Is anything not a metaphor?

In Bareus' thread on "Heaven, Hell and Reincarnation" there was an interesting sub-discussion going on regarding metaphor. I was pondering starting a new thread and then found this one from a couple of years ago (any coincidence that it was my Teaching Master who started it? )

Gisteron wrote:

The world doesn't work on metaphors and analogies the way people do.

Bareus wrote:

The world does not work on metaphors no, neither do we

The world may not work on (or through) metaphor but ALL our typical experience of the world (universe) is metaphor, is it not? Art and language are quite obviously metaphorical. It is less obvious with scientific or mathematic endeavours - but no less true. As Timothy Leary is quoted: "Science is all metaphor".
Alan Watts quotes Sir Arthur Eddington (the Quaker astronomer, physicist, mathematician who provided the first observational evidence to support Einstein's General theory) in The Book:
"We see the atoms with their girdles of circulating electrons darting hither and tither, colliding and rebounding. Free electrons torn from the girdles hurry away a hundred times faster, curving sharply round the atoms with side slips and hairbreadth escapes. X-rays impinge on the atoms and toss the electrons into higher orbits. We see these electrons falling back again, sometimes by steps, sometimes with a rush, caught in a cul-de-sac of metastability, hesitating before “forbidden passages".
Behind it all the quantum 'h' regulates each change with mathematical precision….The spectacle is so fascinating that we have perhaps forgotten that there was a time when we wanted to be told what an electron is. The question was never answered. No familiar conceptions can be woven around the electron; it belongs to the waiting list. Similarly the description of the processes must be taken with a grain of salt…
Something unknown is doing we don’t know what – that is what our theory amounts to.

Is it not the case that humans typically 'work' through metaphor - even though we normally don't realise it? Indeed isn't this state of affairs so pervasive that Lao Tzu tackles precisely this topic in chapter 1 of the Tao Te Ching?

The world (universe) itself may or may not be a metaphor but all our human ideas and conceptualisations are. But that’s just my opinion. I found the above thread really helpful but if others have different ideas I'd be keen to hear them!

The world (universe) itself may or may not be a metaphor but all our human ideas and conceptualisations are

So, what is a plane, a car, a computer, a T.V. etc,etc a metaphor for?

These were all at one time human ideas and conceptualizations.

They were not metaphors for anything however.

Khaos wrote:

The world (universe) itself may or may not be a metaphor but all our human ideas and conceptualisations are

So, what is a plane, a car, a computer, a T.V. etc,etc a metaphor for?

These were all at one time human ideas and conceptualizations.

They were not metaphors for anything however.

Well, what are you comparing it to?

In a quick definition search, it was wrote: A metaphor is a figure of speech that identifies something as being the same as some unrelated thing for rhetorical effect, thus highlighting the similarities between the two

.

For some, it would depend on the thought(s) surrounding a word "airplane", for example...

"That bird is as high as an airplane."

A word is a group of sound symbols, put together to make another symbol... (Yes, I know you know, but there are other readers... ..)

When compared to another unrelated object, for similarities comparison, then yes, airplane becomes a metaphor...

For some...

However, some of us have also discussed that you can not discuss something without understanding its opposite...

To talk about an "airplane", when most learned what it was, it was compared to things "not-airplane", so that a thought could form...

So, although we use the word "airplane", our mind also quickly goes to "not-airplane"...

I think, on average, if you walk up to a random person, and point and say "up", with no context, they would point point, and say "down"... Although, a quick check with my co-worker just proved me wrong... :lol:... I know that's what I would do... Maybe I am weird, lol...

For me to answer the OP, which I did, but not outright, lol...

"Yes, everything can be a metaphor", but I would venture further and say that at this time, I limit that to human understanding only...

Remove the human, then "No, nothing is a metaphor, things simply 'are'..."

Khaos wrote:

The world (universe) itself may or may not be a metaphor but all our human ideas and conceptualisations are

So, what is a plane, a car, a computer, a T.V. etc,etc a metaphor for?

These were all at one time human ideas and conceptualizations.

They were not metaphors for anything however.

