 | Metaphors We Live By, George Lakoff, Mark Johnson, University Of Chicago Press; 2nd edition (April 15, 2003) The discussion of metaphor as a central aspect of human communication is well worth the read and the examples of metaphor as used within language are exemplary. However, there are a number of fundamental fallacies in their understanding of metaphor as a cognitive device. They assume that a concept that is often defined using metaphor is intrinsically, structurally, and fundamentally metaphorical instead of simply a tool used to explain a concept using the gestalt of human knowledge. This forces the authors into a position where they proclaim that objective truth is impossible. |
Even though many fundamental philosophical and ontological problems must be overcome by the reader, this will not detract from this book’s invaluable elucidation of metaphor as a key tool of language and thought.
A concept as 'metaphorical
The use of the term ‘metaphorical’ to describe a concept and the idea of a ‘metaphorical concept’ is not a valid description of the role of metaphor within language. A concept is only metaphorical in that it might be described using a metaphor, but the concept in and of itself is not intrinsically metaphorical in the way that they authors describe. All concepts can stand alone, without being referred to in metaphor. A concept can be understood without linguistic reference to similarly structured concepts, however it is efficacious to use metaphor as it utilizes our conceptual faculty for discriminating similarities and differences between objects. It is these similarities and differences that are the basis for concept formation and thus exactly natural to utilize linguistic tools to expose the similarities between various activities, ideas, and objects. In this light, and in a self-referental example, all language is like metaphor. All concepts are formed as a differentiation of one type or class of existent from other, similar existents. Within the act of concept creation we necessarily recognize and utilize the similarities between the objects that we examine.
Is it really meaningful to say that concepts are ‘metaphorical’ or are we really just saying that metaphor is a tool to utilize our understanding of the similarities between different objects (physical, conceptual, or other) that share attributes? Argument is not war, but, as the authors describe, in certain circumstances, in context, there are conceptual similarities which are often expressed using the same terms that we use to speak of war. The metaphor assists in the expressiveness and compactness of language, but if taken literally, has the unfortunate consequence of obscuring the concept that is communicated. Argument is not war, but communicative discourse which has many potential metaphorical facets which can be explored through the use of metaphor to compare the activity to other human activities, such as; playing a game of chess, tennis, tug-o-war, boxing, or even lovemaking. Some of these are more closely related and others are only vaguely related, the key similiarities being participation by multiple individuals in some sort of interaction and exchange. Whether one metaphor is better than another depends on the context of its application.
...
