Doctor of Philosophy, professor R.Yu. Rakhmatullin
Bashkir state agrarian university, Russia
What is an image?
Despite numerous studies, the concept of image in psychology and
philosophy, is multi-valued. This polysemous the concept leads to confusion and
misunderstandings positions authors publications devoted to figurative
representation. We and my colleagues have tried to resolve the existing
problems in the definition of "image" of the concept [1]. In this
small article we present the main conclusions to which we came.
Conclusion 1. The image has a psychic phenomenon. In the scientific
literature there are often attempts to make the image of the status of
photographs, illustrations, drawings, language tools, models, etc. In this
case, the image is identified with a representant, which can be both mental and
material. We believe that the image is a form of mental representation of the
original object.
Conclusion
2. The image has a structural compliance property (isomorphism) of the
original. This clarification by the need to overcome widespread in the national
psychology and the philosophy of the opinion that "the feeling is a
subjective image of the objective world" (Lenin). The fact that the sense
reflects only one side of the object. For example, the feeling of a headache
can hardly be called a way of hypertension, and sound sense of the fallen on
the floor spoon – a spoon this way. However, the property of isomorphism may
have both the model and theory. Therefore, it is important to supplement this
property another – third – conclusion.
Conclusion
3. The image has the property of intentionality. If a model, a symbol, a sign
of a man regarded as a representative of the object, the image is identified
with the object itself, it is experienced as the object itself. Renowned
psychologist Leontiev wrote on this subject as follows: "Extensive
psychological fact is that it is not our subjective states, and the objects
themselves are in the form to us. For example, exposure to light things on the
eye is perceived as an objective form of things, located outside the eye. For
the subject of the image as it is imposed on the thing "[2, c. 38].
Conclusion
4. The image multimodal. The most common mistake when describing the image is
attributing to him only one modality. Write about visual image, olfactory,
tactile, auditory, etc. But in fact, the image is a synthesis of the set of modalities.
For example, the image of the pine forest includes not only visual, but also
auditory (eg, the noise of the wind swinging from trees), and olfactory sensations
(smell of pine needles). The oldest specialist in the study of subjective
reality DI Dubrovsky says that "Any perception of external phenomena
multimodal ˂ ... ˃. Perceptual perception is the result of synthesis,
which integrates a sensor and information from many different sources" [1,
c. 75].
Attention
is drawn to the fact that the image is not a copy of the original object. If in
our psyche there is an image of red apple with a pleasant smell, it does not
mean that there are colors, the smells, the sounds outside of us. It is known
that color in mind result from perception of electromagnetic waves of a certain
frequency sounds - perception of the environment result of vibrations, and
odors - the result of olfactory perception in some airborne particles. Law
professors V.F. Petrenko, who writes that the world is full of colors, sounds,
smells, but all these qualities derived from the sense organs of the subject.
Physics does not "know" the red, but describes the electromagnetic
waves of a certain length (frequency), which, when exposed to the retina of the
human eye causes a corresponding sense of .
Based
on the above, it is proposed the following definition of the image: The image
has a synthetic unity of sensory signals that are isomorphic to the content of
the original object and experienced person as the object itself.
There
is disagreement on the question of the place of images in scientific knowledge.
Some scientists believe that the highest form of knowledge is the theory They
point to the failure of images to express the essence of objects. In our view,
this statement is misleading. For example, the image of the solar system is a
form of expression of its essence. The fact that the perception of images exist
and there are images created by man. Solar system from far no one was watching,
her image was created by scientists and astronomers. This image includes not
only sensory components, and scientific ideas.
Why do
the images of a scientist? This question is related to the problem of understanding.
Modern theory is often expressed in a complex symbolic form. They do not
understand, not only pupils and students, but also scientists who are engaged
in other scientific problems. Often, when biologists do not understand the
physics, and the physics – biologists [3]. In order for people to understand
each other, we need a common language. Thus speaks the language of images and
language. It is for this reason that in the twentieth century and there is a
form of knowledge, as a scientific picture of the world. The peculiarity of
this form of knowledge lies in the fact that its essential components are the
images (the image of the solar system, atoms, DNA, etc.). The images used in
science, make the semantics of its language. Therefore, they play a very
important role in the understanding of complex theoretical constructions.
The
language of images is very ancient, which existed long before the emergence of
thinking. It belongs to the category of the metaphysical grounds of verbal
language [4].
References:
1. Рахматуллин Р.Ю., Сафронова Л.В., Рахматуллин Т.Р. Образ
как гносеологическая категория: трудности определения // Вестник ВЭГУ. 2008. №
3. С. 6-14.
2. Леонтьев А. Н. Чувственный образ и
модель в свете ленинской теории отражения // Вопросы психологии. 1970. № 2.
3. Рахматуллин Р.Ю. Герменевтическая
функция образа в процессе обучения // Вестник Карагандинского университета.
2012. № 4. С. 74-79.
4. Рахматуллин Р.Ю. О метафизических
основаниях внеисторического в праве // Молодой ученый. 2013. № 11. С. 549-552.