Have we taken scientific jargon as language that is not metaphorical? Can what is called soft science do without metaphor? Or is scientific jargon merely metaphor so ossified and polished by use that it deceives us as to its poetic roots?
Is philosophy a form of poetry that pretends to be an anti-poetry?
Does the atheist underestimate religion when he describes it only as lies? Or were myths never meant to be taken literally in the first place?
I'm one of those people who is still completely on the edge about religion. I kjeep telling myself that I don't believe in God yet, and I wont even try to until I've read the bible completely. But everytime I pick it up and read it, all i see is stories that could be in any fictional story.
I don't believe in God in the usual sense, but "God" is just a word and has been used in so many different ways. Both idiots and geniuses have used the word sincerely.
What if "God" is a feeling associated with certain ideas? And what if this feeling is intense and good enough that a person isn't motivated to doubt it?
What the brain has a built-in function to get high without drugs and myths and stories are the way to activate this function? What if some people are genetically more able to switch this function on?
For a long time now the human race has used chemicals and rituals in their religion. Christians often drink alcoholic (wine) and call it blood. Perhaps the "blood of God" isn't such a bad description for wine. Perhaps rituals help activate the brain's/mind's natural high....
What else can we do with feelings if we want to talk about them than tie them to certain words? How does a non-scientific culture encode their wisdom if not with stories? How are abstract words born?
Natural High... I would rather call it an automatic high, for you could say that Marijuana is "natural". And of course. It's a feeling. You've converted me, I believe you. No sarcasm. It makes perfect sense. In the church, when you see people falling an crying for joy, and relief, it's because of God. These are only in very spiritual churches. This is where they get that sort of 'Natural High', that you're talking about. However, in a church where they read directly from the bible and what not, the most happy that I see in someone is when they sleep. Church, in that atmosphere, seems boring and, more of a burdon.
So you're right. Expression is God. Nice Inquisition.
I enjoyed your response. Here's a question for you. How was the word "natural" invented? Are you familiar with etymology? I find it fascinating. The word "natural" was created at some point. Also we should examine how the word "automatic" was created. Here's some source material. It's just my opinion, of course, but I think metaphor is the heart of philosophy and of abstract thought in general.
Conceptual metaphors are seen in language in our everyday lives. Conceptual metaphors shape not just our communication, but also shape the way we think and act. In George Lakoff and Mark Johnson's work, Metaphors We Live By (1980), we see how everyday language is filled with metaphors we may not always notice. An example, of one of the commonly used conceptual metaphors is argument as war. This metaphor shapes our language in the way we view argument as war or as a battle to be won. It is not uncommon to hear someone say "He won that argument" or "I attacked every weak point in his argument". The very way argument is thought of is shaped by this metaphor of arguments being war and battles that must be won. Argument can be seen in many other ways other than a battle, but we use this concept to shape the way we think of argument and the way we go about arguing.
Conceptual metaphors are used very often to understand theories and models. A conceptual metaphor uses one idea and links it to another to better understand something. For example, the conceptual metaphor of viewing communication as a conduit is one large theory explained with a metaphor. So not only is our everyday communication shaped by the language of conceptual metaphors, but so is the very way we understand scholarly theories. These metaphors are prevalent in communication and we do not just use them in language; we actually perceive and act in accordance with the metaphors.
Here's some background on metaphor in general: a metaphor is one type of trope. If a person understands how tropes work, they are well on their way to understand how thinking works. For me it was a big deal to get into this stuff. After all, philosophy is made of words. So to understand philosophy in a deep way, one must understand how words work.
In linguistics, trope is a rhetorical figure of speech that consists of a play on words, i.e., using a word in a way other than what is considered its literal or normal form. The other major category of figures of speech is the scheme, which involves changing the pattern of words in a sentence.
The term trope derives from the τρόπος - tropos "turn, direction, way, related to the root of the verb τρέπειν (trepein), "to turn, to direct, to alter, to change". A trope is a way of turning a word away from its normal meaning, or turning it into something else.
Etymology is the study of the history of words and how their form and meaning have changed over time.
A dead metaphor is one in which the sense of the transferred image is absent. Examples: "to grasp a concept" and "to gather what you've understood" use physical action as a metaphor for understanding, most do not visualize the action; dead metaphors normally go unnoticed. Some people distinguish between a "dead metaphor" whose origin most speakers ignore, e.g. "to break the ice". Others use dead metaphor to denote both concepts, and generally use it to describe a metaphoric .
It all fits together.
Trope (linguistics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Metaphor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yes, it seems as though we use more metaphors than we realize.
I'll be sure to take a look at that book. It seems like some pretty interesting stuff, and I see how it is used in every day society. "I can taste victory. The stocks hit the roof." Yes, it seems as though we use more metaphors than we realize.
Etymology is not only interesting, but it's probably the most useful to all philosophers. Have you noticed, that all of our discussions usually end up boiling down to one word?(<---metaphor.) It seems as if etymology would be the back bone for philosophers discussions,(<---metaphor) for they could continue longer based upon ideas, not upon the context of the word itself.
The history of a term (etymology) is only slightly informative about the current meaning of a term, since terms change meaning through time. You don't think that when someone calls a person a "lunatic" he is in anyway implying that the person is being influenced by the Moon, do you? Yet, that is the etymology of the term. Linguists (who usually know something about language) call your view, the etymological fallacy, and point to how it confuses the diachronic (the meaning in time) with the synchronic (the current meaning). Many philosophers avoid this confusion, but a few, like Heidegger, intentionally commit the etymological fallacy.
This was my point in the "Common Sense" thread. Common sense may have meant something else once, but now it's used as a replacement word for common knowledge. I wouldn't use etymology for words like, "lunatic". I would use etymology for things like, "subjective", or "objective". Things like "Truth" and "real".
I'm not gonna get all etymologistic when someone calls me the a lunatic, because I'm sure, and he/she's sure, on how the context of the word is being used.
I would use etymology for things like, "subjective", or "objective". Things like "Truth" and "real".
And why the difference between those words and a word like "lunatic"? The etymological fallacy is either a fallacy or it is not. It is. There are plenty of other examples of the etymological fallacy.
Present a few more, please.
For some, philosophy does not mean the love of wisdom. For some it does. Judas sold Jesus for money. Man sold wisdom for technology. But we can have both, I think. A philosophy without Sophia is useful, yes, but still a demotion. What is this hatred of the sacred? What is this rejection of wisdom? The anti-poets want to believe that inspiration is a lie. Logic and Naturalistic Epistemology are boring little gods.
You speak as if you own the word "philosophy." For me the old meaning is still alive, despite being encrusted by a more pragmatic less sacred meaning. Yes, the old meaning is obscured and out of fashion, but Wiki shows what the man on the street knows already, for "philosophy" has never lost its colloquial sense as something "deep."
In the more informal sense, a philosophy is an attitude to life or way or principle of living whose focus is on resolving the most basic existential questions about the human condition.
For me philosophy is both the love of Sophia and " the study of general and fundamental problems concerning subjects such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language."
It's context again. Say "philosophy" to ten different people and they will take it in ten different ways. It's just a piece in a game. And etymology might not mean much to you, but some of us see it as time-machine.
So what your ten people will say is not significant.
I disagree. The living meaning is primary, and the dictionary is secondary. Also your view indulges a bias, at is inseparable from motive.