THOUGHT AND ITS OPERATION.
=1. THE KNOWING MIND COMPARED WITH THE THINKING MIND.=
In the preceding chapter we were told that the mind may know in two
ways (1) by intuition and (2) by thinking. It is thus implied that
the knowing mind includes the thinking mind plus intuition. Thinking
always involves knowing, but knowing need not involve thinking, and
when some logicians maintain that to know a thing one must think it,
there is danger of being misled. They mean by this that in order to
know anything in a permanent and highly serviceable way one must think
it. All animals know, even such a stupid one as the oyster, and yet one
would hardly give an oyster credit for thinking. Only the higher orders
of animal life think. Some argue that the power is confined exclusively
to the human family. This opinion is debatable. If the claimant means
by thinking, reasoning then his ground is well taken. But if he is
willing to give to thinking a broader content, then he has little
defense for his stand. However, attach as broad a meaning to thinking
as the derivation of the word will permit and even then it is a
narrower term than knowing. Thinking plus intuition equals knowing,
and in intuition there is probably no thinking.
=2. KNOWING BY INTUITION.=
It has been affirmed that intuition is the process involved when the
mind knows _instantly_.[2]
ILLUSTRATIONS:
(1) As I raise my eyes a figure comes to view. My mind knows
_instantly_ that it is the figure three. (2) The ear catches
_immediately_ a tune which is being sung in the room below. Without
deliberation the mind recognizes the tune as America. The mind may
thus know by intuition through any one of the five senses. These are
the wires of connection between the outer world and the mind within
and transmission over these wires may be instantaneous or intuitive.
This is not all. (3) My mind may center its attention on itself and
may recognize there a mental picture or image of a pet dog. Since
this activity is without any apparent deliberation the process must
be intuitive. To define intuitive knowledge as that which comes to the
mind through the senses only is incorrect, as it leaves out altogether
the knowledge the mind may obtain of its own activity as in
illustration “(3).”
Knowledge is anything known. _Intuitive knowledge is knowledge which
comes to the mind immediately by direct observation._ The field for
intuitive knowledge may be the external world or the internal world
though, of course, the former is the more common ground. It is here
that the mind by intuition secures the most of its raw material which,
through the process of thinking, is worked over into a connected,
unified system of lasting value.
The intuitions are the beginning and the basis of all knowledge, and
knowledge gained by intuition is the basis of all thinking.
=3. THE THINKING PROCESS.=
It is claimed that _think_ comes from the same root as _thick_. From
this one would conclude that the process of thinking is virtually a
process of thickening. Surely as one thinks he enriches or thickens
his knowledge. As one thinks percepts into concepts and concepts into
judgments he makes richer in meaning the various notions concerned.
Thinking is largely a matter of pressing many into one: of linking
together the disconnected fragments of the conscious field.
DEFINITION:
_Thinking is the deliberative process of affirming or denying
connections._
The same idea may be expressed in a variety of ways as the following
indicate.
(1) “Thinking is the conscious adjustment of a means to an end in
problematic situations.” Miller.
(2) “To think is to designate an object through a mark or attribute
or what is the same thing, to determine a subject through a
predicate.” Bowen.
(3) “Thought is the comprehension of a thing under a general notion
or attribute.” Wm. Hamilton.
(4) “To think is to make clear through concepts the perceived
objects.” Dressler.
In the foregoing definitions it is implied that thinking is a
connecting or _thickening_ process. In all forms of thinking from the
simplest to the most complex the knowing mind hunts for some basis of
connection and having found it _thinks_ the relationship into a unified
whole.
The thinking process is the digestive process of the mind. Much as
the digestive organs assimilate the food stuff of the physical world,
so the thinking organ assimilates the food stuff of the mental world.
ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE THINKING PROCESS:
(1) The child is unable to explain the meaning of “hocus-pocus” as
it occurs in the question, “What hocus-pocus is this?” The child mind
is unable to establish any connection between the word and its real
meaning. In short, is unable to _think into it a meaning_; it therefore
becomes necessary for the teacher to establish some basis of connection
and this he does by suggesting _nonsense_ as a _synonym_.
