profound appreciation for their experiences and gain insights into diverse perspectives. Imagination transcends our own realities, allowing us to embrace the richness of different cultures, beliefs, and experiences. It promotes compassion, tolerance, and acceptance, bridging divides and fostering interconnectedness.

Nurturing Personal Growth:

Imagination nurtures personal growth by encouraging introspection and self-reflection. It invites us to delve into our deepest desires, confront our fears, and explore our aspirations. Through the power of imagination, we can envision the life we yearn to lead and set goals aligned with our values and passions. Imagination empowers us to reclaim our personal narratives, forging our own destinies with resolute determination.

Conclusion:

Imagination, an extraordinary force within us all, propels our creativity, inspires innovation, and nurtures personal growth. It beckons us to dream audaciously, think beyond boundaries, and embrace the limitless possibilities that reside within and around us. Let us cherish and cultivate our imaginations, recognizing their potential to shape not only our individual lives but also the world we inhabit. Embrace the boundless power of imagination and witness your dreams soar, transforming the ordinary into the extraordinary.

.    .    .

You may also like

HEALTH, OPINION

How to find the meaning of life? Answer from a Psychological Study

By Jawahar Lal Nehru

21 Nov 2020 8:03 AM

Popular Posts

• Classical Essays
• Teaching Portfolio
• Writing Portfolio

Michel de Montaigne

Of the force of imagination.

Fortis imaginatio generat casum, say the schoolmen. [“A strong imagination begets the event itself.”—Axiom. Scholast. ]

I am one of those who are most sensible of the power of imagination: every one is jostled by it, but some are overthrown by it. It has a very piercing impression upon me; and I make it my business to avoid, wanting force to resist it. I could live by the sole help of healthful and jolly company: the very sight of another’s pain materially pains me, and I often usurp the sensations of another person. A perpetual cough in another tickles my lungs and throat. I more unwillingly visit the sick in whom by love and duty I am interested, than those I care not for, to whom I less look. I take possession of the disease I am concerned at, and take it to myself. I do not at all wonder that fancy should give fevers and sometimes kill such as allow it too much scope, and are too willing to entertain it. Simon Thomas was a great physician of his time: I remember, that happening one day at Toulouse to meet him at a rich old fellow’s house, who was troubled with weak lungs, and discoursing with the patient about the method of his cure, he told him, that one thing which would be very conducive to it, was to give me such occasion to be pleased with his company, that I might come often to see him, by which means, and by fixing his eyes upon the freshness of my complexion, and his imagination upon the sprightliness and vigour that glowed in my youth, and possessing all his senses with the flourishing age wherein I then was, his habit of body might, peradventure, be amended; but he forgot to say that mine, at the same time, might be made worse. Gallus Vibius so much bent his mind to find out the essence and motions of madness, that, in the end, he himself went out of his wits, and to such a degree, that he could never after recover his judgment, and might brag that he was become a fool by too much wisdom. Some there are who through fear anticipate the hangman; and there was the man, whose eyes being unbound to have his pardon read to him, was found stark dead upon the scaffold, by the stroke of imagination. We start, tremble, turn pale, and blush, as we are variously moved by imagination; and, being a-bed, feel our bodies agitated with its power to that degree, as even sometimes to expiring. And boiling youth, when fast asleep, grows so warm with fancy, as in a dream to satisfy amorous desires:—

Ut, quasi transactis saepe omnibu rebu, profundant Fluminis ingentes, fluctus, vestemque cruentent. [so that as though it were an actual affair, They pour out mighty streams, and stain the clothes they wear.]—Lucretius

Although it be no new thing to see horns grown in a night on the forehead of one that had none when he went to bed, notwithstanding, what befell Cippus, King of Italy, is memorable; who having one day been a very delighted spectator of a bullfight, and having all the night dreamed that he had horns on his head, did, by the force of imagination, really cause them to grow there. Passion gave to the son of Croesus the voice which nature had denied him. And Antiochus fell into a fever, inflamed with the beauty of Stratonice, too deeply imprinted in his soul. Pliny pretends to have seen Lucius Cossitius, who from a woman was turned into a man upon her very wedding-day. Pontanus and others report the like metamorphosis to have happened in these latter days in Italy. And, through the vehement desire of him and his mother:

Volta puer solvit, quae foemina voverat, Iphis. [Iphis the man fulfilled vows made when he was a girl.]—Ovid

Myself passing by Vitry le Francois, saw a man the Bishop of Soissons had, in confirmation, called Germain, whom all the inhabitants of the place had known to be a girl till two-and-twenty years of age, called Mary. He was, at the time of my being there, very full of beard, old, and not married. He told us, that by straining himself in a leap his male organs came out; and the girls of that place have, to this day, a song, wherein they advise one another not to take too great strides, for fear of being turned into men, as Mary Germain was. It is no wonder if this sort of accident frequently happen; for if imagination have any power in such things, it is so continually and vigorously bent upon this subject, that to the end it may not so often relapse into the same thought and violence of desire, it were better, once and for all, to give these young wenches the things they long for.

