On 4/27/2013 10:08 AM, Jim Devine wrote: > As far as I can tell, Ian (a.k.a. Eubulides) uses the word "metaphor" as > if it's a bad thing. But without metaphors, people cannot think. That > is, without metaphors, life is the "blooming, buzzing confusion" > perceived by an infant (to quote William James, likely out of context). > The problem occurs when the metaphor is reified, becoming a capital-T > Truth, a religious-type dogma that's never to be questioned or tested in > any way. This reification can arise with any metaphors, including those > of value theory and laws of motion, also including other theories (such > as ideas about utility maximization or supply & demand). This problem > can even plague those self-styled "empiricists" who reject the use of > theories (metaphors) altogether; their theorizing usually involves > denial that they actually use theory.
================ No; I'm just against metaphors that intimate nomological structure as immanent in histories. That is to say, we'd be better off letting go of such metaphors as a starting place to 'find' something that isn't there. Let's 'project' or, 'perform' more interesting metaphors for understanding our current and future circumstances. I doubt few on the list would find Mirowski's "markets as automata" metaphor compelling as a way to rethink what people do in/with markets; would Mirowski then blithely rejoin that "well you just think metaphors are bad things"? Which empiricists are you talking about, Van Fraasen? Who is against using metaphor? _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
