Ameliorative and Prejorative Uses of Metaphor and their Functions

If we ask what is the role of metaphor, we are using the metaphor "role" to ask this very question. Abstract words are born as metaphors (or other tropes) and are then assimilated to the point where we take their meaning as literal. For instance, the word "literal." It's an abstract concept, but it's etymology is sure to reveal a concrete root. Just as the word style comes from the stylus -- meaning pen.

For me the linguistic turn in philosophy is philosophy waking up to the very nature of its body, which is logos. Anatole France did this trick of translating abstract metaphysics into its concrete roots (Derrida quotes this in The White Mythology). The results are eye-opening. Philosophers, who consider themselves the opposite of the superstitious, have founded their abstract edifice upon concrete symbols.

The trick is all in the negative prefix. For instance, the word infinite. Or absolute. Or dis-embodied, immaterial. We've negated ourselves a certain distance from reality. I call it a transparent mythology, as it tries to make its origins invisible. (in-visible).

I'm still thinking all this out, but it seems exciting and significant to me.

I agree that one should try to distinguish propaganda from informative discourse (I don't see any logical parallel between the former and especially philosophical discourse) but it seems to me that the notion of opinion, and the notion of argument, do not belong together even by contrast. Opinions are just weakly or completely unwarranted beliefs (although even opinions can be informed opinions, for instance a physician's opinion about a diagnosis, is supposed to be an informed opinion). But (mere) opinions need arguments so that they will not be mere opinions. On the other hand arguments consist of statements, which may, themselves, be warranted or unwarranted, or true or false, but argument are never warranted or unwarranted. Indeed, it is argument which give warrant to the statement which are their (the arguments) conclusions. So, although I suppose I agree with the spirit of what you have written, the letter seems to me confused.

If you make some claim to be a philosopher, as you say you do, you should be more careful with the notion of argument and what its place is in philosophy. It has been well said (by me) that trying to philosophize without logic, is like trying to row a boat without oars.

Conclusions we disagree with we call opinions. Well, I'm suspicious of everyone's conclusions, including my own. But I'm less suspicious about my own, which is why I don't trade them for the opinions of others. But then so many of my opinions I did get from others in the first place. I trade less and less these days. It gets harder to find opinions that smell better than the one's I'm wearing just now.

On with the Show.

If we call statements (why "conclusions"?) we disagree with, "opinions", then how can I say that my wife and I often share the same opinions? You cannot share an opinion which you disagree about. I am not suspicious of anyone's opinions unless I have reason to be so. And that will depend on the person, and/or the opinion.

Opinions are stolen conclusions; as when a thief snatches a bunch of jewelry from its box without care or concern about each piece's worth, the conclusions are never examined.

The physician's opinion that a child has measles is a "stolen conclusion"? You must mean something special by the word, "opinion". Maybe, unsupported, or uninformed belief? Certainly not informed opinion, say a lawyer's opinion about how a case will be decided.