They were all at one time human ideas and conceptualisations - and they remain so, even after they are built and while their used. The word 'plane' is a metaphor for the object of our sensed experience of a 'flying machine with wings' but the metaphor goes much deeper than that. The divisions we see between objects, may be consistent but they are arbitrary. You can't split the plane from its fuselage. You can't split the fuselage from the Aluminium (say) its made from, and you can't separate the Aluminium from the people that mined and refined the bauxite, or from the supernova that created the Aluminium in the first place, or from the rest of the whole universe. In this sense the concept of a 'plane' is a shorthand metaphor for the whole history of the universe manifested in that particular place and time as a 'flying machine with wings'.

As John Muir is quoted "When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe".

Communication would be dreadfully laborious without these metaphors - but the reality of a plane as an independent distinct thing doesn't really exist. Its just a reasonably efficient way to make sense of things - its not the reality.

Its only my opinion but I suspect the layers of metaphor go much deeper again. I've probably not explained myself clearly so far, and the rest will be even less clear . . . but I'll try and grasp some of Jestor's comments . . .

Say you see an aeroplane - where is the actual aeroplane? Its clearly not outside the aeroplane. Also no individual part of the aeroplane is the aeroplane itself. The aeroplane is an emergent phenomenon of all its various components. As I really think about this it eventually gets to the point that I realise that the aeroplane has no independent status - except in my mind - if I choose to see it that way. That's why any conceptualisation I have of anything (including an aeroplane) is a metaphor for the reality of whatever the aeroplane actually is.

I'm not sure that's the slightest bit clear but by all means kick the tyres again Khaos

I think we need to distinguish between symbols and placeholders and proper metaphors.
The Oxford Dictionaries define a metaphor as

A figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable

This is not true of labels which are just shortcuts we use to refer to things rather than producing them in front of our eyes every time we wish to communicate a concept. The word tree is not a metaphor for the wooden plant, it is the name we chose to associate with the real thing.
Same goes for more bizarre things like the aforementioned electron. The word isn't a metaphor for the real thing, it is a label for it. Now, do we know what the electron actually is? It is an elementary particle, more specifically a fermion, and yet more specifically still a lepton, since it is one of the particles that make up matter. It has a mass of about a two-thousandth of an atomic mass unit, a spin of one half and one negative elementary charge. Now, do we know what it is? Arguably not, but that matters naught, because at the end of the day, we know it is something and we can tell it from some other things and rather than list all of the properties and behaviours of the thing, we sum them up with just one term - "the electron".
Of course, we are entitled to use metaphors to simplify or help illustrate all kinds of circumstance and so long as we keep in mind the limitations of any one given metaphor it may help us understand the weird by treating it as similar to the familiar - which is, admittedly, a rather sound reason to use metaphors every now and again. Not all of language is metaphor by that definition or by the one Jestor quoted, however. Neither is all of science or math.

Loudzoo wrote:

Khaos wrote:

The world (universe) itself may or may not be a metaphor but all our human ideas and conceptualisations are

So, what is a plane, a car, a computer, a T.V. etc,etc a metaphor for?

These were all at one time human ideas and conceptualizations.

They were not metaphors for anything however.

They were all at one time human ideas and conceptualisations - and they remain so, even after they are built and while their used. The word 'plane' is a metaphor for the object of our sensed experience of a 'flying machine with wings' but the metaphor goes much deeper than that. The divisions we see between objects, may be consistent but they are arbitrary. You can't split the plane from its fuselage. You can't split the fuselage from the Aluminium (say) its made from, and you can't separate the Aluminium from the people that mined and refined the bauxite, or from the supernova that created the Aluminium in the first place, or from the rest of the whole universe. In this sense the concept of a 'plane' is a shorthand metaphor for the whole history of the universe manifested in that particular place and time as a 'flying machine with wings'.

As John Muir is quoted "When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe".

Communication would be dreadfully laborious without these metaphors - but the reality of a plane as an independent distinct thing doesn't really exist. Its just a reasonably efficient way to make sense of things - its not the reality.

Its only my opinion but I suspect the layers of metaphor go much deeper again. I've probably not explained myself clearly so far, and the rest will be even less clear . . . but I'll try and grasp some of Jestor's comments . . .

Say you see an aeroplane - where is the actual aeroplane? Its clearly not outside the aeroplane. Also no individual part of the aeroplane is the aeroplane itself. The aeroplane is an emergent phenomenon of all its various components. As I really think about this it eventually gets to the point that I realise that the aeroplane has no independent status - except in my mind - if I choose to see it that way. That's why any conceptualisation I have of anything (including an aeroplane) is a metaphor for the reality of whatever the aeroplane actually is.

