CONCEPTS AND IMAGES
As we have said, a concept cannot be imaged--cannot be used as the
subject of a mental image. This statement is perplexing to the student
who has been accustomed to the idea that every conception of the mind is
capable of being reproduced in the form of a mental image. But the
apparently paradoxical statement is seen as quite simple when a little
consideration is given to it.
For instance, you have a distinct general concept of _animal_. You know
what you mean when you say or think, _animal_. You recognize an animal
when you see one and you understand what is meant when another uses the
word in conversation. But you cannot form a mental image of the concept,
_animal_. Why? Because any mental image you might form would be either a
picture of _some particular animal_ or else a composite of the qualities
of several animals. Your concept is too broad and general to allow of a
composite picture of _all animals_. And, in truth, your concept is _not
a picture of anything that actually exists_ in one particular, but an
abstract idea embracing the qualities of all animals. It is like the
algebraic _x_--a symbol for something that exists, but not the thing
itself.
As Brooks says: "A concept cannot be represented by a concrete image.
This is evident from its being general rather than particular. If its
color, size or shape is fixed by an image, it is no longer general but
particular." And Halleck says: "It is impossible to image anything
without giving that image individual marks. The best mental images are
so definite that a picture could be painted from them. A being might
come under the class _man_ and have a snub nose, blonde hair, scanty
eyebrows, and no scar on his face. The presence of one of these
individual peculiarities in the concept _man_ would destroy it. If we
form an image of an apple, it must be either of a yellow, red, green, or
russet apple, either as large as a pippin or as small as a crab-apple. A
boy was asked what he thought of when '_apple_' was mentioned. He
replied that he thought of 'a big, dark-red, apple with a bad spot on
one side, near the top.' That boy could image distinctly, but his power
of forming concepts was still in its infancy."
So we see that while a mental image must picture the particular and
individual qualities, properties and appearances of some particular unit
of a class, a _concept_ can and must contain only the _class
qualities_--that is, the qualities belonging to the entire class. The
general concept is as has been said "a general idea ... a general notion
which has in it all that is common to its own class." And it follows
that a "general idea" of this kind cannot be pictured. A picture must be
of some particular thing, while a concept is something above and higher
than particular things. We may picture _a man_, but we cannot picture
Man the concept of the race. A concept is not a reproduction of the
image of a _thing_, but on the contrary is _an idea of a class of
things_. We trust that the student will consider this point until he
arrives at a clear understanding of the distinction, and the reason
thereof.
But, while a concept is incapable of being pictured mentally as an
image, it is true that _some particular representative of a class_ may
be held in the mind or imagination as _an idealized object_, as a
general representative of the class, when we speak or think of the
general term or concept, providing that its real relation to the concept
is recognized. These idealized objects, however, are not concepts--they
are _percepts_ reproduced by the memory. It is important, however, to
all who wish to convey their thought plainly, that they be able to
convert their concepts into idealized representative objects. Otherwise,
they tend to become too idealistic and abstract for common
comprehension. As Halleck well says: "We should in all cases be ready to
translate our concepts, when occasion requires, into the images of those
individuals which the concept represents. A concept means nothing except
in reference to certain individuals. Without them it could never have
had existence and they are entitled to representation. A man who cannot
translate his concepts into definite images of the proper objects, is
fitted neither to teach, preach, nor practice any profession.... There
was, not long ago, a man very fond of talking about _fruit_ in the
abstract; but he failed to recognize an individual cranberry when it
was placed before him. A humorist remarked that a certain metaphysician
had such a love for abstractions, and such an intense dislike for
concrete things, as to refuse to eat a concrete peach when placed before
him."
In the beginning many students are perplexed regarding the difference
between a _percept_ and a _concept_. The distinction is simple when
properly considered. A percept is: "the object of an act of perception;
that which is perceived." A concept is: "a mental representation."
Brooks makes the following distinction: "A _percept_ is the mental
product of a real thing; a _concept_ is a mere idea or notion of the
common attributes of things. A _percept_ represents some particular
object; a _concept_ is not particular, but general. A _percept_ can be
described by particulars; a _concept_ can be described only by generals.
The former can usually be represented by an image, the latter cannot be
imagined, _it can only be thought_." Thus one is able to image the
_percept_ of a particular horse which has been perceived; but he is
unable to image correctly the concept of _horse_ as a class or generic
term.
In connection with this distinction between _perception_ and
_conception_, we may as well consider the subject of _apperception_, a
term favored by many modern psychologists, although others steadfastly
decline to recognize its necessity or meaning and refuse to employ it.
Apperception may be defined as: "perception accompanied by
comprehension; perception accompanied by recognition." The thing
perceived is held to be comprehended or recognized--that is, _perceived
in a new sense_, by reason of certain previously acquired ideas in the
mind. Halleck explains it as: "the perception of things in relation to
the ideas which we already possess." It follows that all individuals
possessed of equally active organs of perception, and equally active
attention, will perceive the same thing in the same way and in the same
degree. But the _apperception_ of each individual will differ and vary
according to his previous experience and training, temperament and
taste, habit and custom. For instance, the familiar story of the boy who
climbed a tree and watched the passers-by, noting their comments. The
first passer-by noticing the tree, says aloud: "That would make a good
stick of timber." "Good morning, Mr. Carpenter," said the boy. The next
man said: "That tree has fine bark." "Good morning, Mr. Tanner," said
the boy. Another said, "I bet there's a squirrel's nest up in that
tree." "Good morning, Mr. Hunter," said the boy.
The woman sees in a bird something pretty and "cunning." The hunter sees
in it something to kill. The ornithologist sees it as something of a
certain genus and species, and perhaps also as something appropriate for
his collection. The farmer perceives it to be something destructive of
either insects or crops. A thief sees a jail as something to be dreaded;
an ordinary citizen, something useful for confining objectionable
people; a policeman, something in the line of his business. And so on,
the apperception differing upon the previous experience of the
individual. In the same way the scientist sees in an animal or rock many
qualities of which the ordinary person is ignorant. Our training,
experience, prejudices, etc., affect our apperception.
And so, we see that in a measure our _concepts_ are determined not only
by our simple perceptions, but also materially by our apperceptions. We
conceive things not only as they are apparent to our senses, but also as
colored and influenced by our previous impressions and ideas. For this
reason we find widely varying concepts of the same things among
different individuals. Only an absolute mind could form an absolute
concept.