The word 'individual' (noun)

Hello Elena

I think the word was originally used to mean 'that which is indivisible' in philosophical and religious contexts. The emphasis was on 'indivisibility', not 'singleness'.

Later, by extension, it began to be used for 'that which is single', 'that which is an entity'.

In the C19, it became a favourite with writers such as Dickens, Thackeray, Jerome K. Jerome, etc as a 'whimsical' synonym for 'person'.

('At that precise moment, a highly unusual individual with an eyeglass leaned into the conveyance in question and surveyed the occupants with a most disconcertingly judicious air...'

You know the kind of thing.)

MrP

Hello Elena

I think the parallel is with 'atom'. This means 'that which can't be further divided'. Democritus used it to define his 'basic unit' in the universe: everything consisted of 'atoms' of one kind or another. There was nothing 'smaller'.

Later, in Cicero, we find 'atomos...id est, corpora individua': 'atoms...i.e. indivisible bodies'.

Similarly, Boethius defined 'persona' (person) as 'individualis substantia rationalis naturae': 'an indivisible substance of a rational nature'. 'Mind' was not divisible (and so, by extension, neither was 'God': hence the paradox of the Trinity).

My knowledge of medieval philosophy is shaky in the extreme. But it seems to me that the sense of 'individualis' in Boethius' phrase is the same as the sense that was carried through medieval Latin and eventually imported into English.

So I would say that the original use reflected a process of looking at the whole – the universe – and gradually dividing it (zooming in) until you reached 'the thing that can be divided/reduced no further'. You looked at the 'thing' in question and asked: is this divisible? If the answer was No, it was necessarily 'individualis'.

In practice, of course, that didn't stop medieval philosophers and theologians from going on to define many 'parts' of the 'individual': in Aquinas, for instance, the vegetative soul, the rational soul, and the sensitive soul.

Does that help? Or have I made things worse?

MrP
PS: Looking again at your original post, I realize I've missed your point about 'di-'. 'Di-' (or 'dis-') as a prefix in Latin has a sense of 'separation into two/into pieces', rather than 'connection of two'; so 'dividuus' (divisible) has a sense of 'separable into two', rather than 'two things joined that can be separated'.

inferior man, superior man and the sage (Taoism) the human, man proper, God-man/woman (Egypt), Tamasic, Rajasic, Satvic (Hindus)

Triads are intriguing. Hades, Gaia, Olympus. Hecate, Diana, Luna. Id, ego, superego. Etc., etc., etc.

Triads seem vertical to me; dualities, horizontal. (In other words, 'levels' vs 'sides'.)

How do they seem to you, Elena?

MrP

Sorry to be obscure, Elena! It was only a small thought, and one I hadn't properly considered: but at bottom, I was thinking that where we meet with a 'triad', in schemes of thought, the suggestion is often of 'levels', e.g. inferior man, superior man, sage; whereas with 'dualities', the suggestion is often of 'necessary balance', e.g. yin/yang, right brain/left brain, etc.

'Progression' vs 'balance' struck me as interesting.

I suppose a combination of 'levels' and 'sides' might be your 'spheres'.

MrP