(2) The teacher holds before the class an Egyptian house god and asks,
“What is it?” After a moment of hesitation some child who has seen
pictures of “his satanic majesty” avers that the object is a “little
devil.” Thus has a connection been established between the idol and
pictures of satan.
(3) John is unable to solve the following problem as he can discern no
connection between the data given and the data required. Problem. 3/4
of my salary is $900, what is my salary?
Data. Given: 3/4 of salary = $900.
Required: 4/4 of salary = ?
In order that John may _think_ a solution the teacher must lead him to
see some connection between 3/4 and 4/4. With this in mind the form of
the data is changed to
Given: 3-fourths = $900
Required: 4-fourths = ?
or
Given: 3 parts = $900
Required: 4 parts = ?
John now notes that 4 parts is 4/3 times 3 parts and consequently
writes 4/3 of $900, which is $1,200 as the answer. Or he may find the
value of 1 part and then of 4 parts.
=4. NOTIONS, INDIVIDUAL AND GENERAL.=
_A notion is any product of the knowing mind――anything which the mind
notes or becomes aware of._
But the mind knows in two ways, by intuition and by thinking. In
consequence the mind has two kinds of notions, those which are
intuitive or _individual notions_ and those which originally result
from thinking or _general notions_.
_An individual notion is a notion of one thing. A general notion is a
notion of a class of things._
_Note._ Here it is necessary to distinguish between a thing and an
object. _An object is a thing which occupies space_ such as a pencil
or a book. “_Thing_” is, therefore, a broader term than “_object_.”
“_A thing is that which has individual existence._” From the viewpoint
of logic “thing” includes objects, qualities, relations, spiritual
entities. Gravitation is a thing but not an object. A tree is both an
object and a thing.
ILLUSTRATIONS OF NOTIONS.
My notion of the pencil with which I am writing is an individual
notion, but my notion of pencil as a _class name_ is general. My
yellow dog, the honesty of Lincoln, Albert White, New York City, are
individual notions, while dog, honesty, man, city, are general notions.
A sure way to determine whether the notion is individual or general
is to attempt to divide it into its kinds. Only general notions may be
subdivided.
=5. KNOWLEDGE AND IDEA AS RELATED TO THE NOTION.=
Knowledge is anything known, while anything of which the mind becomes
aware is a notion. Notions are always bits of knowledge, but knowledge
is not always a notion. Notions are mental products belonging to the
mind which thinks them, while knowledge, though it must first be a
mental product of someone’s mind, may not necessarily be a product of
yours or mine. Notions are always found in the mind, while knowledge
may be found in books, but not necessarily in some individual mind.
Knowledge stands for everything _known_, the notion, for everything
_noted_. The Egyptians may have possessed much knowledge of which we
may never become aware. Much of their _knowledge_ may never become
_notions_ of the American people. A notion is an existing state of
consciousness. Said notion may be committed to paper, and then it
may give way to another notion. It now ceases to be your notion, but
remains on the printed page, as a bit of knowledge.
“Idea,” because of its ambiguity, really has no place in logic. The
term is frequently restricted to a _reproduced percept_. To illustrate:
When the pencil is before me the mental product is a percept, but when
the pencil is withdrawn and I try to think of it, then have I an _idea_
of “pencil.” Probably _idea_ is most commonly associated with _meaning_
and _belief_. To illustrate: What is your _idea_ as to the meaning of
homogeny? or What are your _ideas_ on the tariff?
=6. THE LOGIC OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL TERMS INVOLVED IN THE NOTION.=
Concerning the knowing mind the psychologist classifies its activities
and their products as follows:
_Activity_ _Product_
(1) Presentative
(1) Sensation Sensation
(2) Perception Percept
(2) Representative
(1) Imagination } Image
(2) Memory }
(3) Thinking
(1) Conception Concept
(2) Judging Judgment
(3) Reasoning Inference
The notion as _any_ product of the knowing mind includes the _six_
products as indicated by the psychologist.
The individual notion which is intuitive includes the sensation,
percept and image; the general notion which is a thought product stands
for the concept, judgment and inference. To put it mathematically――
{ sensation } }
Individual notion = { percept } = intuitive products }
{ image } } _notion_
{ concept } }
General notion = { judgment } = thought products }
{ inference } }
As we shall have occasion frequently to refer to these psychological
terms it may be well to define them.