I'm not sure that's the slightest bit clear but by all means kick the tyres again Khaos

No reason to kick the tires.

None of that is metaphor.

A flying machine with wings is a plane.

There is no metaphor.

This is a metaphor

"As gentle as a lamb"

Now, when speaking of a lamb, we are not using it as a metaphor for what a lamb is, in that it could be described as a "four legged animal" in which case, given how many others there are in the animal kingdom, wouldnt explain anything much less be a metaphor for anything. Which is only going to work as a metaphor if animal itself isnt, and so, not everything can be a metaphor or else you couldnt use them to make points for discussion.

a lamb is not separate from its organs, the universe, etc...

All that is irrelevant, not even remotely the point.

However, the metaphor for " As gentle as a lamb" is "A Person that has a kind and mild nature or either character. "

Aeroplane is not a metaphor, at all.

What you described is not a metaphor, but a list of names used to describe different parts of what make up a plane.

So, is anything not a metaphor?

Yep, lots of things arent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor

Now I'm wondering if the label of aeroplane is a metaphor for something which uses aerodynamics to 'plane' in said medium :S

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology

When discussing such matters I understand the need for linguistic precision so thank you Khaos and Gisteron for tidying that up.

Without wishing to blunder on blindly - I will probably now do so! The position I have proposed is that the metaphors are much more pervasive than I have typically thought. Normally it might get a bit tiresome getting bogged down in definitions but I agree it is very important here.

Metaphor definition 1:
"A figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable"
A label is not literally applicable to the thing it refers to anymore than a metaphor is. I would argue a label is a metaphor. A label is a linguistic shortcut that certain groups of people mutually agree to use, but that doesn't make it literally applicable to the object. The word 'aeroplane' means nothing to someone who speaks solely Japanese. There is no literal connection between the object and the word.

Metaphor definition 2:
"A metaphor is a figure of speech that identifies something as being the same as some unrelated thing for rhetorical effect, thus highlighting the similarities between the two."
Again the word 'aeroplane' is unrelated to the object - other than through a mutual agreement between a group of people to make it so, purely for rhetorical effect.

I'm guessing we'll probably agree to disagree on that, but many others have written in great detail on this. Nietzsche, for instance states that "we possess nothing but metaphors for things - metaphors which correspond in no way to the original entities.". See here for further discussion:
http://www.ayling.com/content/documents/Academic/University%20of%20Notre%20Dame/Language%20and%20metaphor.pdf
Conclusion: To conclude, metaphor structures our thought in unexpected ways. Metaphor
proposes a “can be thought of as” relationship, and this proposal is the basis for all
systems of categorisation, all culturally endorsed impositions of meaning. It is a primary
tool of cognition and a means by which we build conceptual, epistemological knowledge.
I have argued that in as literal an utterance as language will permit, language is metaphor.
Metaphor is an appropriate means for seeking to understand language, because it is the
creator and the begotten, the stuff of language itself.

If language is metaphor then anything we speak of or think of in linguistic terms is metaphor (including mathematics and science). Incidentally when Leary said/wrote "All Science is metaphor" I suspect he was knowlingly playing with the words - his statement is a metaphor after all

Whilst this is interesting it's only really the first layer of metaphor I was considering. If we can permit a small expansion of the definition of metaphor from merely being a figure of speech to the reality that everything we sense is not literally applicable to the subject/object in question (e.g. colour, smell, touch), or at least the use of the word 'metaphor' as a metaphor, then we can perhaps we can begin to realise how shaky the ground beneath our feet is - metaphorically speaking of course!

"Metaphor" was the term I used probably a bit loosely, as a means to say "a way of speaking and interpreting ideas and experiences around us by using a handle (a word, an object, etc) that points to something else for which is it's parent nature of purpose or existence. The word "pen" is not the pen. But the table in my room as I look at it, is not even that. What I see is my perception interpreting wave-lengths of color and energy frequencies of its energy, as its shape and other attributes of it which my interpretation uses to recognize by those attributes what it is for. (If that makes any sense at all?)

Everything seems to point to something else as its parent nature, in a nested list that goes up and up into what is essentially no "root thing" at all.

