Michael and Cheerskep: For all your comments, I suspect that we have not see
the last of analogies, metaphors, similes and comparisons on the list,
hopefully not emanating from my keyboard. For my part, I would be sorry to
see them disappear. I don't understand all these devices to be
objectionable. What I would prefer to avoid are any of those devices which
puport to "prove" anything. What I would prefer to avoid are application of
those devices when they are misleading, distracting or invalid.
It is ironic that at least some of value ambiguity and fuzziness as positive
characteristics of works of art but consign to the rubbish heap a whole set
of devices, as their meaning is not immediately obvious. I do recognize that
I have shifted the focus from works of art to philosophical discourse. Are
they so different? I propose that any argument be considered on its own
merit, not for the type of illustration used to advance a point.
Of course, they never are what they're intended to elucidate. They may be
bulky and awkward. Let's have less bulk, awkwardness and misleading. Let's
strive for effective analogies, metaphors, similes and comparisons.
Geoff C
; - ) Now, can we get bacck to playing ball?
From: Michael Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Reification and "ART"
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 18:47:47 -0500
On Nov 6, 2008, at 6:06 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Analogies, metaphors, similes, and explicit comparisons can be marvelous,
legitimate devices, not in proving things, but in elucidating the notion
you're
trying to convey.
That's the salient point. Many people take an analogy to be some sort of
"proof" or verification of the point being made. It is, as you say, a
demonstration of the point. It's worthwhile to reflect on the word
"proof," which derives from "prove," to test, NOT to verify the truth of.
A printer's proof, for example, is a sheet pulled from the type (nowadays,
just printed from the file) to be tested ("proofread") to verify that all
the typesetter didn't make mistakes or that the previously morked errors
were rectified. The proof of the theorem is the sequence of math steps
that test the correctness of the theorem. But in common parlance, "proof"
has come to signify the demonstration of accuracy rather than the test
itself.
They can be harmful by being too bulky and thus distracting,
and even by being more demandingly complex than the notion they're trying
to
clarify....
Well, it's obvious you're not talking philosophically here. You're talking
like an editor!
By their very nature they have to be chosen carefully for their net
value.
Damnit, are you using a basketball metaphor when we were told explicitly
that sports analogies weren't allowed?
They're never exactly what they are trying to elucidate, and it's
important that none of the differences overwhelms the similarities.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
