مذهب التداعي .. تداعي الأفكار .. كتاب علم النَّفس جميل صَليبا

The doctrine of association... association of ideas

The doctrine of association

The philosophers of association (Hume, Thomas Brown, James Mill, Stuart Mill, Alexander Paine, Spencer) claimed that Aristotle's three laws can be traced back to the law of conjunction, and that the relation of this law to the states of the soul is the same as the relation of the law of general gravitation to the material world • • and that the functions of the mind are Earning, preserving, and maturity all dissolve into the interconnection of ideas.

Perception is a type of association of ideas, because it consists of the combination of sensation and image. The imaginative is a type of association of ideas because it combines auditory imaginings with visual imaginings and others, compiling them and creating scientific concepts and artistic effects from them. The sentence is also a pattern of association of ideas because it joins the predicate to the subject. Let us now explain the method of the doctrine of association.

1 - Returning the opposition to similarity or to conjunction. Aristotle used to say: Opposites are of the same type, and therefore it was easy to attribute the opposition to conjunction or to similarity. White is not the opposite of bitter, but rather it is the opposite of black, so they are similar in color. Then there is a similarity and symmetry between the two opposites with respect to the middle term, so they are two extremes, and the two extremes, as Aristotle said, meet. If there is a similarity between the two opposites, it is possible to return the law of opposition to the law of similarity.

Then it is possible to return the opposition directly to the conjunction, because the mind has become accustomed to combining these opposites due to their conjunction in people’s speech, such as the conjunction of white with black, large with small, strong with weak, life with death, and pleasure with pain. Etc. If one of the opposites is mentioned, the other follows from behind.

2 - Returning similarity to conjunction. Similarity, according to association philosophers, results from agreement in one matter and disagreement in another. Were it not for this difference, similarity would have been transformed into unity. Suppose that the thought of (S) brought to my mind the similar thought of (P). The similarity between (S) and (A) is resolved into agreement and disagreement. If (S) is composed of: B, D, Q, then (A) is composed of: B, K, L, M. So, they agree on one matter and differ on other matters. (B) is the common element, and it is associated in each of the two sentences with different elements. If you see (S), you remember (A) because of the conjunction of B in (S) with (-, D, Q) and in (A) with K, L, M). Therefore, in every association by similarity, there is association by association .

It follows from the above that association has one law, which is the law of association. Associationists have claimed that they can explain this law by the law of habit, because the effect that association leaves on the soul is proven by repetition. Therefore, association of ideas is only one of the results of repetition, and it is subject to the law of habit.

Discussion in the doctrine of association There is no objection to referring association by contrast to association by similarity or conjunction. As for returning similarity to association, it is objected to as follows:

1 - The similarity between two things does not result from agreement in one matter and disagreement in another. The similarity of two faces, for example, does not result from their agreement in one nose and their difference in the other parts, because there are two noses, not one nose: Hu Fuding said: There is a similarity between orange and yellow, but it is not possible to divide orange into parts that share some of them with yellow, and the other part remains its own ( 1), this objection is weak, because it is based on external similarity and not on mental similarity. The later philosophers of association do not speak of the similarity of things, but rather of the similarity of their images imprinted on the soul. They think that this mental similarity can be attributed to mental conjunction.

2 - If (S) accepts division into (B), -, D, Q) and it is possible for it to conjure a state similar to it, such as (A), then this second state is devoid of every part of (S). If we assume that (A) accepts division into (B), K, L, M) and (B) is the common element, it is possible to return the similarity to conjunction, except that the matter is otherwise because (B) present in (of) is not ( B) What is in (A), the first is a feeling or perception and the second is a memory, so it is (B) not (B). Yes, (B) calls for K, L, M) by conjunction, but this conjunction is not complete unless we move from (B) To (b) by similarity.

3 - If there is a set of terms, such as (A), B, C, D) and their similarity is decreasing such that (C) is more similar to (1) than (D) and less than (B), then this similarity cannot be achieved. It dissolves into unity and difference, as the claimants claimed. If (S) is the joint, it is possible to divide (1) into S + 1, (B) into S + B, (C) into S + C, and (D) into S + D. But A, B, and C also constitute a group of terms that are decreasingly similar. The reason for their decreasing similarity does not arise from the presence of (S) in them. It also decomposes into unity and difference, and if (A) is the common one here, this sentence can be divided like this: (1) = A + A and (B)
= A + B, etc... and this division continues to infinity (1). Thought does not attach its judgment of similarity to the results of this infinite calculation, but rather feels the similarity directly without revealing this common element that is difficult to define. .

These last two objections do not eliminate the suspicion, and the issue of returning similarity to conjunction remains a controversial issue, but we believe that the direct data of feeling require proof of conjunction and similarity together.

Those who advocate returning similarity to conjunction expand the scope of the association, and show that it is not just a mechanical phenomenon, and that its mechanism is not a mechanism of static balance, but rather is it? It is a moving balance mechanism that links the present phenomenon to various psychological factors, such as emotional, motor, and subconscious factors. The connection of meanings to each other is not a simple connection like the mechanical relationship that exists between two mechanical forces, but rather it is a complex connection whose elements take place on different surfaces, some of which are deep and some of which are apparent.

Moreover, most of the philosophers of association did not attribute similarity to conjunction except to perform all the actions of the mind according to one law. Stuart Mill said: The relation of the law of association to psychology is like the relation of the law of general gravitation to astronomy (33. Stuart Moill, A.Comle et le Positivisme). But we will show through the discussion of judgment, abstraction, generalization, and analogy that these mental actions cannot be explained by the law of association.

Philosophers of association deny the effectiveness of the soul and claim that the connection between psychological states results from their association in the past. Accordingly, the state that suggests association does not create the inspired state, but rather awakens it from its sleep. This is a mistake because the revealed state was not a comparison in the past to the revealed state, and how can it be compared to it when it is a new, present state that wants to complete itself by joining the previous states? Suppose you opened the introduction to Ibn Khaldun to see his views on social development, and what remains of it is true now, and the memory of (Dur Kheim) came to your mind. Can you explain this phenomenon by mechanical association? Durkheim was not associated in your past with Ibn Khaldun, but you bring up his name because it suits your present concerns and matches your interest, and this will become clear to you when you research the law of interest.