more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 1692

[filed under theme 19. Language / F. Communication / 6. Interpreting Language / d. Metaphor ]

Full Idea

If you should not argue in metaphors, it is plain too that you should neither define by metaphors nor define what is said in metaphors; for then you will necessarily argue in metaphors.

Gist of Idea

If you shouldn't argue in metaphors, then you shouldn't try to define them either

Source

Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 97b37)

Book Ref

Aristotle: 'Posterior Analytics (2nd ed)', ed/tr. Barnes,Jonathan [OUP 1993], p.68


A Reaction

Impeccable logic, but seeing a similarity can be a wonderful shortcut to seeing a great truth.


The 14 ideas with the same theme [using falsehoods to enhance understanding]:

If you shouldn't argue in metaphors, then you shouldn't try to define them either [Aristotle]
Understanding a metaphor is a creative act, with no rules [Davidson]
Metaphors just mean what their words literally mean [Davidson]
We accept a metaphor when we see the sentence is false [Davidson]
We indicate use of a metaphor by its obvious falseness, or trivial truth [Davidson]
Hardly a word in the language is devoid of metaphorical potential [Yablo]
One theory says metaphors mean the same as the corresponding simile [Magidor]
Theories of metaphor divide over whether they must have literal meanings [Magidor]
The simile view of metaphors removes their magic, and won't explain why we use them [Magidor]
Maybe a metaphor is just a substitute for what is intended literally, like 'icy' for 'unemotional' [Magidor]
Gricean theories of metaphor involve conversational implicatures based on literal meanings [Magidor]
Non-cognitivist views of metaphor says there are no metaphorical meanings, just effects of the literal [Magidor]
Metaphors tend to involve category mistakes, by joining disjoint domains [Magidor]
Metaphors as substitutes for the literal misses one predicate varying with context [Magidor]