Some attribute the scars of King Dagobert and of St. Francis to the force of imagination. It is said, that by it bodies will sometimes be removed from their places; and Celsus tells us of a priest whose soul would be ravished into such an ecstasy that the body would, for a long time, remain without sense or respiration. St. Augustine makes mention of another, who, upon the hearing of any lamentable or doleful cries, would presently fall into a swoon, and be so far out of himself, that it was in vain to call, bawl in his ears, pinch or burn him, till he voluntarily came to himself; and then he would say, that he had heard voices as it were afar off, and did feel when they pinched and burned him; and, to prove that this was no obstinate dissimulation in defiance of his sense of feeling, it was manifest, that all the while he had neither pulse nor breathing.

’Tis very probable, that visions, enchantments, and all extraordinary effects of that nature, derive their credit principally from the power of imagination, working and making its chiefest impression upon vulgar and more easy souls, whose belief is so strangely imposed upon, as to think they see what they do not see.

I am not satisfied whether those pleasant ligatures—

[ Les nouements d’aiguillettes , as they were called, knots tied by someone, at a wedding, on a strip of leather, cotton, or silk, and which, especially when passed through the wedding-ring, were supposed to have the magical effect of preventing a consummation of the marriage until they were untied. See Louandre, La Sorcellerie , 1853, p. 73. The same superstition and appliance existed in England.]

—with which this age of ours is so occupied, that there is almost no other talk, are not mere voluntary impressions of apprehension and fear; for I know, by experience, in the case of a particular friend of mine, one for whom I can be as responsible as for myself, and a man that cannot possibly fall under any manner of suspicion of insufficiency, and as little of being enchanted, who having heard a companion of his make a relation of an unusual frigidity that surprised him at a very unseasonable time; being afterwards himself engaged upon the same account, the horror of the former story on a sudden so strangely possessed his imagination, that he ran the same fortune the other had done; and from that time forward, the scurvy remembrance of his disaster running in his mind and tyrannising over him, he was subject to relapse into the same misfortune. He found some remedy, however, for this fancy in another fancy, by himself frankly confessing and declaring beforehand to the party with whom he was to have to do, this subjection of his, by which means, the agitation of his soul was, in some sort, appeased; and knowing that, now, some such misbehaviour was expected from him, the restraint upon his faculties grew less. And afterwards, at such times as he was in no such apprehension, when setting about the act (his thoughts being then disengaged and free, and his body in its true and natural estate) he was at leisure to cause the part to be handled and communicated to the knowledge of the other party, he was totally freed from that vexatious infirmity. After a man has once done a woman right, he is never after in danger of misbehaving himself with that person, unless upon the account of some excusable weakness. Neither is this disaster to be feared, but in adventures, where the soul is overextended with desire or respect, and, especially, where the opportunity is of an unforeseen and pressing nature; in those cases, there is no means for a man to defend himself from such a surprise, as shall put him altogether out of sorts. I have known some, who have secured themselves from this mischance, by coming half sated elsewhere, purposely to abate the ardour of the fury, and others, who, being grown old, find themselves less impotent by being less able; and one, who found an advantage in being assured by a friend of his, that he had a counter-charm of enchantments that would secure him from this disgrace. The story itself is not, much amiss, and therefore you shall have it.