_Psychological Definition._ _Logical Definition._
A sensation is the first and A sensation is a vague,
simplest mental result of the unlocalized mental product of
stimulation of an incarrying the knowing mind.
nerve.
A percept is a mental A percept is a consciously
product which results from a localized group of sensations.
consciousness of particular
material things present to the
sense.
An image is a mental product An image is a reproduced
which results from particular percept.
material things not present to
the sense.
A concept is a representation A concept is a mental product
in our minds answering to a arising from thinking many
general name. notions into one class.
A judgment is the result of A judgment is the mental
asserting an agreement or product arising from conjoining
disagreement between two ideas. or disjoining notions.
An inference is a judgment An inference is a judgment
derived from perceiving derived from antecedent
relations between other judgments.
judgments.
It is seen that the sensations furnish the raw material. Ignoring the
few exceptions we may then say that a percept is a made-over group of
sensations; a concept a thought-made group of percepts; a judgment a
thought-made group of concepts; an inference a judgment derived from
other judgments.
_Developed thinking_ is first found in the concept, and as we study the
thought products, “concept,” “judgment” and “inference,” the truth is
forced upon us that _thinking as a process aims to group the many into
one_. From many percepts is built the one concept, from two concepts
is built the one judgment and from two judgments is built the one
inference.[3]
Speaking figuratively, thinking is a matter of picking up the fragments
along the shore of consciousness and tying them into bundles.
=7. THOUGHT IN THE SENSATION AND PERCEPT.=
So far in this discussion it has been assumed that there is
no thinking involved in the sensation or the percept. There
are good authorities, however, who insist on dignifying the
sensation, even with a crude form of thinking. To illustrate:
One may be reading an interesting novel. The mind is being
entertained and ignores the activities of the objective world,
yet we cannot say that the mind is dead to the world outside.
There is a dim consciousness of certain noises without. These
unlocalized sounds are sensations; but how is the mind able to
recognize them as sounds or noises? To interpret the noises is
it not necessary for the mind to affirm a connection between
them and some past mental experience? Is it possible for
the mind to know anything without establishing some kind
of connection between the outside occurrence and an inner
situation? If this is granted then in sensation there must be
implicit thinking.
As the percept is a localized group of sensations then
there must be involved in perception a more complex form of
thinking, since in grouping sensations there is a recognition
of connections.
If there is thinking in the sensation which is the simplest and
lowest form of the knowing-mind then thinking conditions all
knowledge and really is the basic elemental cell of all knowing.
On the other hand there are those who maintain that the
sensation and percept are mere reflections of consciousness; the
sensation being a reflected quality and the percept a reflected
object. These mental situations come into being instantly――there
is no time for thought and we all know that thought requires
time. (“As quick as thought” is misleading, since light travels
more rapidly by many times than the agencies of thought.)
It will probably never be settled to the satisfaction of all
just when thinking commences. The question is as difficult
as some others which have never been solved. For example:
Where does life commence? When does the plant merge into the
animal? Which was first the egg or the hen? Does the objective
world really exist or is it only a mental interpretation of
vibrations? etc.
Logically considered the question is immaterial. All will agree
that developed thought is involved in the concept, judgment
and inference, while, if it appears at all in the percept and
sensation, it is more or less undeveloped and consequently lies
quite without the province of the logical field.
=8. EVOLUTION AND THE THINKING MIND.=
Speaking in general terms evolution is a development from a lower to
a higher state. Thus have come the various species of the vegetable
and animal world. The lower orders of life are simple in structure and
function. In the one-celled animate form a single organ performs all of
the work needed to maintain life and perpetuate the species. If these
simple life-forms are cut in two, life continues in the two parts as
if nothing had happened. Aside from their simplicity there is little
of interdependence of function and little of co-ordination of organs
in the lowest life-forms. In short there is no division of labor; “each
cell is a world unto itself.”
