和訳お願い致します。
- 動物の知能に関する事実をまとめた書籍と、動物の知能の進化について広範な内容を取り扱った書籍は、一つのテーマであるが別々に出版されている。今回は、前者の要約をまとめる。
- 動物の知能に関する事実をまとめた書籍は、その内容に興味を持つ読者に向けて作られたものであり、このテーマが独立して存在する。一方、後者の書籍は前者を基にしており、より広範な内容を扱っている。
- ベストアンサー
和訳お願い致します。
With the view of furthering these various lines of interest, I have undertaken a somewhat laborious enquiry, part of which has already been published in the International Scientific Series, and a further instalment of which is con tained in the present volume. The two works, therefore, " Animal Intelligence [1881] and Mental Evolution in Animals, although published separately, are really one ; and they have been divided only for the following reasons. In the first place, to have produced the whole as one volume would havebeen to present a book, if not of inconvenient bulk, at least quite out of keeping with the size of all the other books in the same series. Moreover, the subject-matter of each work, although intimately related" to* that of the other, is never theless quite distinct ' The first is a compendium of facts relating to Animal Intelligence, which, while necessary as a basis for the present essay, is in itself a separate and distinct treatise, intended to meet the interest already alluded to as attaching to this subject for its own sake ; while the second treatise, although based upon the former, has to deal with a wider range of subject-matter.
- mangifera
- お礼率62% (136/218)
- 英語
- 回答数1
- ありがとう数1
- みんなの回答 （1）
- 専門家の回答
質問者が選んだベストアンサー
以下のとおりお答えします。 これらの興味のある様々な方面を促進する視点で、私は多少骨の折れる問題を試みました。その一部はすでに、『国際的科学シリーズ』の中で公表されています。また、追加の分冊が本書に含まれています。したがって、2つの作品、「動物の知能」[1881] および「動物の精神的発達」は、別々に公表されましたが、実際には1つで、それらはただ単に次の理由で分割されました。 まず第1に、全体を1巻として発刊したのは、まったく同じシリーズ中の他のすべての本のサイズと合わせることから少なくとも１冊として示すためで、そうしなければ不便な内容量になったことでしょう。さらに、それぞれの著作の主題は他方のそれに*密接に関連づけられていましたが、それにもかかわらず、「かなり異なる」のです。1番目の論文は、「動物知能」に関連する事柄の大要で、現在のエッセイの根拠として必要である一方、それ自体で個別・別個の論文です。それ自身の目的のために、この主題に付随することとして前もって示唆した興味との整合性をもたせることを意図したものです。他方、第2の論文は、前者に基づきましたが、広範囲の主題関連問題に対処するようにしてあります。 以上、ご回答まで。
関連するQ&A
- 和訳お願い致します。
It being understood, then, that the present essay is restricted to a consideration of mental evolution in animals,I should like to have it also understood that it is further restricted to the psychology as distinguished from the philo sophy of the subject. In a short and independent essay, published elsewhere,* I have already stated my views con cerning the more important questions of philosophy into which the subject-matter of psychology is so apt to dip ; but here it is only needful to emphasize the fact that these two strata of thought, although assuredly in juxtaposition, are no less assuredly distinct. My present enquiry belongs only to the upper stratum, or to the science of psychology as dis tinguished from any theory of knowledge. I am in no wise concerned with " the transition from the object known to the knowing subject," and therefore I am in no wise concerned with any of the philosophical theories which have been pro pounded upon this matter. In other words, I have every where to regard mind as an object and mental modifications as phenomena; therefore I have throughout to investigate the process of Mental Evolution by what is now generally and aptly termed the historical method. I cannot too strongly impress upon the memory of those who from previous reading are able to appreciate the importance of the distinction, that I thus intend everywhere to remain within the borders of psychology, and nowhere to trespass upon the grounds of philosophy.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 和訳お願い致します。
The task which sundry modern writers have imposed upon themselves is to prove, that the Mosaic narrative, however apparently at variance with our knowledge, is essentially, and in fact true, although never understood properly until modern science supplied the necessary commentary and explanation. Two modes of conciliation have been propounded which have enjoyed considerable popularity, and to these two we shall confine our attention. The first is that originally brought into vogue by Chalmers and adopted by the late Dr. Buckland in his Bridgewater Treatise, and which is probably still received by many as a sufficient solution of all difficulties. Dr. Buckland's treatment of the case may be taken as a fair specimen of the line of argument adopted, and it shall be given in his own words.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 和訳お願い致します。
Now assuredly we have here a most important issue, and as it is one the discussion of which will constitute a large element of my work, it is perhaps desirable that I should state at the outset the manner in which I propose to deal with it . The question, then, as to whether or not human intelli gence has been evolved from animal intelligence can only be dealt with scientifically by comparing the one with the other, in order to ascertain the points wherein they agree and the points wherein they differ. Now there can be no doubt that when this is done, the difference between the mental faculties of the most intelligent animal and the mental faculties of the lowest savage[savage=wild beast] is seen to be so vast, that the hypothesis of their being so nearly allied as Mr. Darwin's teaching implies, appears at first sight absurd. And, indeed, it is not until we have become convinced that the theory of Evolution can alone afford an explanation of the facts of human anatomy that we are prepared to seek for a similar explanation of the facts of human psychology. But wide as is the difference between the mind of a man and the mind of a brute, we must remember that the question is one, not as to degree, but as to kind ; and therefore that our task, as serious enquirers after truth, is calmly and honestly to examine the character of the difference which is presented, in order to determine whether it is really beyond the bounds of rational credibility that the enormous interval which now separates these two divisions of mind can ever have been bridged over, by numberless inter mediate gradations, during the untold ages of the past.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 和訳お願い致します。
