Is anything not a metaphor?

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.