image

[billcu1]

I have been studing what Aquinas said concerning image. It's likeness he said. But gave the example on egg is not made in the image of another. This confuses me. Psychology talks about self image. The way we see ourselves. Is this image the same image Summa talks about? Atleast in some way?

[AthenaC]

Originally Posted by billcu1

I have been studing what Aquinas said concerning image. It's likeness he said. But gave the example on egg is not made in the image of another. This confuses me. Psychology talks about self image. The way we see ourselves. Is this image the same image Summa talks about? Atleast in some way?

I have given some thought to the concept of "image" but I am not sure what you're getting at here. Could you please expound on this idea / clarify what you want to discuss?

[In Spiration]

Originally Posted by billcu1

I have been studing what Aquinas said concerning image. It's likeness he said. But gave the example on egg is not made in the image of another. This confuses me.

You're apparently referring to ST, I, Q. 93, art. 1.

As Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 74): "Where an image exists, there forthwith is likeness; but where there is likeness, there is not necessarily an image." Hence it is clear that likeness is essential to an image; and that an image adds something to likeness--namely, that it is copied from something else. For an "image" is so called because it is produced as an imitation of something else; wherefore, for instance, an egg, however much like and equal to another egg, is not called an image of the other egg, because it is not copied from it. [Emphasis mine.]

When you've got two eggs, even though they may look exactly the same as one another, neither is an image of the other, because each is simply itself per se, the "original draft;" and an image is always a copy, a reproduction of something else that's prior to it. ST, I, Q. 93, art. 9 specifically highlights the contrast between image and likeness.

Thus likeness may be distinguished from image in two ways: first [1] as its preamble and existing in more things, and in this sense likeness regards things which are more common than the intellectual properties, wherein the image is properly to be seen. [. . .] But likeness may be considered in another way, [2] as signifying the expression and perfection of the image.

This may be helpful, too. You're not quite right to say an image is simply a likeness. Basically, it seems that an image is in a sense the specific form of a general, essential likeness. Now, since I usually like to look into the etymology behind a word whenever trying to get a better handle of its conceptual definition, instead of just hoarding research I might as well share the "family" of close terms I found.

• image: "'piece of statuare; artificial representation that looks like a person or thing,' from O.Fr. image 'image, likeness; figure, drawing, portrait; reflection; statue,' . . . from L. imaginem (nom. imago) 'copy, statue, picture,' figuratively 'idea, appearance,' from stem of imitari 'to copy, imitate.'"
  
• like: "'having the same characteristics or qualities' (as another). . . Analogous, etymologically, to Latin conform."
  
• conform: "from L. conformare 'to fashion, to form, to shape; educate; modify,' from com- 'together' (see com-) + formare 'to form')."
  
• similar: "from an extended form of L. similis 'like,' from Old L. semol 'together,' from PIE root *sem-/*som- 'same.'"
  
• same: "from PIE *samos 'same,' from root *sem- 'one, together.'"
  
• resemblance: "from re-, intensive prefix, + sembler 'to appear, to seem, be like,' from L. simulare 'to copy.'"
  
• representation: "from L. repraesentare, from re-, intensive prefix, + praesentare 'to present,' lit. 'to place before'" [and present: "'present, immediate, prompt,' from prp. of praeesse 'be before (someone or something), be at hand,' from prae- 'before" (see pre-) + esse 'to be.'"].
  
• reflection: "'a reflection,' lit. 'a bending back.'"
  
• reproduction = re- ("again") + produce: "'to develop, be extended,' from L. producere 'lead or bring forth, draw out.'"

Originally Posted by billcu1

Psychology talks about self image. The way we see ourselves. Is this image the same image Summa talks about? Atleast in some way?

Perhaps in some way. Psychological "self-image" is probably understood as one's own specific self-perception, a more informed, better-detailed idea of a self-likeness in the mind, of what one thinks he is really like, often based on gathering and then reassembling scattered data about oneself over time. "Body-image" would apparently be the material parallel in one's sensory consciousness, through the imagination. Neither of these concepts is on the same level as the example of eggs, due to the fact that self- and body-images are always a result of some pre-existing (original) individual's attempt to reflect upon himself, to represent himself or his body back to himself by somehow mentally reconstructing it. A further example of one's self-image, though partial and imperfect, might be children, just in that they typically bear the image and likeness of their parents, of whom they are literally, genetically, a reproduction. (More accurately, a child is the marital image, the reproduction of husband-and-wife as being one-flesh-together, not two separate selves, since the married couple is indeed, in a legitimately metaphysical way, supposed to be a distinct, indissoluble individual in its own right.)

[billcu1]

<cut>

Perhaps in some way. Psychological "self-image" is probably understood as one's own specific self-perception, a more informed, better-detailed idea of a self-likeness in the mind, of what one thinks he is really like, often based on gathering and then reassembling scattered data about oneself over time.

And this is I think illusory and "mistaken" perceptions. But god being perfect doesn't have these defects right? Maybe I am wrong to draw a paralell between image and the psychological "self-image". I think I need a little more clarification because I know man is made in god's image so this we and god have in common and I would like to understand it more deeply.

Bill