Paula & David,
At the risk of seeming to perseverate (which my students, young clinical
psychologists, tell me is a clear indicator of brain damage!) can I jump in
to your discussion here? You provide us with a very nice example of the
translation of Vygotsky using the term "reflection" at a central point in
the definition of a concept. In my view such a translation is highly
misleading. It makes Vygotsky seem to say that the concept is an image, a
copy, of the object that is being conceptualized. Yet this *cannot* be what
he was saying, for reasons that Michael sketched out in a recent message.
Can we work together here to find out what the Russian word was, and how we
might better translate it?
Martin
On 10/26/08 5:20 AM, "Paula Towsey" <paulat@johnwtowsey.co.za> wrote:
> Further, he writes that, at the time, psychology began to understand a
> concept łnot as a thing, but as a process, not as an empty abstraction, but
> as a thorough and penetrating reflection of an object of reality in all its
> complexity and diversity, in connections and relations to all the rest of
> reality˛ (1998, p. 55).
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Sun Oct 26 10:20:19 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Sep 18 2009 - 07:30:00 PDT