The other point which has to be noted with regard to this criterion is as follows. I again quote from " Animal Intelligence :"— " Of course to the sceptic this criterion may appear un satisfactory, since it depends, not on direct knowledge, but on inference. Here, however, it seems enough to point out, as already observed, that it is the best criterion available ; and, further, that scepticism of this kind is logically bound to deny evidence of mind, not only in the case of the lower animals, but also in that of the higher, and even in that of men other than the sceptic himself. For all objections which could apply to the use of this criterion of mind in the animal kingdom, would apply with equal force to the evidence of any mind other than that of the individual objector. This is obvious, because, as I have already observed, the only evi dence we can have of objective mind is that which is furnished by objective activities ; and, as the subjective mind can never become assimilated with the objective so as to learn by direct feeling the mental processes which there accompany the objective activities, it is clearly impossible to satisfy any one who may choose to doubt the validity of inference, that in any case, other than his own, mental processes ever do accompany objective activities.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 和訳お願い致します。
Now each of the three objects which I have named affords in its pursuit many and varied points of interest, which are quite distinct from any interest thaUmay be felt in the attain ment of the ultimate end — Classification, Thus, for example, the study of the human hand as a mechanism has an interest apart from all considerations touching the comparison of ita structure with that of the corresponding member in other animals ; and, similarly, the study of the psychological facul ties in any given animal has an interest apart from all con siderations touching their comparison with the corresponding faculties in other animals. Again, just as the comparison of separate bodily members throughout the animal series has an interest apart from any question concerning the classification of animal bodies to which such comparison may ultimately lead, so the study of separate psychical faculties throughout the animal series (including, of course, mankind) has an interest quite distinct from any question concerning the classification of animal minds to which such comparison may ultimately lead. Lastly, around and outside all the objects of these sciences as such, there lies the broad expanse of General Thought, into which these sciences, in all their stages, tbrow out branches of inference. It is needless to say that of late years the interest with which the unpre cedented growth of these branches is watched has become so universal and intense, that it may be said largely to have absorbed the more exclusive sources of interest which I have enumerated.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 和訳お願い致します。
We may fairly ask,' he argues, of those persons who consider physical science a fit subject for revelation, what point they can imagine short of a communication of Omniscience at which such a revelation might have stopped without imperfections of omission, less in degree, but similar in kind, to that which they impute to the existing narrative of Moses? A revelation of so much only of astronomy as was known to Copernicus would have seemed imperfect after the discoveries of Newton; and a revelation of the science of Newton would have appeared defective to La Place: a revelation of all the chemical knowledge of the eighteenth century would have been as deficient in comparison with the information of the present day, as what is now known in this science will probably appear before the termination of another age; in the whole circle of sciences there is not one to which this argument may not be extended, until we should require from revelation a full development of all the mysterious agencies that uphold the mechanism of the material world.' Buckland's question is quite inapplicable to the real difficulty, which is, not that circumstantial details are omitted -- that might reasonably be expected -- but that what is told, is told so as to convey to ordinary apprehensions an impression at variance with facts. We are indeed told that certain writers of antiquity had already anticipated the hypothesis of the geologist, and two of the Christian fathers, Augustine and Episcopius, are referred to as having actually held that a wide interval elapsed between the first act of creation, mentioned in the Mosaic account, and the commencement of the six days' work. If, however, they arrived at such a conclusion, it was simply because, like the modern geologist, they had theories of their own to support, which led them to make somewhat similar hypotheses.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 和訳お願い致します。