Proteus wrote: "Metaphor" was the term I used probably a bit loosely, as a means to say "a way of speaking and interpreting ideas and experiences around us by using a handle (a word, an object, etc) that points to something else for which is it's parent nature of purpose or existence. The word "pen" is not the pen. But the table in my room as I look at it, is not even that. What I see is my perception interpreting wave-lengths of color and energy frequencies of its energy, as its shape and other attributes of it which my interpretation uses to recognize by those attributes what it is for. (If that makes any sense at all?)

Everything seems to point to something else as its parent nature, in a nested list that goes up and up into what is essentially no "root thing" at all.

What value does this ultimately have to....well anything?

If we can permit a small expansion of the definition of metaphor from merely being a figure of speech to the reality that everything we sense is not literally applicable to the subject/object in question (e.g. colour, smell, touch), or at least the use of the word 'metaphor' as a metaphor, then we can perhaps we can begin to realise how shaky the ground beneath our feet is - metaphorically speaking of course!

Uh, thats a bit more than a small expansion on the definition.

Also, the ground is not shaky at all. You can break down a table to whatever words(as they are not metaphors, by any stretch) but if you walk into it, it will still hurt.

So that is literally applicable to what you have sensed(touched) the object/subject.

Im sorry, you have lost me in your attempt to make everything a metaphor.

So, ultimately, again, what is the value of this ..."understanding", of a metaphor?

Everythings nothing?

How does this matter in your day to day dealings?

Thanks Khaos - no everything isn't nothing. Something that we call a 'table' exists - it just doesn't exist in the way we can be tempted to think it does, as my understanding of what Proteus wrote eludes to. Its hardness would not exist without the softness and sensitivity of my (bruised) leg - or anything else that is of a different hardness on the Mohs scale, that comes into contact with it. Now you mention it - physical pain is also fairly ephemeral, but that's a slightly different matter. Ask any dentist that removes wisdom teeth using hypnosis rather than anaesthetics (or a patient for that matter) - or watch a video, there are some on YouTube.

It's not really my attempt to make everything metaphor - others, much more considered than I, have been making the case for hundreds, if not thousands of years. The "shaky ground" was a metaphor - I hope we can agree on that. What we experience is never a wholly accurate view of reality.

Its late where I am but I'll attempt to answer the question on utility tomorrow. The usefulness of this concept is intimately linked to the pain and suffering that we experience, as many have argued before and as I understand it.

Perhaps a metaphor should be seen as a 'function' of distinct things. In which case nothing is a metaphor except the function for which it's structure defines it as a metaphor. Then it would be better to say anything can be part of, or used in, or serve as a metaphor.
So the more diverse the attributes held to any particular label (which are attributed to within that labels category of attributes), I guess the more widely it can be used functionally as a metaphor instead of its pure purpose as a label of its attributable parts!?
:silly:

So perhaps a deeper metaphor has levels of metaphorical association, and a simple one is cute succinct. This could mean we could assess a metaphor for various qualities... but I'm not sure why. I think they are intended to mean something useful, to facilitate understanding and so in that regard perhaps intended to serve as only a fraction of the communication to orientate someones ignorance about something in familiar terms so further information can be provided to inform in more detail.
:S
A familiarization and orientation tool, like a 'handshake'!?

Maybe you should look up what "literally" means...
Also, if all language is a metaphor, none of it is. The word metaphor refers to a specific stylistic tool, not to all of language. We do have a word that refers to all of language. It's "language". We also have one that refers to all words. It's "words".
Now, of course, words don't have meanings, they have usages. And you are free to define metaphor as whatever you wish at any time you like, but if we are going to twist our definitions to whatever idea we like to convey, questions of whether something is or isn't a metaphor become meaningless, because any sufficiently specific definition is enough to settle the discussion. If I am free to define cucumbers as members of the set of solid objects, my question whether aeroplanes aren't really just another type of cucumber becomes completely pointless because what ever anybody thinks on that, my freedom to redefine the words will always lead me to conclude one answer over the other and in that sense I don't even need to discuss the question first.

Literally is an interesting word. Definitions of literally:
1) using the real or original meaning of a word or phrase
They were responsible for literally millions of deaths.
We live literally just round the corner from her.
2) If you translate literally, you translate each word in a text separately, without looking at how the words are used together in a phrase or sentence:
Translations that are done too literally often don't flow well or don't sound natural.
3) informal used to emphasize what you are saying:
He missed that kick literally by miles.
I was literally bowled over by the news.
4) informal simply or just:
Then you literally cut the sausage down the middle.