An analogous development is seen in the thinking mind. The little
child thinks in _lumps_, and these lumps are only faultily linked
together, but the adult thinks in terms of the _grains_ of the lump,
each grain having its place, which it must occupy for the sake of all
the other grains as well as the entire lump. The child’s thinking is
vague, general and inaccurate, while the adult’s thinking should be
definite, specialized and accurate. Thinking in the lump means little
discrimination and very faulty integration or unity, while thinking
in terms of the grains means detailed discrimination and perfect
integration. To illustrate: The child sees a dog trotting along the
side walk which, according to the suggestion of his mother, he learns
to call “bow-wow.” Later he observes a cat and at once says “bow-wow,”
because all that the child notes is that something with legs, ears
and a tail is trotting along the side walk. Anything which fits these
general marks is a “bow-wow.” Similarly when a child first observes
a robin perched on a gate post he fails to distinguish between the
two――it is _all_ bird from the top of the robin’s head to the bottom
of the gate post.
Progress in thinking is measured by progress in discrimination. The
skilled thinker divides the large unit into very small units, compares
these with each other and then reunites them into a more perfect and
unified whole. First there is an analysis and then a synthesis. Like a
shuttle the power of thought works in and out; it goes in to separate,
it comes out to unify.
There is another aspect in the analogy between the life of the
physical and mental worlds. Somewhere in the order of progress there is
a connecting link between the mineral and vegetable kingdoms, likewise
between the vegetable and animal kingdoms. The sensation is as much
a state of feeling as an act of knowing and consequently is the
connecting link between the _feeling_ mind and the _knowing_ mind. If
the percept is the result of thinking as well as intuition then it may
stand for the dividing line between the _knowing_[4] mind and the
_thinking_ mind.
=9. THE CONCEPT AS A THOUGHT PRODUCT.=
_Conception is the process of thinking many notions into one
class._ The product of such a process is called a concept.
(1) The concept may stand for a group of concrete _general_
notions――as the concept _man_, which stands for the five general
notions: Caucasian, Mongolian, Ethiopian, Malay and American
Indian. (2) The concept may stand for a group of concrete
_individual_ notions. For example, the same concept _man_
represents all of the individual men of the world. (3) The
concept may stand for a group of _abstract general_ notions. To
wit: Virtue represents such general notions as honesty, justice,
industry, purity, etc. (These are general notions because they
admit of a subdivision into kinds. Industry, for instance,
may be divided into two kinds: mental industry and physical
industry.) (4) The concept may stand for a group of _abstract
individual_ notions. To illustrate: Blueness stands for the
various shades of blue, as sky blue, bird’s egg blue, navy blue,
etc.
Thus does the concept stand for a group of all kinds of notions,
individual and general, abstract and concrete.
THE PROCESS OF CONCEPTION ILLUSTRATED.
I see for the first time in my life a pencil. In other words I
become conscious of a localized group of sensations――this is a
percept. I am told that the name of that which I see is _pencil_.
I note that this particular pencil has a thread of black lead
encased in a cylindrical strip of wood which is brown in color.
A second object is presented which I recognize as a pencil
though the shape is prismatic rather than cylindrical and the
color green rather than brown. But I call it a pencil because
it has a thread of black lead encased in a strip of wood. The
notion which I now have in mind stands for two pencils and
is therefore represented by a class name. As I observe other
pencils of various shapes, made of wood and paper with threads
of different colored lead, my notion of pencil broadens till
finally it stands for all pencils. This is the process of
conception according to the definition, namely: “The process of
thinking many notions into one class.” In this case the notions
are individual.
An examination of conception makes evident two distinct
characteristics. First, I may be able to recognize each
individual pencil because of the two common qualities, a
thread of lead and an encasement of some kind. This process of
the knowing mind whereby it recognizes and affirms connections
is called thinking as we have already learned. Here is the
_thinking_ aspect of conception. Second, as the instances of
the observed objects are multiplied, my notion of pencil is
_broadened_. It is a building process where many are cemented
into one; like the blocks of a cement wall. Here we find the
characteristic which enables us to call the process _conception_.
This is the mark which distinguishes conception from all the
other thought processes.
=10. THE JUDGMENT AS A THOUGHT PRODUCT.=
Judging is the process of conjoining and disjoining notions.
The product of judging is the judgment and all judgments are
expressed by means of propositions. A proposition consists of
one subject and one predicate connected by some form of the verb
_be_ or its equivalent.
(1) A judgment may conjoin or disjoin two individual notions.
