Talk:Association of ideas

1911 Britannica[edit]

Just to reinforce that Association of Ideas is a real topic in philosophy, take a look at the 1911 Britannica article of the same name: [1], which goes on for thousands of words. I agree with all three of the banners placed recently on the article: 1. It's a stub, please expand it, 2. It needs an explanation of its importance, 3. The article needs to be categorized. EdJohnston 03:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing people[edit]

John Locke and David Hartley need to be included in any history of the "association of ideas." Awadewit 08:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

notability established[edit]

By the reference to the 1911 Britannica given above, notability of the subject seems clear. I am replacing the "importance" tag (which is often seen as a concern towards notability, that's why the article ended up in the backlog of the Notability wikiproject) with a tag requesting a more detailed introduction. --B. Wolterding 13:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article now based on Enc. Brit. 1911[edit]

I have brought in the text of the Britannica article. It seems perfect for a subject that largely came to an end with William James in the early 20th century. I would suggest that we limit this article to the intellectual history before 1910. Although I have done some style editing, I cannot see how to fully modernize it. The author had a great deal of familiarity with the authors he covers, many of whom are of only historical interest (esp., the lesser Associationists, who do not loom large in the history of philosophy). I couldn't bear to read much more about them than the article contains, although I began by being interested in the associationist model of memory because it fits our everyday sense for how the mind works. Associationism is now even shorter than it was. I removed the big tag and inserted two fact tags, because the brief history senetences are entirely based on the presumed authoritative Enc. Brit. 1911 article. I didn't Wikify the footnotes yet. DCDuring 04:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs to be brought up to date[edit]

The article needs to be brought up to date in a few ways that I can see:

Wikification:
- Many concepts are capitalized. Perhaps putting them in quotes would be adequate to highlight the special use of the words.
- Footnotes. There are plenty of in-line page citations, but not in WP form
Content: The Britannica material stops 100 years ago. It doesn't even treat James very thoroughly. The other pragmatists and the early behaviorists in particular need to be connected to associationism. I am not sure whether I can find adequate coverage in a generic history of philosophy or psychology/behaviorism. DCDuring 15:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Association of ideas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of Hamilton's translation of the Aristotle quote[edit]

Considering how close Hamilton was to the Associationist School, what strikes me is the difference of his translation of Aristotle's quote to others such as:

https://archive.org/stream/aristotledesensu00arisuoft#page/110/mode/2up :

 It so happens that some people receive a greater bent from a single experience than others in whom the sequence has frequently taken place, and hence, in some instances, after seeing the things once, we remember them better than others who have seen them frequently. Thus, when we recollect, one of our previous psychic changes is stimulated which leads to the stimulation of that one, after which the experience to be recollected is wont to occur. Consequently we hunt for the next in the series, starting our train of thought from what is now present or from something else, and from something similar or contrary or contiguous to it. This is the means of effecting recollection; the change in those cases is now identical, now concomitant with, and now partially inclusive of the idea to be recalled, and hence the remainder formerly occurring subsequently to the rest is but small.

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/memory.html :

 Whenever therefore, we are recollecting, we are experiencing certain of the antecedent movements until finally we experience the one after which customarily comes that which we seek. This explains why we hunt up the series (of kineseis) having started in thought either from a present intuition or some other, and from something either similar, or contrary, to what we seek, or else from that which is contiguous with it. Such is the empirical ground of the process of recollection; for the mnemonic movements involved in these starting-points are in some cases identical, in others, again, simultaneous, with those of the idea we seek, while in others they comprise a portion of them, so that the remnant which one experienced after that portion (and which still requires to be excited in memory) is comparatively small.

Is he maybe not the best and most neutral source? Joern (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]