A Count of a very great family, and with whom I was very intimate, being married to a fair lady, who had formerly been courted by one who was at the wedding, all his friends were in very great fear; but especially an old lady his kinswoman, who had the ordering of the solemnity, and in whose house it was kept, suspecting his rival would offer foul play by these sorceries. Which fear she communicated to me. I bade her rely upon me: I had, by chance, about me a certain flat plate of gold, whereon were graven some celestial figures, supposed good against sunstroke or pains in the head, being applied to the suture: where, that it might the better remain firm, it was sewed to a ribbon to be tied under the chin; a foppery cousin-germane to this of which I am speaking. Jaques Pelletier, who lived in my house, had presented this to me for a singular rarity. I had a fancy to make some use of this knack, and therefore privately told the Count, that he might possibly run the same fortune other bridegrooms had sometimes done, especially some one being in the house, who, no doubt, would be glad to do him such a courtesy: but let him boldly go to bed. For I would do him the office of a friend, and, if need were, would not spare a miracle it was in my power to do, provided he would engage to me, upon his honour, to keep it to himself; and only, when they came to bring him his caudle,—

[A custom in France to bring the bridegroom a caudle in the middle of the night on his wedding-night]

—if matters had not gone well with him, to give me such a sign, and leave the rest to me. Now he had had his ears so battered, and his mind so prepossessed with the eternal tattle of this business, that when he came to’t, he did really find himself tied with the trouble of his imagination, and, accordingly, at the time appointed, gave me the sign. Whereupon, I whispered him in the ear, that he should rise, under pretence of putting us out of the room, and after a jesting manner pull my nightgown from my shoulders—we were of much about the same height— throw it over his own, and there keep it till he had performed what I had appointed him to do, which was, that when we were all gone out of the chamber, he should withdraw to make water, should three times repeat such and such words, and as often do such and such actions; that at every of the three times, he should tie the ribbon I put into his hand about his middle, and be sure to place the medal that was fastened to it, the figures in such a posture, exactly upon his reins, which being done, and having the last of the three times so well girt and fast tied the ribbon that it could neither untie nor slip from its place, let him confidently return to his business, and withal not forget to spread my gown upon the bed, so that it might be sure to cover them both. These ape’s tricks are the main of the effect, our fancy being so far seduced as to believe that such strange means must, of necessity, proceed from some abstruse science: their very inanity gives them weight and reverence. And, certain it is, that my figures approved themselves more venereal than solar, more active than prohibitive. ’Twas a sudden whimsey, mixed with a little curiosity, that made me do a thing so contrary to my nature; for I am an enemy to all subtle and counterfeit actions, and abominate all manner of trickery, though it be for sport, and to an advantage; for though the action may not be vicious in itself, its mode is vicious.

Amasis, King of Egypt, having married Laodice, a very beautiful Greek virgin, though noted for his abilities elsewhere, found himself quite another man with his wife, and could by no means enjoy her; at which he was so enraged, that he threatened to kill her, suspecting her to be a witch. As ’tis usual in things that consist in fancy, she put him upon devotion, and having accordingly made his vows to Venus, he found himself divinely restored the very first night after his oblations and sacrifices. Now women are to blame to entertain us with that disdainful, coy, and angry countenance, which extinguishes our vigor, as it kindles our desire; which made the daughter-in-law of Pythagoras—

[Theano, the lady in question was the wife, not the daughter-in-law of Pythagoras.]

—say, “That the woman who goes to bed to a man, must put off her modesty with her petticoat, and put it on again with the same.” The soul of the assailant, being disturbed with many several alarms, readily loses the power of performance; and whoever the imagination has once put this trick upon, and confounded with the shame of it (and she never does it but at the first acquaintance, by reason men are then more ardent and eager, and also, at this first account a man gives of himself, he is much more timorous of miscarrying), having made an ill beginning, he enters into such fever and despite at the accident, as are apt to remain and continue with him upon following occasions.

Married people, having all their time before them, ought never to compel or so much as to offer at the feat, if they do not find themselves quite ready: and it is less unseemly to fail of handselling the nuptial sheets, when a man perceives himself full of agitation and trembling, and to await another opportunity at more private and more composed leisure, than to make himself perpetually miserable, for having misbehaved himself and been baffled at the first assault. Till possession be taken, a man that knows himself subject to this infirmity, should leisurely and by degrees make several little trials and light offers, without obstinately attempting at once, to Force an absolute conquest over his own mutinous and indisposed faculties. Such as know their members to be naturally obedient, need take no other care but only to counterplot their fantasies.

