metaphor language stuff

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

I’m not even sure this is the right forum but the powers that be can see to that :wink:

i was watching star trek earlier and counsellor troi was speaking with this doctor, she was speaking about his ego which she referred to as his self-portrait (i assume it was ego which was being referred to), and in the conversation she used a number of metaphors e.g. “your self-portrait is so practiced so polished”, “it’s stretched so tight the tension fills the room”, “i fear it will snap”…he carried it on “when you reach beneath a man’s self-portrait…deep down inside what you find is nothing at all”. This got me curious about how we can have such abstract conversations, theres just something strange about the words we use to converse about certain subjects, e.g the ego here is referred to as a tangible object which can be pulled and stretched and even torn which also exists in some kind of space which we can reach into…

I’m struggling to even grasp what i feel here, my feelings are out of reach…although i have started this topic there isn’t too much i can offer but i was hoping someone could provide some insights :-k

2

Welcome to the Truth, Fox Mulder.

3

Honestly, this is the stupidest most imbecilic thing I have ever read. Are you a moron? I think ILP may be a bit beyond your capabilities as a thinking person, because only an ignorant childish person could think those kinds of things… ok, sorry.

The ego does feel pretty tangible. I kind of like that ego as self-portrait analogy. Welcome to the site. :slight_smile:

4

Uh, actually anon our ability to use metaphors and analogies is a huge research topic in linguistics, and many interesting books have been written on the subject highlighting hidden parts of human nature. Steven Pinker’s new book, “The Stuff of thought” largely explains the power of language, he even goes so far to say that language is largely metaphor.

For instance, plenty of the stuff we talk about today is metaphor, theres so many metaphors in language people don’t even realize it when they talk.

“I attacked his position”
“I’m seeing red”
“I’m going to break”

it permeates language to the point of being everywhere.

5
  • The magic of metaphors, - robert hank review of the stuff of thought.
6

I was joking - attacking the ego…

7

So, yeah, that way we use metaphors and even everyday language unviels things about our innate sense of physics, which is pretty huge and surprising most people would never have predicted it not even that long ago. As the things above show, what determines how grammatical a sentence is, largely, largely depends on the physics of motion you’re trying to explain with the language, this reveals that language is largely based on conceptual foundations of the human mind, but it unviels a bunch of other shit too.

8

Sorry, haha my mistake.

I try to ignore references most references to ego, id, and etc.

9

my canvas is cheap it nearly tore in two, i need a re-frame and theres a crack in the glass too =D>

I underestimated how much of our language is actually metaphor! Then there is consciousness too, that which we all are but have to assume the role of poet to try and describe it…

10

You’ve got a nice head start then. :slight_smile:

11

A point i wanted to bring up earlier but i had to leave for work was language existing as a type of hierarchy, there is the basic speech of a child, “i want food” “i want the ball” and then there is adult language maybe more to do with the kind of metaphors relating to physics and time etc. that Cyrene mentioned then there are the abstract conversations which i was originally interested in, the language of emotions, consciousness etc., it interests me how we can converse in these abstract terms and play ball so to speak, e.g in my original post with the star trek quotes one person started the metaphor of self-portrait and the other was able to carry it on and use it in his own response. This led me to think of language, as used in the trek example, existing on a higher plain 8-[ maybe like a meta-language (although i’ve just found out this term already exists)… :-s…lol i don’t know what I’m talking about really

…actually i just realized, meta-phor, what is -phor? there is a -phore in the dictionary: forming nouns meaning ‘bearer’…rambling :-"

12

You might want to check out Metaphors We Live By - Lakoff.

He claims that our conceptual system is largely metaphorical. The Metaphors partially structure the way we view, the world, speak and act. Different metaphors give rise to different focal points while simultaneously hiding other aspects or ways of seeing. He gives numerous examples. It’s interesting.

13

Yep, I learned from the source when I went to my university and learned Philosophy of Language by professor Johnson.

“Metaphors We Live By”.

