https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:A_Sbtm...
ORIGIN OF DOCETISM
From Latin Docetae, Docetæ +‎ -ism, from **Ancient Greek doketai "phantasmists", ** coined 197–203 CE by Serapion of Antioch, from δοκέω (dokeō, “I seem”), δόκησις (dókēsis, “apparition, phantom”). Related to latter component of synecdoche.



https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/4v7x3h/why_i...
I have no idea what you mean when you talk about the Scholastic understanding of the mind being a folk theory. I think you're reading far too much into an overlap in terminology. It seems patently obvious that the Scholastic understanding isn't the folk understanding, for a number of reasons: basically nobody thinks the will is a faculty; nobody except people engaging with the scholastics talk about an 'agent intellect'; basically nobody believes in illuminationism (that whenever we come to know something it's because God places it directly in our mind, every time for every individual piece of knowledge); basically nobody has the kind of background neoplatonic commitments that make positions like illuminationism even a credible possible theory; and so on. I find the thought that the Scholastic understanding is the folk understanding to be nothing short of bizarre.

Of course, lots of the terms we use in folk theories (in English at least, and other European languages) has large overlaps with Scholastic technical terms. This is utterly unsurprising, given that Scholasticism was the dominant intellectual approach in Europe for centuries, and itself inherited many of these terms from even older traditions (Aristotelean theories, for instance), such that careful talk about, say, acting voluntarily is in the Western tradition at least 2500 years old. That's going to leave an effect on the vocabulary of a language! The most interesting example of this is 'the will'. But 'the will' means something very specific in Scholastic theories, with around two millenia of development from Plato to Occam and beyond. The will is a distinct faculty in these views, such that it works independently of the other faculties (the intellect and the appetite, classically). But nobody thinks of it this way anymore, as you can see with the prevalence of belief-desire models, with 'belief' matching perhaps to the intellect, 'desire' to the appetite, but the will has entirely dropped out of the picture. So, when we have common terms that feature 'will' in them, like 'free will' or 'willpower' etc. it's a lot like how we still talk about 'sunset' and 'sunrise' even though basically nobody believes the view that the sun actually rises over the earth and the sun actually sets to down below it, but we still have terms which refer to consequences of such a theory, merely as historical danglers. 'Free will' and 'willpower' are terms used for what would be consequences of the faculty of the will, but now we discuss in terms that don't refer to the faculty of the will (like belief-desire models), and the fact that they have the root-word 'will' in them is similarly a historical dangler.



I am not suggesting I like the term either, but simply providing references not otherwise posted!
Phantasmism (the view that mental content is just a series of 'phantasms' like mental pictures or remembered sounds that reproduce sensory content).

And of course isn't anything that answers to 'the Scholastic understanding of the mind'. ****For one thing, Scholastic philosophy of mind has a huge and irreconcilable split between theories that inherit phantasmism from Aristotle (the view that mental content is just a series of 'phantasms' like mental pictures or remembered sounds that reproduce sensory content) and the intensionalist theories spearheaded by Abelard (the view that mental content has a propositional structure, such that even if it involves phantasms also involves the kind of relationships between objects such as sentences have, such that to say that the cat is on the mat isn't exactly the same such as to say that the mat is underneath the cat--by involving different relations, for instance--though the phantasms of this are identical).***** So, already when we look at theories of perception there has to be at least two different Scholastic understandings, ones like you find in Aquinas which appeals to phantasms and ones like you find in Occam and Duns Scotus where you pay attention to the structure inherent in mental content. Similarly, by no means are all Scholastics illuminationists, though Augustine is and his account is very influential among Scholastics. And so on for all the distinct technical positions that make up the various Scholastic understandings of the mind.

docetism: meaning, origin, definition - WordSense Dictionary
www.wordsense.eu › docetism
docetism (English). Origin & history. From Latin Docetae, Docetæ + -ism, from Ancient Greek doketai, docetai ("phantasmists"), coined 197–203 CE by Serapion ...

'Christ’s Sinful Flesh': Edward Irving's Christological ...
books.google.com › books·
... and not a mere celestial ichor, as the Phantasmists allege”.68 For Coleridge, ... as Socinians believed, nor did he take a false humanity (docetism), but taking ...
Byung Sun Lee · 2014 · ‎Biography & Autobiography

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 19 hrs (2021-02-06 13:11:57 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Thanks, Marjori!