The indocile liberty of this member is very remarkable, so importunately unruly in its tumidity and impatience, when we do not require it, and so unseasonably disobedient, when we stand most in need of it: so imperiously contesting in authority with the will, and with so much haughty obstinacy denying all solicitation, both of hand and mind. And yet, though his rebellion is so universally complained of, and that proof is thence deduced to condemn him, if he had, nevertheless, feed me to plead his cause, I should peradventure, bring the rest of his fellow-members into suspicion of complotting this mischief against him, out of pure envy at the importance and pleasure especial to his employment; and to have, by confederacy, armed the whole world against him, by malevolently charging him alone, with their common offence. For let any one consider, whether there is any one part of our bodies that does not often refuse to perform its office at the precept of the will, and that does not often exercise its function in defiance of her command. They have every one of them passions of their own, that rouse and awaken, stupefy and benumb them, without our leave or consent. How often do the involuntary motions of the countenance discover our inward thoughts, and betray our most private secrets to the bystanders. The same cause that animates this member, does also, without our knowledge, animate the lungs, pulse, and heart, the sight of a pleasing object imperceptibly diffusing a flame through all our parts, with a feverish motion. Is there nothing but these veins and muscles that swell and flag without the consent, not only of the will, but even of our knowledge also? We do not command our hairs to stand on end, nor our skin to shiver either with fear or desire; the hands often convey themselves to parts to which we do not direct them; the tongue will be interdict, and the voice congealed, when we know not how to help it. When we have nothing to eat, and would willingly forbid it, the appetite does not, for all that, forbear to stir up the parts that are subject to it, no more nor less than the other appetite we were speaking of, and in like manner, as unseasonably leaves us, when it thinks fit. The vessels that serve to discharge the belly have their own proper dilatations and compressions, without and beyond our concurrence, as well as those which are destined to purge the reins; and that which, to justify the prerogative of the will, St. Augustine urges, of having seen a man who could command his rear to discharge as often together as he pleased, Vives, his commentator, yet further fortifies with another example in his time,—of one that could break wind in tune; but these cases do not suppose any more pure obedience in that part; for is anything commonly more tumultuary or indiscreet? To which let me add, that I myself knew one so rude and ungoverned, as for forty years together made his master vent with one continued and unintermitted outbursting, and ’tis like will do so till he die of it. And I could heartily wish, that I only knew by reading, how often a man’s belly, by the denial of one single puff, brings him to the very door of an exceeding painful death; and that the emperor,—

[The Emperor Claudius, who, however, according to Suetonius (Vita, c. 32), only intended to authorise this singular privilege by an edict.]

—who gave liberty to let fly in all places, had, at the same time, given us power to do it. But for our will, in whose behalf we prefer this accusation, with how much greater probability may we reproach herself with mutiny and sedition, for her irregularity and disobedience? Does she always will what we would have her to do? Does she not often will what we forbid her to will, and that to our manifest prejudice? Does she suffer herself, more than any of the rest, to be governed and directed by the results of our reason? To conclude, I should move, in the behalf of the gentleman, my client, it might be considered, that in this fact, his cause being inseparably and indistinctly conjoined with an accessory, yet he only is called in question, and that by arguments and accusations, which cannot be charged upon the other; whose business, indeed, it is sometimes inopportunely to invite, but never to refuse, and invite, moreover, after a tacit and quiet manner; and therefore is the malice and injustice of his accusers most manifestly apparent. But be it how it will, protesting against the proceedings of the advocates and judges, nature will, in the meantime, proceed after her own way, who had done but well, had she endowed this member with some particular privilege; the author of the sole immortal work of mortals; a divine work, according to Socrates; and love, the desire of immortality, and himself an immortal demon.

Some one, perhaps, by such an effect of imagination may have had the good luck to leave behind him here, the scrofula, which his companion who has come after, has carried with him into Spain. And ’tis for this reason you may see why men in such cases require a mind prepared for the thing that is to be done. Why do the physicians possess, before hand, their patients’ credulity with so many false promises of cure, if not to the end, that the effect of imagination may supply the imposture of their decoctions? They know very well, that a great master of their trade has given it under his hand, that he has known some with whom the very sight of physic would work. All which conceits come now into my head, by the remembrance of a story was told me by a domestic apothecary of my father’s, a blunt Swiss, a nation not much addicted to vanity and lying, of a merchant he had long known at Toulouse, who being a valetudinary, and much afflicted with the stone, had often occasion to take clysters, of which he caused several sorts to be prescribed him by the physicians, according to the accidents of his disease; which, being brought him, and none of the usual forms, as feeling if it were not too hot, and the like, being omitted, he lay down, the syringe advanced, and all ceremonies performed, injection alone excepted; after which, the apothecary being gone, and the patient accommodated as if he had really received a clyster, he found the same operation and effect that those do who have taken one indeed; and if at any time the physician did not find the operation sufficient, he would usually give him two or three more doses, after the same manner. And the fellow swore, that to save charges (for he paid as if he had really taken them) this sick man’s wife, having sometimes made trial of warm water only, the effect discovered the cheat, and finding these would do no good, was fain to return to the old way.