To wit: Conjoined――This pencil belongs to Albert White.
Disjoined――This pencil does not belong to Mary Smith.
(2) A judgment may conjoin or disjoin two general notions.
Conjoined――Some men are virtuous.
Disjoined――Some men are not virtuous.
(3) A judgment may conjoin or disjoin a general and an individual
notion.
Conjoined――Abraham Lincoln was virtuous.
Disjoined――Edgar Allen Poe was not temperate.
In order that the knowing mind may conjoin notions it must
recognize some mark of similarity or connection. This is the
_thinking_ aspect of the judgment. It is likewise to a certain
degree the judging aspect as the latter is simply a matter of
affirming or denying connections between notions. But thinking
is a broader term than judging. There may be connections
established between a name and a notion. For example in the case
of the dog which the child sees trotting along the sidewalk and
which the mother refers to as a “bow-wow”; the term “bow-wow” is
not a percept and has no meaning independent of its association
with the dog, hence it is not a notion, yet some connection has
been made in the child’s mind between “bow-wow” and his notion
of dog. This is a simple form of thinking, but not of judging,
as the latter affirms or denies connections between _notions_
only.
The fact that judging and thinking so closely resemble each
other has given just cause for some logicians to designate
judging as the most fundamental element in all thinking. “The
simplest form of thinking,” says Creighton, “is judging.” In
order to think many notions into one class it is necessary to
conjoin notions. To illustrate: The child who has a general
notion of man sees for the first time a negro. If he recognizes
the negro as a colored man he must conjoin his general notion of
man with this individual notion. In short, a concept is built by
means of a series of judgments. It may be said further that an
inference is simply a _made-over judgment_. It is thus evident
that judging appears in both the thought processes of conception
and inference and, therefore, as a final conclusion it may be
affirmed that judging, though perhaps not the simplest form of
thinking, is the basic element of _developed_ thought.
=11. INFERENCE AS A THOUGHT PRODUCT.=
Reasoning is the process of deriving a new judgment from a
consideration of other judgments. The product of any reasoning
process may be called an inference, although, as will appear in
a later chapter, inference is commonly used as indicating the
process as well as the product.
Often reasoning may assume a syllogistic form with the inference
as its conclusion. A syllogism is an arrangement of three
propositions using three different terms. The following are
syllogisms:
(1) All children should play.
Mary is a child.
Hence, Mary should play.
(2) No teacher should judge hastily.
You are a teacher.
Hence, you should not judge hastily.
In the second syllogism the inference, “you should not judge
hastily,” is derived from the other two judgments by merely
eliminating the common term teacher and disjoining the remaining
two terms. The inference is consequently a _new_ judgment.
Therefore, reasoning is only a matter of judging carried to a
more complex stage.
To summarize――_conception_ is largely a matter of conjoining
a general notion with an individual notion, _judging_ of
conjoining and disjoining all kinds of notions and _inference_
of conjoining and disjoining judgments. All three processes
go to form the larger process of thinking. _The concept, the
judgment and the inference are products arising from conjoining
and disjoining notions._
=12. THINKING AND APPREHENSION.=
Says Jevons: “Simple apprehension is the act of the mind by which we
merely become aware of something, or have an idea or impression of
it brought into the mind;” while Hyslop states that “The process of
knowledge which gives us percepts is apprehension.” It is obvious that
the idea of the latter is that _apprehension_ yields individual notions
only, while Jevons, in citing the term _iron_ as an illustration of
his definition, would infer that the general notion is the product
of _apprehension_. The term is strikingly ambiguous and will not be
referred to often in this treatise. If the student desires a definition
this will cover the concensus of opinion on the meaning of apprehension.
_Apprehension is that process of the knowing mind which yields the
percept and concept._ Some logicians give to the thinking mind the
three aspects of apprehension, judging and reasoning.
=13. STAGES IN THINKING.=
In all thinking there are three steps or stages which may be termed
_discrimination_, _comparison_, _integration_.
In the case of the two pencils held in the hand, it is noted that
one is longer than the other. Let us analyze the process which
made possible this conclusion. Step one――Attention is given first
to one pencil and then to the other. In each case the pencils are
distinguished from the hand and the other surrounding objects. This is
discrimination. Step two――The pencils are _compared_ in length. Step
three――The two notions are united in the judgment, “Pencil number _one_
is longer than pencil number _two_.” This is integration.