The Hebrew race, their works, and their books, are great facts in the history of man; the influence of the mind of this people upon the rest of mankind has been immense and peculiar, and there can be no difficulty in recognising therein the hand of a directing Providence. But we may not make ourselves wiser than God, nor attribute to Him methods of procedure which are not His. If, then, it is plain that He has not thought it needful to communicate to the writer of the Cosmogony that knowledge which modern researches have revealed, why do we not acknowledge this, except that it conflicts with a human theory which presumes to point out how God ought to have instructed man? The treatment to which the Mosaic narrative is subjected by the theological geologists is anything but respectful. The writers of this school, as we have seen, agree in representing it as a series of elaborate equivocations -- a story which palters with us in a double sense.' But if we regard it as the speculation of some Hebrew Descartes or Newton, promulgated in all good faith as the best and most probable account that could be then given of God's universe, it resumes the dignity and value of which the writers in question have done their utmost to deprive it. It has been sometimes felt as a difficulty to taking this view of the case, that the writer asserts so solemnly and unhesitatingly that for which he must have known that he had no authority. But this arises only from our modern habits of thought, and from the modesty of assertion which the spirit of true science has taught us. Mankind has learnt caution through repeated slips in the process of tracing out the truth.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 和訳お願い致します
The word beginning,' he says, as applied by Moses in the first verse of the book of Genesis, expresses an undefined period of time which was antecedent to the last great change that affected the surface of the earth, and to the creation of its present animal and vegetable inhabitants, during which period a long series of operations may have been going on; which as they are wholly unconnected with the history of the human race, are passed over in silence by the sacred historian, whose only concern was barely to state, that the matter of the universe is not eternal and self-existent, but was originally created by the power of the Almighty.' The Mosaic narrative commences with a declaration that in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.' These few first words of Genesis may be fairly appealed to by the geologist as containing a brief statement of the creation of the material elements, at a time distinctly preceding the operations of the first day; it is nowhere affirmed that God created the heaven and the earth in the first day, but in the beginning; this beginning may have been an epoch at an unmeasured distance, followed by periods of undefined duration during which all the physical operations disclosed by geology were going on.' The first verse of Genesis, therefore, seems explicitly to assert the creation of the universe; the heaven, including the sidereal systems; and the earth, especially specifying our own planet, as the subsequent scene of the operations of the six days about to be described; no information is given as to events which may have occurred upon this earth, unconnected with the history of man, between the creation of its component matter recorded in the first verse, and the era at which its history is resumed in the second verse: nor is any limit fixed to the time during which these intermediate events may have been going on: millions of millions of years may have occupied the indefinite interval, between the beginning in which God created the heaven and the earth, and the evening or commencement of the first day of the Mosaic narrative.'
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 和訳お願い致します。
The point is that, notwithstanding special difficulties in assigning this or that being to one or the other class, the psychological classification which I advocate resembles the zoological classification which I have cited ; it is a valid classification, inasmuch as it recognizes a distinction where there is certainly something to distinguish. For even if we take the most mechanical view of mental processes that is possible, and suppose that conscious intelligence plays no part whatever in determining action, there still remains the fact that such conscious intelligence exists, and that prior to certain actions it is always affected in certain ways. Therefore, even if we suppose that the state of things is, so to speak, accidental, and that the actions in question would always he performed in precisely the same way whether or not they were thus connected with consciousness, it would still remain desirable, for scientific purposes, that a marked distinction should be drawn between cases of activity that proceed without, and those that proceed with this remarkable association with consciousness. As the phenomena of subjectivity are facts at any rate no less real than those of objectivity, if it is found that some of the latter are invariably and faithfully mirrored in those of the former, such pheno mena, for this reason alone, deserve to be placed in a distinct scientific category, even though it were proved that the mirror of subjectivity might be removed without affecting any of the phenomena of objectivity.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 和訳お願い致します。
Our earth then is but one of the lesser pendants of a body[a body=the sun]which is itself only an inconsiderable unit in the vast creation.And now if we withdraw our thoughts for the immensities of space and look into the construction of man's obscure home,the first question is whether it has ever been in any other condition than that in which we now see it,and if so,what are the stages through which it has passed,and what was its first traceable state. Here geology steps in and successfully carriers back the history of earth's crust to a very remote period,until it arrives at a region of uncertainty,where philosophy is reduced to mere guesses and possibilities and pronounces nothing definite. To this region belong the speculation which have been ventured upon as to the original conccretion of the earth and planets our of nebular matter of which the sun may have been the nucles.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
お礼
ありがとうございます。