how is a better metaphor theory: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Language » how is a better metaphor theory » how is a better metaphor theory

how is a better metaphor theory
supposed to enhance your breakfast cereal?

Page: 1 2

how is a better metaphor theory

polyester
bleak outlook

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2005
Location: wien, austria
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 19

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 01/08/05 - 02:30 PM:	#1
being a writer and trying to be calm, thoughtful and philosophically founded, i am unsure of what to do with metaphor theory. and i mean to stop mentioning it in every second post, so let there be discussion on it with whom it may concern in one place. metaphor seems to be one of the most courted linguistic phenomena. a lot of people feel its effects and want to talk about it and also often don't pay very close attention. this includes a lot of language philosophers. they seem to have the notion that metaphor might be very crucial but usually have a certain disregard for what is in common speech called poetic or associative meaning. which is understandable due to the inflational use of the terms. i just have the feeling that all contemporary metaphor theories are miles away from describing or understanding the very direct and lightning-shortcut way metaphor works, and that this might be the fault of fregean tradition. attempts tend to remind me of childhood frustration experiences with an etch-a-sketch. i am quite sure that this topic belongs here and not in the philosophy of arts section. is it overblown to expect a theory of metaphor to come to terms with the explosion of meaning the phenomenon is sometimes capable of declenching? could philosophy of speech learn something by readjusting its methods to fit metaphor? or: is there any possible way poets and language philosophers can talk about metaphor with one another?
militat omnis amans, et habet sua castra cupido; attice, crede mihi: militat omnis amans. - publius ovidius naso

Banno
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz
Total Topics: 37
Total Posts: 3175

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 01/08/05 - 09:45 PM:	#2
I agree that the topic belongs here. One of the reasons metaphore has been of interest to philosophers of langauge is simply that there is no systematic way to analyse it - it does not fit into any Freegean tradition, as you put it. Understanding metaphore is not a matter of following a syntactic (or even a gramatical) rule. "The reception was lukewarm"; "He has a sour disposition" - the referent of the metaphore does not fit with the subject of each sentence. Lemons are sour and baths are lukewarm. Yet the metaphore works. Metaphors are cases where the wrong referent has the right meaning. (Edit: Can you see my paragraphs? Cool, hey!) Edited by Banno on 01/09/05 - 11:32 PM
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing...

polyester
bleak outlook

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2005
Location: wien, austria
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 19

Posted 01/09/05 - 12:38 AM:	#3
the problem is that simply agreeing upon the fact that metaphor works doesn't help us to understand how. i do think this could be possible. for example, the notion of similarity is kind of a problem. everything inthe whole world is similar to everything else in some way. on the other hand, listing tertia comparationis doesn't seem to be able to really grasp what metaphor does, it doesn't satisfy me, anyway. it is interesting that it appears a large part of our thinking is structured by metaphoric relations, and maybe the whole of our subconscious. seeing that these metaphoric skills are so basic (and not superficial frills admired by poetic minds only), might it not make sense to base a theory of language on metaphor and try to fit logical structure into that theory? does that sound absolutely nuts? <i> - robert musil says we understand only what we recognize - </i>
militat omnis amans, et habet sua castra cupido; attice, crede mihi: militat omnis amans. - publius ovidius naso

Abner Desbrow
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 09, 2005
Location: Australia
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 4

Posted 01/09/05 - 02:57 AM:	#4
Is it far afield to point out that the readers of most all literature will make psychological adjustment on their own level to incorperate a metaphore? A writer places a metaphore to either enhance logic or make light of it not for factuals I believe.A metaphore will work because it is an aborition of metaphysics and there seems to be no science to this area of thinking. Incertion of logic into metaphysics will never work or a semantic level. This is an opinion and unfounded in any by method or scollarly persuing the original posting.

polyester
bleak outlook

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2005
Location: wien, austria
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 19

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 01/09/05 - 12:13 PM:	#5
excuse me, sir, you garble. what the fuck does metaphor have to do with metaphysics? no, don't tell me.
militat omnis amans, et habet sua castra cupido; attice, crede mihi: militat omnis amans. - publius ovidius naso

Abner Desbrow
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 09, 2005
Location: Australia
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 4

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 01/09/05 - 02:02 PM:	#6
Abner Desbrow wrote: Is it far afield to point out that the readers of most all literature will make psychological adjustment on their own level to incorperate a metaphore? A writer places a metaphore to either enhance logic or make light of it not for factuals I believe.A metaphore will work because it is an aborition of metaphysics and there seems to be no science to this area of thinking. Incertion of logic into metaphysics will never work or a semantic level. This is an opinion and unfounded in any by method or scollarly persuing the original posting. 1. defination, Metaphore; a figure of speach by which a "thing" is spoken of as being that which it only resembles. 2. defination, Metaphysics; a branch of philosophy which "investigates" the first principles of "nature" and "thought". [seperation of thought and writing about anything is not possible.] abner d. Thought and its processes are an ongoing study. You seem to have decided you know how to write and think at the same time so see if there is any parallel here in these definations you may draw on.

polyester
bleak outlook

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2005
Location: wien, austria
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 19