14

…so thinking out aloud here.

i’m curious as to what the origins of metaphors are, consider the word ‘horny’ is the image of horns used as a metaphor for the animal, the uncontrollable, the irrational? or is it from Christianity, horns = devil, the demonizing of our passions etc. and also the metaphors we use when we talk of lust are interesting, alot of them are food orientated…the language of our desires really show how primitive we can be :evilfun:

15

Conceptual Knowledge.

16

conceptual knowledge…is this something to do with how we recognize particular attributes to objects e.g. a child will know his favourite ball because it’s round, blue and soft?..if this is the case then my query about the origins of metaphor is more to do with the cultural atmosphere they arise from…i’m waiting for that book so that will hopefully provide some answers :sunglasses: or at least some substance to my thoughts.

17

How much has Johnson influenced and improved your philosophizing? I really haven’t read too much of your threads because I have other reading priorities, but what I’ve read of yours is usually quite interesting and well done.

18

I find it quite easy to understand that someone may look to explain something intangible with something tangible… for it gives a picture that is more easily understood, the one point i’d make is, the tangible metaphor may only reflect the situation in hand… an interesting quote might be used by Bruce Lee

Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless–like water.
Now you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup,
You put water into a bottle, it becomes the bottle,
You put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot.
Now water can flow or it can crash!
Be water, my friend.

Essentially if you use a set fixed approach / processes you may find you lack the ability to improvise with the knowledge you have. So by referring to something intangible with a tangible reference, you lack flexibility. This is why the tangible must only be IMO considered in the context given.

19

I saw that episode.

Allow me to try and shed some light on the seemingly confusing metaphors.

Firstly concerning the ego.

Our ego would be the part of us that determines what we deserve, and how “good” we are. (the definition of good is subject to change)

That said, let’s examine a few mataphors.

“your self portrait is so practiced and polished”

to describe the ego as practiced and polished would be to relate it to qualities like “proper”, “wise”, “capable” and “finely-tuned”.

Generally it is a “good” opinon of an ego. (more on the ego later if necessary).

“it’s stretched so tight the tension fills the room”. This metaphor points out the great responsibility that captain picards ego copes with.

“i fear it will snap” - i don’t know what happens when an ego snaps but i doubt it’s “good”. this metaphor expresses concern that captain picards ego is reaching it’s limit. (however you want to define the limit of an ego is up to you)

and finally the metaphor that i think set the intrigue.

“when you reach beneath a man’s self-portrait…deep down inside what you find is nothing at all”. This is a rather complex metaphor that could be interpreteed a number of ways.

It could mean that our self image (self portrait) is completely wrong, and that humans are all the same.

But it could also mean that humans are nothing. When i say this i mean it in the sense that we are no different from robots running on a program. The conciousness that we know and praise might in actual fact be an illusion beyond our control, and what we think we know couldn’t be more irrelevant.

for more on that subject, look up “nihilism” and “determinism”.

Here is how i interpret it given the context.

When we examine our own egos, we realise that all of the ideas we have about ourselves like “the best” or"very smart" or “very strong” turn out to be not so important.

many of the things we think we know about ourselves can turn out to be arrogant and complete fantasy.

Humans all come to the same humble end. In my opinion no human is greater than another.

Sure people percieve other people to be greater, but what we percieve and believe, like in the case of the ego, isn’t necessarily true.

metaphors are just like regular language except for an indirect meaning. philosophers use metaphors sometimes in order to convey something which is difficult to articulate.

For example.

Let’s say you had a child but didn’t want to take care of it because you thought the mother was evil. (just for pretend :laughing:)

It would be very difficult for me to explain to you why i think that not taking care of the child is “wrong”

so i might use a metaphor. (actually i’m going to use a similie but they are basically the same thing)

“Not take care of your child? That would be like planting a flower and refusing to give it water”

Metaphors use relationships. when you use a metaphor you are comparing an easily understandable relationship (the metaphor) to a more complex, but hopefully similar one.

Put simply, metaphors and similies are language device tools used only for communication. they do not necessarily posess value just for being a metaphor just like sentences do not posess value just for being wordy.

You have to judge a metaphor like you would judge an argument.

Cheers

20

First you have to have a sound theory of reference.