A woman fancying she had swallowed a pin in a piece of bread, cried and lamented as though she had an intolerable pain in her throat, where she thought she felt it stick; but an ingenious fellow that was brought to her, seeing no outward tumour nor alteration, supposing it to be only a conceit taken at some crust of bread that had hurt her as it went down, caused her to vomit, and, unseen, threw a crooked pin into the basin, which the woman no sooner saw, but believing she had cast it up, she presently found herself eased of her pain. I myself knew a gentleman, who having treated a large company at his house, three or four days after bragged in jest (for there was no such thing), that he had made them eat of a baked cat; at which, a young gentlewoman, who had been at the feast, took such a horror, that falling into a violent vomiting and fever, there was no possible means to save her. Even brute beasts are subject to the force of imagination as well as we; witness dogs, who die of grief for the loss of their masters; and bark and tremble and start in their sleep; so horses will kick and whinny in their sleep.

Now all this may be attributed to the close affinity and relation betwixt the soul and the body intercommunicating their fortunes; but ’tis quite another thing when the imagination works not only upon one’s own particular body, but upon that of others also. And as an infected body communicates its malady to those that approach or live near it, as we see in the plague, the smallpox, and sore eyes, that run through whole families and cities:—

Dum spectant oculi laesos, laeduntur et ipsi; Multaque corporibus transitione nocent. [“When we look at people with sore eyes, our own eyes become sore. Many things are hurtful to our bodies by transition.” —Ovid, De Rem. Amor. , 615.]

—so the imagination, being vehemently agitated, darts out infection capable of offending the foreign object. The ancients had an opinion of certain women of Scythia, that being animated and enraged against any one, they killed him only with their looks. Tortoises and ostriches hatch their eggs with only looking on them, which infers that their eyes have in them some ejaculative virtue. And the eyes of witches are said to be assailant and hurtful:—

Nescio quis teneros oculus mihi fascinat agnos. [“Some eye, I know not whose is bewitching my tender lambs.”—Virgil, Eclog. , iii. 103.]

Magicians are no very good authority with me. But we experimentally see that women impart the marks of their fancy to the children they carry in the womb; witness her that was brought to bed of a Moor; and there was presented to Charles the Emperor and King of Bohemia, a girl from about Pisa, all over rough and covered with hair, whom her mother said to be so conceived by reason of a picture of St. John the Baptist, that hung within the curtains of her bed.

It is the same with beasts; witness Jacob’s sheep, and the hares and partridges that the snow turns white upon the mountains. There was at my house, a little while ago, a cat seen watching a bird upon the top of a tree: these, for some time, mutually fixing their eyes one upon another, the bird at last let herself fall dead into the cat’s claws, either dazzled by the force of its own imagination, or drawn by some attractive power of the cat. Such as are addicted to the pleasures of the field, have, I make no question, heard the story of the falconer, who having earnestly fixed his eyes upon a kite in the air; laid a wager that he would bring her down with the sole power of his sight, and did so, as it was said; for the tales I borrow I charge upon the consciences of those from whom I have them. The discourses are my own, and found themselves upon the proofs of reason, not of experience; to which every one has liberty to add his own examples; and who has none, let him not forbear, the number and varieties of accidents considered, to believe that there are plenty of them; if I do not apply them well, let some other do it for me. And, also, in the subject of which I treat, our manners and motions, testimonies and instances; how fabulous soever, provided they are possible, serve as well as the true; whether they have really happened or no, at Rome or Paris, to John or Peter, ’tis still within the verge of human capacity, which serves me to good use. I see, and make my advantage of it, as well in shadow as in substance; and amongst the various readings thereof in history, I cull out the most rare and memorable to fit my own turn. There are authors whose only end and design it is to give an account of things that have happened; mine, if I could arrive unto it, should be to deliver of what may happen. There is a just liberty allowed in the schools, of supposing similitudes, when they have none at hand. I do not, however, make any use of that privilege, and as to that matter, in superstitious religion, surpass all historical authority. In the examples which I here bring in, of what I have heard, read, done, or said, I have forbidden myself to dare to alter even the most light and indifferent circumstances; my conscience does not falsify one tittle; what my ignorance may do, I cannot say.

