The evolution of general ideasRibot, Th. (Théodule)
Science
The evolution of general ideas
Ribot, Th. (Théodule)
Abstraction; Imagination
2. It is a fundamental principle that the signs are disposed in the order
of their relative importance, everything superfluous being omitted.
3. The subject is placed before the attribute, the object (complement)
before the action, and, most frequently, the modified part before the
modifying.
Some examples will serve for the better comprehension of the ordinary
procedure of this syntax. To explain the proposition: After running, I
went to sleep, the order of gesture would be: to run, me, finished, to
sleep.—My father gave me an apple: apple, father, me, give.—The active
state is distinguished from the passive by its position: I struck Thomas
with a stick; me, Thomas, strike, stick. The Abbé Sicard, on asking a
deaf-mute, Who created God? obtained the answer: God created nothing.
Though he had no doubt as to the meaning of this inversion, he asked the
control question, Who makes shoes? Answer, shoes makes cobbler.
The dry, bare character of this syntax is evident: the terms are
juxtaposed without relation; it expresses the strictest necessity only;
it is the replica of a sterile, indistinct mode of thought.
Since we are endeavoring by its aid to fix an intellectual level, it
is not without interest to compare it with a syntax that is frequent
among the weak in intellect. “These do not decline or conjugate;
they employ a vague substantive, the infinitive alone, or the past
participle. They leave out articles, conjunctions, auxiliary verbs,
reject prepositions, employ nouns instead of pronouns. They call
themselves “father,” “mother,” “Charles,” and refer to other people by
indeterminate substantives, such as man, woman, sister, doctor, etc. They
invert the regular order of substantives and adjectives.”[32] Although
this is a case of mental regression, hence not rigorously comparable
with a mind that is sane but little developed, the mental resemblance
between the two syntaxes, and especially the absence of all expression of
relations deserves to be signalised, because it cannot be the result of a
fortuitous coincidence. It is the work of intellectual inferiority and of
relative discontinuity of thought.
There is little to say about _numeration_ in deaf-mutes. When untrained,
they can count up to ten with the help of their fingers, like many
primitive people. Moreover (according to Sicard and Gérando), they make
use of notches upon a piece of wood or some other visible mark.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account