An Englishman, Edward B. Titchener, became one of Wundt's most influential students. After graduate studies with Wundt, Titchener moved to the United States and became Professor of Psychology at Cornell, where, as well as being responsible for translating many of the more experimentally oriented works of Wundt into English, he established a successful graduate school and a vigorous research program (Tweney, 1987). Despite the fact that Wundt's and Titchener's philosophical and theoretical views, and their scientific methodologies, differed in important ways (Leahey, 1981), Titchener, much more than most of his American born colleagues, shared Wundt's vision of psychology as a pure science, with essentially philosophical rather than pragmatic ends, and he gained the reputation of being Wundt's leading disciple and representative in the English speaking world. However, he had no interest in his master's völkerpsychologie. Titchener had been deeply influenced by positivist optimism as to the scope of science, and he hoped to study even the “higher” thought processes experimentally (Danziger, 1979, 1980). Thus he attempted to push the method of controlled laboratory introspection far beyond the bounds that Wundt had so carefully set for it. Although he certainly knew why Wundt rejected introspection as a method for studying these processes, he believed its pitfalls could be avoided if the introspectors were suitably trained. Thus, an important part of the education of a psychologist in Titchener's laboratory was a rigorous training in how to introspect reliably (Titchener, 1901-5; Schwitzgebel, 2004).
Titchener appears to have been both a particularly vivid imager, and a firm believer in imagery's cognitive importance. He had studied British Empiricist philosophy whilst an undergraduate at Oxford, and was well aware of Berkeley's argument that “general ideas” (i.e. mental images that, in-and-of-themselves, represent kinds or categories of things, rather than particulars) are inconceivable (see section 2.3.3 ). Many philosophers today take Berkeley's argument to amount to a knock-down refutation of the traditional theory that images (ideas) are the primary vehicles of thought and that they ground linguistic meaning. [1 ] If mental images can only, intrinsically represent particulars, as Berkeley held, then they are surely inadequate for grounding the meanings of the general, categorical terms that are fundamental to thought and language. Titchener, however, flatly rejected Berkeley's claim, not because he found a flaw in his logic, but on introspective grounds. Commenting on Berkeley's remark about the impossibility of having an idea (image) of a general triangle (Berkeley, 1734, Introduction XIII), Titchener replies:
But I can quite well get … the triangle that is no triangle at all and all triangles at one and the same time. It is a flashy thing, come and gone from moment to moment: it hints two or three red angles, with the red lines deepening into black, seen on a dark green ground. It is not there long enough to say whether the angles join to form the complete figure, or even whether all three of the necessary angles are given. Nevertheless, it means triangle; it is Locke's general idea of a triangle; (Titchener, 1909).
Of course, Titchener was well aware that the image described here was thoroughly idiosyncratic. However, he did want to claim that such images (in virtue not so much of their individual, intrinsic characteristics, but of their place in a whole associative network of imagery) do carry meaning, and are thus fitted to be the vehicles of thought. He also described examples of his own visualizations of abstract concepts (such as the concept of meaning itself: “the blue-grey tip of a kind of scoop … digging into a dark mass of what appears to be plastic material”) and even claimed to experience imaginal meanings of connectives such as but (Titchener, 1909). Titchener plainly held that (together with actual sensations, and emotional feelings ) mental content is mental imagery.
Open access to the SEP is made possible by a world-wide funding initiative.
The Encyclopedia Now Needs Your Support
Please Read How You Can Help Keep the Encyclopedia Free
View this site from another server:
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2016 by The Metaphysics Research Lab. Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), Stanford University
Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054
1. Selected images of icons used in course lectures. [No longer available]
2. Table Comparison of Iconophile and Iconoclast doctrines.
3. Information on assignments and researching .
Description. The history of the iconoclastic controversy and ecumenical councils, especially for the development of christology. History of early Christian art and icons. Readings from Nicea II, Theodore the Studite, John of Damascus and Theodore Abã Qurrah. Iconography and spirituality. Byzantine & Ukrainian icons. Writing an icon. Museum/Church visit. Weekly slide-shows. Lectures seminar, reflection papers, major paper. [Cross listed to Theology].
Goals: To situate the debate about icons within a historical context and within the history of Christian images. To critically analyze and reflect upon the theology of icons in historical figures and modern theologians. To gain an appreciation of symbolism and art in the Eastern Christian tradition. To be able to interpret icons and their theology, and to situate iconography within the liturgical tradition of the Eastern churches.
Course Evaluation, Requirements & Due Dates:
a. Reflection paper #1 20%
b. Reflection paper #2 20%
c. Research Essay 40%
d. In-Class tutorial participation 20%
a & b. Reflection papers:
Reflection papers are based on the reading or topic listed below, and should be between 1.5-2 pages. See "essay requirements" below.
i. First paper: Due: Week # 4. Reflection paper on the Lecture/ Tutorial readings of Theodore the Studite.
ii. Second paper: Due: Week # 6. Reflection paper on only one icon of either Christ, Mary or a Saint. Describe everything you see or read in the icon. Assume that you are interpreting the icon for someone who is entirely unfamiliar with Eastern iconography. Please provide a black-and-white photocopy of the icon and its source/location.
c. Research Essay:
The research paper is to be 8-10 pages, and should conform to the "essay requirements" listed below. The essay topic can be either on the theological history and development of iconography, or a theological interpretation of any icon(s) of your choosing. Keep in mind that such an icon(s) should yield enough information for an 8-10 page essay. Please provide a black-and-white photocopy of the icon and its source/location. Due: Week 11.
d. In-class participation in lectures and tutorials:
Lectures will be the first hour of the class, while the tutorials will immediately follow the lecture. Students will be expected to discuss and critique the readings during the lecture and tutorial sessions.
