Do you agree with M? If yes, you need to change your mind, why? Look:
1- consider the linguistic structure x is y
2- There is no metaphorical meaning associated with x is y.
2- There is no metaphorical meaning associated with x is y.
3- pick up two words randomly without any intentions, For instance, tree and sky and insert them in the structure.
4- The sentence sky is tree is a metaphor.
5- There is no metaphorical meaning based on the intention of the utterer for the sentence sky is tree (Because of the rule of random)
5- (4 and 5) is true.
6- so M is false
P.S. Don't try to reject 2 or 4
P.S. Don't try to reject 2 or 4
Thanks, Ali! Are you asking us not to reject 2 or 4 because you think they're obvious, or because you want to see if the other premises are good? Because I was leaning towards rejecting 4. I'm inclined to accept the rest of the premises.
ReplyDeleteI'm not totally clear about the logical structure of 1-6. Do you think the following argument captures it?
A) For any two nouns (x and y), the sentence 'x is y' has a metaphorical meaning.
B) If (A), then possibly, there is a metaphor that has metaphorical meaning independent of speaker intentions.
C) If possibly, there is a metaphor that has metaphorical meaning independent of speaker intentions, then M is false.
D) So, M is false.
Argument is valid by hypothetical syllogism and modus ponens. Do you think (A)-(D) is faithful to your thought in 1-6?
I was joking not to reject 4 because I knew people would attack it. Although I think it is obvious that this particular sentence that sky is tree is a metaphor, I am eager to know why you do not think so.
DeleteRegarding your argument, my answer is no, your argument is not faithful to mine because a) I strongly reject A. I dont think for any two nouns 'x is y' has a metaphorical meaning, for instance I dont like to say that three is god is a mtaphor, or, snow is white is a metaphor. If in my argument someone picks up snow and white, my argument stops at line 4. However i think my argument worked for tree and sky. In other words, not for ant two nouns, but for some two nouns, x is y is a mtaphor.b) I have tried to consider the act of assertion in my argument. Picking up two words by chance and insert them in the structure, is supposed to represent the act of assertion of the utterer
Thanks, Ali. I was going with A by your phrasing in 3: 'pick any two words randomly...' I assumed that meant you could pick any two nouns you wanted. Are there some noun pairs that you can't pick to get a metaphor? (I was thinking that someone creative enough could make a metaphor out of basically anything: 'snow is white' could be a metaphor about the purity of winter; 'God is three' might be a metaphor about the ubiquity of God).
ReplyDeleteMy thought in rejecting 4 was that there is no such thing as being a metaphor (simpliciter). You can only be a metaphor in relation to a particular context. In some contexts, 'the sky is a tree' is a metaphor, in other contexts it is not. For example, Norse myths held that the planets were connected by the great tree Yggdrasil. In Norse mythology, then, 'the sky is a tree' would have had a non-metaphorical meaning. If that is the case, then we can't tell whether a particular sentence is a metaphor independently of context.
[I changed 'sky is tree' to 'the sky is a tree' since 'sky' and 'tree' are count-nouns, while 'snow' is a mass-noun, and 'God' is a proper name].