Another illustration. The child is requested to solve this problem: If
8 tons of hay cost $165, what will 16 tons cost?
Statement: Given: 8 tons cost $165.
Required: 16 tons cost?
Discrimination. The child notes that 8 tons cost $165 and at this rate
he is required to find the cost of 16 tons.
Comparison. The child perceives that 16 tons is twice 8 tons.
Integration. The child concludes that the cost of 16 tons will be twice
the cost of 8 tons or $330.
When we think, we first tear to pieces that we may become acquainted
with every part. This may be called analysis. Then we put the related
pieces together again. This may be called synthesis. Before, however,
the parts are re-united a certain amount of comparison is necessary.
The three stages of thought might thus be denominated: (1) analysis,
(2) comparison, (3) synthesis.
After the synthesis or integration it is necessary to name the result,
consequently a fourth step is sometimes given, namely denomination.
=14. OUTLINE.=
THOUGHT AND ITS OPERATION.
(1) The Knowing Mind Compared with the Thinking Mind.
(2) Knowing by Intuition.
(3) The Thinking Process.
Defined.
Other definitions.
(4) Notions.
Individual.
General.
Thing and object distinguished.
(5) Knowledge and Idea as Related to the Notion.
(6) The Logic of Psychological Terms Involved in the Notion.
The sensation }
The percept } Individual notions.
The image }
The concept }
The judgment } General notions.
The inference }
Terms defined.
(7) Thought and the Sensation and Percept.
(8) Evolution and the Thinking Mind.
(9) The Concept as a Thought Product.
(10) The Judgment as a Thought Product.
The simplest form of thinking.
(11) Inference as a Thought Product.
(12) Thinking and Apprehension.
(13) Stages in Thinking.
Discrimination.
Comparison.
Integration.
(Denomination.)
=15. SUMMARY.=
(1) Knowing is a broader term than thinking as the former equals the
latter plus intuition.
(2) Intuitive knowledge is that which comes to the mind immediately by
direct observation.
Although intuitive knowledge comes to the mind without thought, yet
such knowledge is _essential_ to all thinking. Intuitive knowledge is
the foundation upon which the thinking mind builds.
(3) Thinking is the deliberative process of affirming and denying
connections. Thinking is a “thickening process,” the smaller units
being pressed together to make a larger. Thinking is chiefly a matter
of reducing plurality to unity.
(4) A notion is any product of the knowing mind.
An individual notion is the notion of one thing.
A general notion is a notion of a class of things.
A thing includes objects, qualities, relations or any existing entity.
A thing is that which has _individual existence_.
(5) A bit of knowledge must have been a notion of some one’s mind, but
may not necessarily be a notion of _your_ mind. Knowledge may be found
in books, but a notion is a mental product found only in the mind. Idea
is ambiguous, though its meaning is usually restricted to an image, a
meaning or a belief.
(6) The products of the knowing mind are the sensation, the image,
percept, concept, judgment, inference.
The sensation, image and percept are individual notions, while the
concept, judgment and inference are general notions.
A sensation is a vague, unlocalized product of the knowing mind.
A percept is a consciously localized group of sensations.
An image is a reproduced percept.
A concept is a mental product arising from thinking many notions into
one class.
A judgment is a mental product arising from conjoining and disjoining
notions.
An inference is a judgment derived from antecedent judgments.
The developed thought processes are the concept, the judgment and the
inference.
(7) Just where the simplest form of thinking appears in the various
activities of the knowing mind is still an undecided question. It is
agreed that thinking in its developed and more complex form is found
in conception, judging and reasoning.
(8) Thinking evolves from the simple to the more complex, just as life
has evolved.
The child thinks in vague, indefinite wholes, while the adult thinks in
clear, definite parts. The child discriminates very imperfectly while
the adult discriminates accurately.
The sensation seems to be the connecting link between the feeling mind
and the knowing mind, while the percept links together the knowing mind
and the thinking mind.
(9) Conception is the process of thinking many notions into one class.
The product of such a process is a concept. The concept stands for
groups of all kinds of objects.
