Scan barcode
blueyorkie's review against another edition
3.0
Imagination or the production of images poses a problem in philosophy: what is an image, what is its nature, how does it differ from reality - and if reality is only one image, how to distinguish between imagination and reality, between false and true - and if the image is different from reality, what is it, how is it produced, how is it stored, how is it remembered, etc.
Philosophers have all broken their teeth on this thorny problem. For Descartes, reality and image do not make a difference; understanding makes the selection. This point of view is not very satisfactory because experience makes us live every day in that we immediately make the difference between a voice "in our head" and the neighbor next door who speaks, without "thinking" or "reason" to achieve this result. For empiricists, it's all about sensations since consciousness does not exist - the image only reproduces the real sensations, but less powerfully. Not very convincing either: when I think of an injury, I remember being in pain, but I don't know the pain. For psychologists, it is not better; the world is reconstituted in each of us so that the objectivity of the matter is denied. For everyone, or almost, the image is an image of reality - but why is it always more blurry, less clear, and less specific than accurate perception?
Of course, Husserl and the Würzburg Philosophers offer an exciting option by eliminating the image question and differentiating its fixation from its production. This living process is renewed each time through perception or precertification. But where is the image stored? By what operation will we look for it? Once again, how can we differentiate the process of precertification (recalled memory) from accurate perception? Where is the information? It remains for JPS to write a book on the subject. It will be called "The Imaginary". And perhaps neurology has brought some exciting experiments to submit to philosophy since then.
Philosophers have all broken their teeth on this thorny problem. For Descartes, reality and image do not make a difference; understanding makes the selection. This point of view is not very satisfactory because experience makes us live every day in that we immediately make the difference between a voice "in our head" and the neighbor next door who speaks, without "thinking" or "reason" to achieve this result. For empiricists, it's all about sensations since consciousness does not exist - the image only reproduces the real sensations, but less powerfully. Not very convincing either: when I think of an injury, I remember being in pain, but I don't know the pain. For psychologists, it is not better; the world is reconstituted in each of us so that the objectivity of the matter is denied. For everyone, or almost, the image is an image of reality - but why is it always more blurry, less clear, and less specific than accurate perception?
Of course, Husserl and the Würzburg Philosophers offer an exciting option by eliminating the image question and differentiating its fixation from its production. This living process is renewed each time through perception or precertification. But where is the image stored? By what operation will we look for it? Once again, how can we differentiate the process of precertification (recalled memory) from accurate perception? Where is the information? It remains for JPS to write a book on the subject. It will be called "The Imaginary". And perhaps neurology has brought some exciting experiments to submit to philosophy since then.
More...