Bauhaus-Universität Weimar

Titel:
Dictionary of philosophy and psychology including many of the principal conceptions of ethics, logics, aesthetics ... and giving a terminology in English, French, German and Italian, vol. 1 [a-laws]
Person:
Baldwin, James Mark
PURL:
https://digitalesammlungen.uni-weimar.de/viewer/image/lit29445/412/
FIELD OF TOUCH — FIGURE 
regard of the moving eye ; the fixation field 
of the eye when moved. Where only distant 
objects come into consideration, it stands to 
the field of vision as the projection of an un¬ 
changing retinal image stands to the projection 
of the retina itself. 
Literature : Helmholtz, Physiol. Optik 
(2nd ed.), 617, 677, 680; Sanford, Course 
in Exper. Psychol., 119, 434; Aubert, Physiol. 
Optik, 593, 646, 663 f. ; Hering, in Her¬ 
mann’s Handb. d. Physiol., iii. 1, 442 ff. ; 
Wundt, Physiol. Psychol. (4th ed.), ii. 125 f. 
See also Field of Vision. (e.b.t.-e.c.s.) 
Field of Touch : Ger. Tastfeld ; Fr. champ 
tactile (rarely used, ambiguous—l.m.) ; Ital. 
campo tattile. A phrase formed after the 
analogy of ‘ field of vision,’ to denote the sum- 
total of tactile sensations aroused by stimuli 
acting upon the skin at any one time. It is 
thus, so to speak, the ‘ projection ’ of the skin, 
as the field of vision is the projection of the 
retina. (e.b.t.-j.m.b.) 
Field of Vision: Ger. Sehfeld, Gesichtsfeld 
(Gesichtskreis); Fr. champ visuel ; Ital .campo 
visivo. The sum-total of visual sensations 
aroused by stimuli acting on the unmoved 
retina at any given time. 
‘ The field of vision is, so to speak, the 
outward projection of the retina, with all its 
images and other peculiarities ’ (Helmholtz, 
Physiol. Optik, 2nd ed., 679). The field of 
vision moves, therefore, with movement of the 
eyes. It may be conceived of, in general, as 
a hollow hemisphere, shifted concentrically 
upon a similar hemisphere of slightly different 
radius—the Field of Regard (q.v.). 
Literature : Sanford, Course in Exper. 
Psychol., 119; Wundt, Physiol. Psychol. 
(4th ed.), ii. 108,126; Aubert, Physiol. Optik, 
591, 609; Hering, in Hermann’s Handb. d. 
Physiol., iii. 1, 351 ; Helmholtz, Physiol. 
Optik (2nd ed.), 678, 680. (e.b.t.-e.c.s.) 
Figure (and Figurative) (in aesthetics) 
[Lat. figura, from fingere, to form] : Ger. 
(1) Figur, (2) Bild (bildlich); Fr. figure, 
figuré) Ital. figura, figurativo. (1) Form or 
shape, considered with especial reference to 
outline. (2) A form or image. (3) A word 
or words used in a sense other than their 
usual meaning, especially when a concrete 
sensuous image is used to convey an abstract 
concept or relation. 
The aesthetic value of'figurative language 
seems to reside mainly in (1) the thrill or 
resonance of feeling which is attendant upon 
the sensuous image ; whereas in dealing with 
abstract terms the image is relatively vague, 
and the feeling element correspondingly lack¬ 
ing; (2) pleasurable elements or values of any 
sort attaching to our experiences suggested 
by the image and transferred by association 
to the thought presented ; (3) the recognition 
of an analogy or underlying unity between 
various objects or parts of experience, having 
the aesthetic value of unity in variety. Cf. 
Symbol, and Unity in Variety. (j.h.t.) 
Figure (syllogistic) : Ger. Schlussfigur ; 
Fr. figure du syllogisme; Ital .figure del sillo- 
gismo. Figure is the modification of the cate¬ 
gorical syllogism, consequent on the relation 
in which the middle term stands to the major 
and minor terms in the premises. 
Each of the possible relations, which—posi¬ 
tion only being taken into account—are four 
in number, determines a special figure or type 
of syllogism. For each figure there may be 
formulated special rules, embodying the par¬ 
ticular conditions required in order that 
reasoning of that type shall conform to the 
fundamental general rules of syllogism. Prac¬ 
tically, the special rules state the conditions 
necessary to secure for each position of the 
middle term that the middle term shall be 
once distributed, and that no term shall be 
distributed in the conclusion which was not 
distributed in the premises. 
Only three figures, those commonly reckoned 
as I, II, and III, were recognized by Aristotle, 
whose grounds for the limitation are not 
explicit and have been matter of dispute. 
What was afterwards recognized as a IV figure 
was not indeed ignored by Aristotle, and its 
varieties or moods were elaborately worked 
out by the earlier Peripatetics, who still re¬ 
garded them as indirect modifications of the 
I figure. By whom the IV figure was ex¬ 
plicitly constituted, we do not know. Galen, 
on the authority of Averroes, has the credit 
of it, but the matter is doubtful. Cf. Mood 
(in logic). 
Literature: Ueberweg,Logik, § 103; Hamil¬ 
ton, Lect. on Logic, App. X, and Discussions, 
App. II. A. In modern logic, discussion as to the 
grounds and value of the distinctions of figure 
was revived by Kant (see especially his tract, 
False Subtlety of the Four Syll. Figures, 1762, 
trans. by T. K. Abbot, in Kant’s Introd. 
to Logic, 1885), and had some importance 
assigned to it by Hamilton, mainly in connec¬ 
tion with his doctrine of unfigured syllogism. 
See Reduction, and Quantification of the 
Predicate. In Lambert’s Neues Organon 
(i. Pt. IV, especially § 232) an attempt is made 
to recognize a distinct function for each figure,
        

Nutzerhinweis

Sehr geehrte Benutzer,

aufgrund der aktuellen Entwicklungen in der Webtechnologie, die im Goobi viewer verwendet wird, unterstützt die Software den von Ihnen verwendeten Browser nicht mehr.

Bitte benutzen Sie einen der folgenden Browser, um diese Seite korrekt darstellen zu können.

Vielen Dank für Ihr Verständnis.