And this it is that makes me sometimes doubt in my own mind, whether a divine, or a philosopher, and such men of exact and tender prudence and conscience, are fit to write history: for how can they stake their reputation upon a popular faith? How be responsible for the opinions of men they do not know? And with what assurance deliver their conjectures for current pay? Of actions performed before their own eyes, wherein several persons were actors, they would be unwilling to give evidence upon oath before a judge; and there is no man, so familiarly known to them, for whose intentions they would become absolute caution. For my part, I think it less hazardous to write of things past, than present, by how much the writer is only to give an account of things every one knows he must of necessity borrow upon trust.

I am solicited to write the affairs of my own time by some, who fancy I look upon them with an eye less blinded with passion than another, and have a clearer insight into them by reason of the free access fortune has given me to the heads of various factions; but they do not consider, that to purchase the glory of Sallust, I would not give myself the trouble, sworn enemy as I am to obligation, assiduity, or perseverance: that there is nothing so contrary to my style, as a continued narrative, I so often interrupt and cut myself short in my writing for want of breath; I have neither composition nor explanation worth anything, and am ignorant, beyond a child, of the phrases and even the very words proper to express the most common things; and for that reason it is, that I have undertaken to say only what I can say, and have accommodated my subject to my strength. Should I take one to be my guide, peradventure I should not be able to keep pace with him; and in the freedom of my liberty might deliver judgments, which upon better thoughts, and according to reason, would be illegitimate and punishable. Plutarch would say of what he has delivered to us, that it is the work of others: that his examples are all and everywhere exactly true: that they are useful to posterity, and are presented with a lustre that will light us the way to virtue, is his own work. It is not of so dangerous consequence, as in a medicinal drug, whether an old story be so or so.

MLA Citation

Montaigne, Michel de. “Of the force of imagination.” Trans. Charles Cotton. 1574. Quotidiana. Ed. Patrick Madden. 26 Dec 2006. 17 May 2024 <http://essays.quotidiana.org/montaigne/force_of_imagination/>.

Patrick Madden's New Book

Join us on facebook, related essays, “on modern travelling”.

Before visiting countries and towns in the body, we ought to have visited them in the spirit; otherwise I fear we might as well sit still at home.

“On the illness of my muse”

Hilaire Belloc

"The other day I noticed that my Muse, who had long been ailing, silent and morose, was showing signs of actual illness."

“I talk of dreams”

William Dean Howells

The dreamer is purely unmoral; good and bad are the same to his conscience; he has no more to do with right and wrong than the animals.

“Letter II”

Mary Wollstonecraft

Civilisation is a blessing not sufficiently estimated by those who have not traced its progress.

“On the realities of imagination”

the advantage, nay even the test, of seeing and hearing, at any time, is not in the seeing and hearing, but in the ideas we realise, and the pleasure we derive.

Quotidiana is an online anthology of "classical" essays, from antiquity to the early twentieth century. All essays and images are in the public domain. Commentaries are copyrighted, but may be used with proper attribution. Special thanks to the BYU College of Humanities and English Department for funding, and to Joey Franklin and Lara Burton , for tireless research assisting.

AWP 2007: Teaching the Classical Essay

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Acquisition
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Religion
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Strategy
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous
• Next chapter >

2 The Philosophy of Imagination

• Published: October 2017
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

In this chapter various understandings of imagination from antiquity to the present day are presented and interpreted. On this background a new interpretation of imagination grounded in a philosophy of experience is introduced. With a departure point in contemporary philosophy as well as ancient Greek and Jewish thought, the author presents the theories of imagination formulated by Plato, Aristotle, and Kant, along with interpretations of their thinking from the hermeneutic phenomenological tradition. Other important positions from the medieval and modern periods are also addressed, including those of Vico and Baumgarten. The chapter shows that imagination is essential to cognition, moral action, and aesthetic experience. It is also evidenced from this chapter that imagination is crucial to a kind of thinking that has been called “sensitive,” “aesthetic,” and “expanded” and that is a presupposition of thinking and acting led by both reason and understanding.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• Google Scholar Indexing
• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Sign in through your institution

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Home / Essay Samples / Sociology / Sociological Imagination / The Power of Imagination as the Key of Mankind Development

The Power of Imagination as the Key of Mankind Development

• Category: Science , Entertainment , Sociology
• Topic: Albert Einstein , Black Swan , Sociological Imagination

Pages: 1 (410 words)

Views: 1741

• Downloads: -->

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Rhetorical Strategies Essays

Communication Skills Essays

Public Speaking Essays

First Impression Essays

Nonverbal Communication Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service  and  Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->