Deus ex machina

In Response to Avery 2/29/2012

I found Avery’s post regarding the possible benefits of extended metaphors to be particularly intriguing. Mainly, this is due to one benefit that Avery identified, which is metaphors ability to “isolate the single factor” of a concept that someone must analyze. I would agree with this because I think metaphors encapsulate the ability to focus the reader on what is important regarding a concept. However, I am wondering whether an extended metaphor is required to achieve this.

Avery stated that, “a concept may be difficult to analyze without dragging in other related, though irrelevant, factors”, and I agree that this is certainly a possible occurrence. However, I am wondering whether it would be possible to avoid these irrelevant factors without using metaphorical language.

The final statement I found interesting was the idea that there are certain concepts, which, because of their complexity, can only be understood by most people with the use of metaphor. Now, testing this claim a priori, I certainly agree; I find that metaphor is particularly effective in ameliorating the understanding of normally complicating claims. But, when thinking of examples of this, I am having trouble. Accordingly I question whether this is something that actually occurs, and even if it does, I question how likely an occurrence it is.

In Response to Nicole (2/26/2012)

After reading Nicole’s post regarding the importance of aesthetic value in literature in comparison with its importance in “philosophical texts”, I would say that I agree with the various statements made. The only statement that I found interesting and highly contentious was the claim that “philosophical texts” need to at least have some concern for aesthetic value.

“It is my view that philosophical essays cannot succeed without some aesthetic consideration. Prose which is distasteful will most likely not move the reader to understand what is being said.”

As far as I can see, a philosophical essay could succeed without any aesthetic consideration. However, it seems that we would first need to decide what is meant by succeed. I am guessing that we are talking about success in conveying truths, but it could mean success in a number of other dimensions. Assuming that we are talking about this type of success, I would say that the conveyance of truth can be achieved without any aesthetically related considerations. I am not denying that aesthetic value is an important aid in the process of conveying truths, however it does not seem required in the basic structure for conveying some sort of truths.

Comments toward “Metaphor”, by Max Black

Subsequent to my second read-through of Max Black’s, “Metaphor”, numerous questions have come to light, which, since that time, I have been waiting to bring-up. Each of my questions is related to a certain excerpt from Black’s piece. Accordingly, in this post I will follow the format of (1) providing a quote from Black’s writing, and subsequently, (2) I will provide my comment on this excerpt that I chose.

“If the sentence about the chairman’s behavior is translated word for word into any language for which this is possible, we shall of course want to say that the translated sentence is a case of the very same metaphor”

This excerpt provides Black with evidence used to support the claim that metaphors are in fact classified as being distinct because of meaning, and not because of syntax. Accepted a priori, I would have to agree with this claim. With that being said, I am confused in with the thought that metaphors translated into different languages would have the same meaning. Of course, they would not because lexicons represent distinctly different ideas depending on which language they are being used in. I should point out that Black seems to understand this, and this is primarily due to the fact that he says “we shall of course want to say” that the metaphor would have the same meaning in different languages. This seems to imply that, although we would want to say this, it is in fact not true. Consequently, if Black is using this claim as support of the conclusion that metaphors correspond to meaning and not word syntax, then this does not seem to work.

“Whatever the merits of such speculations about the reader’s response, they agree in making metaphor a decoration”

Black is referring to the substitution view of metaphor in this excerpt; accordingly, it can be said that Black himself does not support the statement above. However, I thought that it still would be important to raise the above claim due to the fact that it is widely held. I do not think that metaphors are used purely for aesthetic purposes. In my view, metaphors do not just provide a decoration. Instead, I would say that metaphors provide a novel way of viewing a certain situation; thus, they lead towards a better understanding of the information being presented. I am not entirely sure if Black would agree with this claim, but in my view, this is the way in which metaphors function. Metaphorical language may not be the most compendious form of writing, but I think that they are a tool used for better understanding.

“It would be more illuminating in some cases to say that the metaphor creates the similarity than to say that it formulates some similarity antecedently existing”.

This quotes brings-up an important point pertaining to metaphors: do metaphors create relationships that did not previously exist, or do they elucidate antecedent relationships? Viewing prima facie, I suspect that the answer to this question would be both. It seems that depending on the reader, a metaphorical relationship could present a novel relationship, or one that has been previously encountered. Either way, I suspect that this is a particularly important question when it comes to the way in which metaphors function.