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 01/11/05 - 03:39 AM:	#7
resemblance is a mighty amoebic term. what a discussion like this is about is trying to examine the function of metaphor more closely, and stone-age 'definations' like yours are not really very interesting in this context. in fact, in spite of them, i still have no clue what you mean with a metaphor being an 'aborition' of metaphysics, that word not being in my dictionary. do you mean an abortion? an aberration? an apparition? i would like to know what drugs you are on. it would be lovely if you could try and think, write and spell at the same time. maybe then we could understand you.
militat omnis amans, et habet sua castra cupido; attice, crede mihi: militat omnis amans. - publius ovidius naso

jaoman
On the Road...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 13, 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 1346

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 01/11/05 - 12:20 PM:	#8
Consider the word, "I." What do you think it means? If I was to say, "If I was to say..." you would understand the "I" to be a reference to the originator of the statement. The "I" is affectively a symbol for jaoman. However, when polyester types, "I," it morphs and becomes a symbol for polyester. Why is that? The answer, and I’m already dreading vicious reprisals from the audience - although my dictionary did not have an “aborition” either – is very much a matter of metaphysics, as much as everything is a matter of metaphysics, and it is a matter of psychology. The question, “how do we know?” or, actually, “how do we do qualify information?” is crucial to understanding metaphor. Human beings, in the exercise of logic, employ two sorting mechanisms to avoid error. These are concept and context. The latter, being the duller of the two, stands for a mass of raw information, usually sensual, leading up to “the event of understanding anything.” The former, on the other hand, is the obvious function that provides meaning, “Ah! All this I’m seeing: this is a table! This is what you do with it! Etc…” Therefore, the concept, “I,” combined with the context of the post being by jaoman, creates a secure interpretation that “I” means “jaoman.” Now, let’s apply this to Banno’s, "The reception was lukewarm." “The…” concept: specific. Context: None, barring as letters. “reception” concept: either arrival somewhere or front desk, as well as any biases you have to receptions and receptionists. Context: specific reception. “was” concept: past tense. Context: past experience having to do with a specific reception. “lukewarm” concept: dirty water in a bathtub, as well as anything you bring to it; in this case, revolting, unpleasant, and ugly; overall, unpleasant experience. Context: An unpleasant, past experience having to do with a specific reception. As you can see, words are first interpreted as concepts themselves, so the order of concept and context is reversed from real life; however, otherwise, the human mind, brandishing concept and context, has discovered the meaning of the metaphor in the name of Canada. All bow!
"With no relation to class or social background, whether it suits them or not, people yearn for a dream. Sustained by a dream, hurt by a dream, revived by a dream, killed by a dream. And even after being abandoned by a dream, it continues to smolder from the bottom of one's heart... probably until the verge of death. A man should envision such a lifetime once. A life spent as a martyr to the god named "dream." - Kentaro Miura

NoSoul
Economic determinist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 05, 2004
Total Topics: 25
Total Posts: 610

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 01/11/05 - 12:32 PM:	#9
It seems to me, at some times anyway, that the only way we ever understand anything is by metaphor. I've thought seriously at times, when I've been in the deepest throes of studying it, that science always ultimately relies on metaphors. Nothing is comprehensible without comparison to something else in recalled experience. Therefore (it seems) nothing initially could possibly be comprehensible, unless we are innately equipped with some capacity to "understand" the most basic, raw, initial experiences in terms of something. This seems both like Kant but also like straightforward genetic (as in biology/DNA) theory, genetic inheritance & "DNA inherited memory". But how do we automatically, apparently intuitively/instinctually compare anything & judge what's "similar" and what's "dissimilar"? Indeed, how do we know (or judge) what is the "same"? We assume 1 = 1, therefore both "1"'s are the "same". But at a certain hyper-skeptical level, they indeed are not the same; they are physically different bits of computer information, ink, or perceived mental objects. We can't literally say anything is the "same" as something else. We must always be able to compare the similarities of all phenomena -- and this also seems to necessarily require the ability to also discern the differences in all phenomena. I think pattern-recognition ultimately comes, biologically, from the evolutionary need to, for example, be able to find food repeatedly, and discern predators in the environment, repeatedly. It does you no good to perceive a shellfish as food one day, then perceive a hungry mountain lion as food the next day, since the mountain lion will likely kill you quicker than you can kill it. Therefore it's quite helpful, biologically, to recognize similarities and differences and general patterns, at many different levels of abstraction & with many different purposes/functions, in the environment. So I guess it shouldn't be surprising that our ability to abstract, pattern-recognize, and find similarities & distinctions in all experienced phenomena & recollected memories & instinctual drives, is probably ultimately simply an evolutionary endowment to us given by nature. It's a-priori and thus, I think, necessarily has a certain fixed limit of possible comprehensibility from a subjective viewpoint, past which we have to acquiesce to ignorance and give way to saying we "understand", but only in "objective" terms (such as biology, evolution, etc.) that, in the end, don't really describe or satisfy the epistemic hunger of subjective understanding.
Firmly tie the mind, resembling a mad elephant, to the strong pillar of its perceptual content, with the rope of contemplative inspection, and gradually tame it with the hook of discrimination. -- Buddhist Handbook, Salamander Press To the poet and sage, all things are friendly and hallowed, all experiences profitable, all days holy, all men divine. - Nietzsche/Emerson

Machiveli
savage butter

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 19, 2004
Total Topics: 117
Total Posts: 1208

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 01/11/05 - 04:07 PM:	#10
metaphor applied to neural networks If the weights of a nn that performs some task are similar to those that perform some other task. Task 1&2 can be said to be metaphors for each other.
Have your fun, feel self important. I really don't care anymore

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.