Conception has the two aspects of _affirming connections_ and of
_building many into one_. The first is the thinking side of the process
and the second is the mark which distinguishes conception from the
other thought processes.
(10) Judging is the process of conjoining or disjoining notions.
Judgment is the product of judging.
Judgments conjoin and disjoin all kinds of notions.
Judging and thinking, though they closely resemble each other, are not
synonomous terms. Thinking is a broader term in that connections may be
established between a notion and a name for that notion.
Judging is the most fundamental of all thinking, as the concept is
built from a series of judgments and an inference is simply a made-over
judgment.
(11) Inference.
Reasoning is the process of deriving a new judgment from a
consideration of antecedent judgments. This derived judgment may be
called an inference. Sometimes the term inference denotes the process
of reasoning as well as the product.
Reasoning often takes the form of a syllogism.
The concept, the judgment and the inference are _products_ arising from
conjoining and disjoining notions.
(12) Some give to the thinking mind the three aspects, apprehension,
judging and reasoning. Apprehension is another word for the two
processes, perception and conception.
(13) The three important stages in thinking are discrimination,
comparison, integration; or analysis, comparison and synthesis.
=16. REVIEW QUESTIONS.=
(1) Show the difference between the knowing mind and the thinking
mind.
(2) Describe the process known as intuition.
(3) What is intuitive knowledge?
(4) Is the assumption that _think_ comes from the same root as
_thick_ a feasible one? Explain.
(5) Define thinking in at least two ways.
(6) “Inability to think is due to inability to note connections.”
Show this by making use of some problem in arithmetic.
(7) Distinguish between individual and general notions.
(8) Which is the broader term, object or thing? Explain.
(9) What kind of notions only admit of subdivisions? Illustrate.
(10) What is the difference between knowledge and notions? Explain.
(11) Explain and illustrate the meaning of idea.
(12) Classify the various activities of the knowing mind and define
each.
(13) Explain by definition and illustration the products of the
knowing mind.
(14) Relate the general notion to the psychological products of the
knowing mind.
(15) “The thinking mind is a unit.” Explain fully.
(16) Trace the analogy between the evolution of the physical world and
the evolution of thought.
(17) Show that the sensation and the percept may be regarded as
connecting links between lower and higher states.
(18) Define and illustrate conception.
(19) Show that the concept stands for all kinds of notions.
(20) Point out the thinking aspect of conception as distinguished from
the activity which gives the process its name.
(21) Define the judgment. Illustrate two kinds.
(22) Show that the concept is built by means of a series of judgments.
(23) Show that judging is the fundamental element in the thought
products.
(24) Define and illustrate reasoning.
(25) Describe the syllogism.
(26) Explain the use of apprehension.
(27) What are the stages in thinking? Illustrate fully.
(28) Show that thinking is a matter of analysis and synthesis.
=17. QUESTIONS FOR ORIGINAL THOUGHT AND INVESTIGATION.=
(1) Give your argument in favor of the statement, “Dogs think, but do
not reason.”
(2) Show by illustration that thinking would be impossible without
intuition.
(3) “Thinking is the conscious adjustment of a means to an end in
problematic situations.” Illustrate this.
(4) The class is unable to solve the following problem: “I sell
my house for $12,000, which is a gain of 25% on the cost. Find
the cost.” What is the trouble? State the problem so that some
connection is apparent.
(5) “Two-thirds of my salary is $2,400. What is my salary?” A child
solves this by dividing $2,400 by two and multiplying this result
by three. Illustrate a plan for establishing right connections.
(6) May a judgment express a general notion? Illustrate.
(7) Is a thought a thing? Illustrate.
(8) Show the illogic of dividing notions into individual, general and
abstract.
(9) Show that goodness is a general notion.
(10) Is the concept an idea? Explain.
(11) Prove that a mental image is always an individual notion.
(12) “In sensation is there implicit thinking?” Argue both sides of
the question.
(13) Show that the concept, the judgment and the inference are
products of the thinking mind.
(14) Show by illustration where perception ceases and conception
begins.
(15) Is there actually any difference between thinking and judging?
Illustrate.
(16) “Reasoning is controlled thought.” Explain.
(17) Of the three stages in thinking which one most concerns the
teacher? Illustrate.