• Herve
    10
    I am French and I wrote an essay that solves (or explains how to solve) philosophical questions (like what is being). For that, we must understand something incomprehensible. This essay tries to explain it. I am unknown and I do not think that an editor will accept my book. Now that I write in good French, I realized that Google translation is very good (I have not the money to pay for a translation). I would like to try my luck in English. But, I have problems with a lot of words. Can someone help me choose the right words? If so, I think it's better to do it in only one discussion, right?

    At the beginning of mental evolution there is certainly no differentiation between the ego and the external world, that is to say that the impressions experienced and perceived are not related to a personal consciousness felt as a "me," nor to objects conceived as external: they are simply given in an indissociated block, or as spread out on the same plane, which is neither internal nor external, but halfway between these two poles. They will only oppose each other little by little. (Jean Piaget)

    I think "mental" is the good word.

    What is the word for perception in philosophy/psychology? In french we have to say "perceive by senses" to talk about the image that can be formed in the mind (the image of this car with no meaning) that bring to "perceive" an object by the mind (the car with a meaning). Is it the same in english?

    I think "impression" is the good word. Jean Piaget talk about babys who have no feeling yet.

    In this meaning the "object" is what is perceived. Is it the same in english?

    Do you use theses words : "internal" for what is inside the body (the mind) and "external" what is outside the body (this car). It is important for me, because the child are right (that does not mean we are wrong to separate them), so I talk a lot about the external.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    The word that I find to be the most questionable is "indissociated," "Block" is a bit odd there, too.

    "They are simply given in an unseparated whole" would be a much more conventional way to say the same thing.
  • Herve
    10
    Thank you. And I think inside and outside is better than internal and external.
    But it seems, the task will be too difficult to me.
  • emancipate
    118
    What is the word for perception in philosophy/psychology? In french we have to say "perceive by senses" to talk about the image that can be formed in the mind (the image of this car with no meaning) that bring to "perceive" an object by the mind (the car with a meaning). Is it the same in english?Herve

    Salut.

    In English when you say perceived by the senses, that refers to a result of perceived empirical sense data (sight, sound, taste etc). For this you would say percept.

    For a mental image, or representation, that isn't caused by sense data you would say concept.
  • Herve
    10
    OK. I think I will not try to translate it in english.

    When I said "the image of that car with no meaning", that is ambiguous.

    A cat sees a mouse and runs to catch it. We can say it has perceived it by its senses, no? The cat saw nothing, that is only me that supposes it saw the mouse. It does not need to see it. That means that sense data are only known by biologists. We are mammals, so it is the same for men.

    Is the concept is what Jean Piaget names the object? A concept has to be related to a "percept", always (even when it is not caused by sense data). And the concept is first (we have to learn it first) otherwise there cannot be a percept that is worth talking about (except if you are a biologist).

    The philosopers always think as if they have always been adults. Jean Piaget shows we have no memory of what we learnt as a child (and in fact of everything we learnt). So a man reacts like a cat when he perceives something by his senses, and the only question is : is it a human behavior related to a concept (that we have learnt without having the memory of it) or a mammal behavior that is not? Do we have a percept in the two cases? If we have a percept in the first case, I do not understand the purpose. And if we have one in the second case, I do not understant why philosopher need it.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.