Research Essays must include a title page, an introductory/thesis paragraph, the main body of text (ideas, arguments, critique), endnote or footnotes, a concluding/summary paragraph, and a bibliography. The research essays are composed of synthesis and critical analysis of a theme/idea/event in systematic theology and/or historical theology, and are presented from an objective point of view. The level of discourse for research essays is "systematic theology." All written work is to be typed and double-spaced, and is based in 12 pt. font.
Reflection Papers include the same elements as a research paper, with the addition of some subjective (personal, spiritual and pastoral) reflections, but no title page and bibliography.
For a formatting reference guide, see: Kate L. Turabian. A Manual For Writers of Term Papers, Theses and Dissertations. Chicago: Chicago, 1973. For a guide to style, grammar and composition in general, see: William Strunk. The Elements of Style. Rev. intro. and a chapter on writing by E.B. White. 2. ed. New York: Macmillan, 1972. Or, Joseph M. Williams. Style: Toward Clarity and Grace. Chicago: Chicago, 1990.
a. Baggley, John. Festival Icons for the Christian Year. Crestwood: St Vladimir's, 2000.
b. Nouwen, Henry. Behold the Beauty of the Lord. Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria, 2000.
d. Selected photocopied materials, and on-line resources.
1. Introduction & Overview
- course requirements; overview of materials; web-resources; introductory video (23 min.).
2. Historical Background: Christology & Iconoclasm
- the prohibition of images in the Scriptures; the christological context; Dura-Europas.
3. The Triumph of Orthodoxy: The Iconophile Position (I)
John of Damascus (676-749); Theodore Ab Qurrah (755-830); Iconoclastic council of 754; St. Catherine's monastery (Sinai) & St. Sophia's (Constantinople); types of icons of Christ (PDF).
4. The Triumph of Orthodoxy: The Iconophile Position (II)
- the Council of Nicea II (787) and the Sunday of Orthodoxy; Theodore The Studite (759-826); types of icons of Theotokos-Mary .
5. Spirituality of Icon Writers & Icons In Worship
- prayer: before writing an icon, and for the consecration of icons; beginning to read & write icons.
6. Iconography in Kyivan-Rus'
- Ukrainian and Russian Icons (11th - 15th centuries); St. Sophia's (Kyiv); Rublev's Trinity.
7. Evolution of Architecture, Iconostases and Festival Icons
- ancient, medieval and modern icon-screens; initial stages of writing an icon.
8. Festival Icons of Christ & Development of Colours and Perspectives in Iconography
- laws of colour and inverse-perspective; stages of writing an icon.
9. Festival Icons, Non-Byzantine/Slavic Icons & Popular Icons
- Video excerpts: painting and layers.
10. Icons of the Pascha & Completing an Icon
- Video excerpts: final touches on icons.
11. Liturgy & Icons: A Modern Ukrainian Church
- icons in the liturgical and architectural setting; preparation for church visit.
n.b.: The scheduling of the following two weeks and the places we visit may vary.
12. Aesthetics, Architecture and Worship
- Visit to a church to experience iconography in its liturgical and architectural setting; OR a museum vist.
Malcove Colletion (UofT)
13. Conclusion: Aesthetics, Architecture and Worship
- Visit to a church to experience iconography in its liturgical and architectural setting; OR a museum vist.
During regular class hours.
St. George's Greek Orthodox Church
115 Bond St (E. of Yonge, N. of Dundas).
Best Answer: An argument is a disagreement between two or more people, but it can also be a statement backed by evidence, like your argument that your school doesn't need a dress code.
Argument comes from the 14th century French word of the same spelling, meaning, "statements and reasoning in support of a proposition." An argument can be a fact used as evidence to show that something is true, like a study that shows exercise improves certain health conditions — an argument for being more active. Argument also means "a discussion between people who have contrary views."
If you're in an ongoing discussion with someone over, say, the best way to train a dog, that means you talk to each other over a long period of time, about all the aspects of dog training.
Discussion comes from the Latin for "examination by taking things apart," and when you're having a discussion with someone on a complicated topic, it's like you're taking it apart and trying to understand it. Usually in a discussion, people exchange ideas. If you say, "I adore bananas," and your friend says, "me too," that's hardly a discussion. But if your friend says, "bananas are disgusting," then you can get into a discussion about it.
There are some personalities that can be labeled as argumentative and that shows in their behavior and relationships. Arguments can be avoided and a lot of heartache prevented by being a little careful. The best way to win an argument is to avoid it. An argument is one thing you will never win.
If you win, you lose; if you lose, you lose.
If you win an argument but lose a good job, customer, friend or marriage, what kind of victory is it? Pretty empty.
Arguments result from inflated ego. Arguing is like fighting a losing battle. Even if one wins, the cost may be more than the victory is worth. Emotional battles leave a residual ill will even if you win. In an argument, both people are trying to have the last word. Argument is nothing more than a battle of egos.
If one wants to accomplish great things in life one has to practice maturity. Maturity means not getting entangled in unimportant things and petty arguments.
What are the differences between an Argument and a Discussion?
An argument throws heat; a discussion throws light.
One stems from ego and a closed mind whereas the other comes from an open mind.
An argument is an exchange of ignorance whereas a discussion is an exchange of knowledge.
An argument is an expression of temper whereas a discussion is a lesson of logic.