Literally can mean ‘the original meaning’ or an exaggerated meaning. Or I could even say "You're taking the definition of metaphor too literally"

In any case, Gisteron, I think you’ve missed the fact that language is self-referential. Yes, on the first iteration a metaphor can refer to a specific stylistic tool but hopefully it’s not too much of a stretch to realise that the whole of language is precisely that type of stylistic tool, also. You can choose not to see it like that if you want but it’s hardly following the meaning of the word to its logical end. If all language is metaphor it doesn't bankrupt its utility, but to suggest that some words are metaphorical and some aren’t is to draw imaginary distinctions that don’t actually exist – in my opinion.

It maybe that we have to leave this at a level of I agree with Nietzche (on this point of all language being metaphor) and you don’t. That’s fine by me, I’m not trying to sell anything here. I hope we don't leave it there as it’s nothing, if not an interesting discussion

Except its not interesting, I simply have no idea what your trying to convey....At all.

If your simply going to "exaggerate" things then there is no real conversation to be had.

What we experience is never a wholly accurate view of reality....Ok, but you have in no way laid out why this "Is anything not a metaphor" is a useful concept in that regard.

Still, it seems that any attempt to understand is simply exaggerated to fit a square peg into a round hole rather than actually addressing the concerns and points brought up that may not jive with the concept put forth.

Not only is that not interesting, but in assures that it will go nowhere in real understanding.

Why might it be helpful to recognise everything we experience as metaphor?

I think we’ve established that the definition of metaphor requires it to be a figure of speech. I’d argue it’s also perfectly valid to use the word ‘metaphor’ as a metaphor in the sentence “everything we experience is metaphor”. It’s a metaphor to address the fact that what we experience of the world, via our senses, is not the whole story, and not solely dependent on the properties of the ‘object’ we’re interacting with. As far as I’m aware there is no English word that adequately describes this phenomenon so it is perfectly valid to try and describe it, using the word ‘metaphor’ as a metaphor.

What we see, touch, hear and taste is not solely due to the intrinsic nature of the object we’re sensing. The information that we glean about anything has as much to do with the nature of our sensory apparatus and cognitive processing as it has to do with the object we are sensing, itself. The object does exist but it does not exist independently of the interaction, as far as we can ever know.

It’s the interaction we experience, not an isolated object or set of objects.

People are free to believe that objects do exist independently of each other - but we can never prove that they do. The idea of independently existing objects is just a hypothesis. As David Bohm wrote in his book Quantum Theory:
“ . . . the world cannot be analysed correctly into distinct parts; instead it must be regarded as an indivisible unit in which separate parts appear as valid approximations only in the classical limit . . . thus, at a quantum level of accuracy, an object does not have any “intrinsic” properties belonging to itself alone; instead it shares all its properties mutually and indivisibly with the systems with which it interacts . . . Although such fluidity and dependence of form on the environment have not been found, before the advent of quantum theory, at the level of elementary particles they are not uncommon in fields such as biology, which deal with complex systems.”

So the way we commonly see the world – as being made up of distinct independent objects is not supported by scientific fields such as biology, ecology or quantum theory. There is an argument often put forward that quantum theory doesn’t apply on the macro (or classical) scale of our experience. I find this argument unconvincing. Our experience of solidity day to day is explained by quantum theory – indeed it’s the only good theory we have to explain it.

This pre-amble is important because hopefully it begins to sketch a picture that our perception of reality – is not an objective reality. Indeed we can never know an objective reality – it may exist but we can never know it. Our experience is a kind of language with which we can comprehend our interactions – but only in a metaphorical like manner.

I hope that idea is not too offensive.

Clearly the ‘regular’ way of seeing the world is helpful in many ways. But if solely relied on it can lead to many delusions that are literally figments of our imagination, and literally do not exist other than in our minds. Personally I’m keen to understand what aspects of my experience are worth my limited attention and emotional bandwidth. Understanding my experiences as metaphors for what may, or may not, be actually going on might help take some of the sting out of them, make them less painful without reducing my awareness of them, allowing me to respond in more constructive ways than might otherwise be the case. I can expand on this further if you would like.

Lastly, I don't see these [two] viewpoints as being mutually exclusive, or the sum total of the perspectives we can have. I find both viewpoints helpful in my day to day life.