Of course, there are deeper and more interesting levels of metaphor, as pointed out by @Amity earlier:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/633114

"I was bruised by T Clark's harsh criticisms"

The metaphor is "bruised". Is there more to say? — jamalrob

To be more accurate, the metaphor is the particular use of the word. But we can still say when referring to the sentence, as the unnamed philosopher mentioned in the OP similarly did when referring to some sentences of Heidegger, that "bruised" here is a metaphor.

(Too many consecutive posts; this is what happens when you don't think things through)

In a one word metaphor, the second part has to be implied. — T Clark

I think we are converging on this discussion by your saying this.

Trailblazer
Brownies (girl guides)
Cowboy — god must be atheist

I'll take these three words at near-random from my list and show how they are metaphors by themselves. According to the definition "a literal term having a figurative meaning".

Trailblazer -- Literal: cuts a trail (as on a surface: riding surface, travelling surface, etc.)
Trailblazer -- Metaphoric: uses a device (literary, artistic, or political, etc.) that has not been used before in the way the person uses it. Trendsetter.
Brownies (girl guides) -- Literal: girls who participate in girl guides.
Brownies (girl guides) -- Metaphoric: getting points for good behavoiur (I may have mistaken the etymology; maybe brownies come from kissing ass? at any rate, then it's still a metaphor.)
Cowboy -- Literal: man who tends to herding cows. Driving them to market (historically).
Cowboy -- Metaphoric: man (or woman) who drives recklessly. The IMPLIED metaphor is that s/he is wild, and does not heed to rules.

Charlie Chaplin was a trailblazer in the film industry. Trailblazer is the metaphor, as he did not actually cut a path with moving fast.
I earned some brownies by polishing the teacher's shoes. Brownies is the metaphor, as I did not earn a young girl, nor did I kiss the ass of my teacher. (You have to take my word for it.)
I won't let any cowboy drive my Ferrari. Of course a real cowboy can ride the Ferrari if he is not reckless.

(Too many consecutive posts; this is what happens when you don't think things through) — jamalrob

Hah. Thanks for all the clarification.
Must say you inspired me to google 'clusterfuck metaphor'.

Wow !
The 'artistic' short stories you come across.
A clean cut from one:

Even with Dali, there must have been influences, conjunctions, and metaphors within his paintings that the artist didn't deliberately place there...

Deeper and deeper down the slippery slope...

Yes. I eventually read it...today :blush: ...after your reminder, thanks.

I thought it quite illuminating, especially with regard to:

A conceptual metaphor—also known as a generative metaphor—is a metaphor (or figurative comparison) in which one idea (or conceptual domain) is understood in terms of another...

Conceptual metaphors are part of the common language and conceptual precepts shared by members of a culture....

The connections we make are largely unconscious. They're part of an almost automatic thought process....

Three Overlapping Categories of Conceptual Metaphors

Cognitive linguists George Lakoff and Mark Johnson have identified three overlapping categories of conceptual metaphors:

1. An orientational Metaphor is a metaphor that involves spatial relationships, such as up/down, in/out, on/off, or front/back.

2. An ontological Metaphor is a metaphor in which something concrete is projected onto something abstract.

3. A structural Metaphor is a metaphorical system in which one complex concept (typically abstract) is presented in terms of some other (usually more concrete) concept.
— ThoughtCo -

The orientational one reminded me of something one of the lecturers said. *
We talk about being 'in a mood'.
The idea of a container...
Will need to listen again, to all the Youtube presentations, not just two.

* link

Rather than defining what precisely metaphor is, the research is more concerned with the question of what it does, and how it does what it does. The key area of investigation is the interface between thought and language, their interplay, interaction and convergence.
— Creative multilingualism

https://www.creativeml.ox.ac.uk/what-metaphor-and-how-does-it-work/index.html — Amity

But certainly, that allegory cannot be condensed into a metaphor, "Life is a shadow", or something like that... — jancanc

That leads me to wonder at what point a metaphor is different than other predicates. From a certain point of view, there is always a Two; The one being said to be another.

Is that use of the one being said to be another thing a particular problem of speech?

:up:
But for me, all this is too much literary input! :grin:

Of course, there are deeper and more interesting levels of metaphor, as pointed out by Amity earlier:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/633114 — jamalrob

Yes - but instead of writing 'Metaphor' as the link, I should have been more precise with the quote source:
https://www.thoughtco.com/metaphor-figure-of-speech-and-thought-1691385
A clear and informative article, ending with:

Metaphors are also ways of thinking, offering readers (and listeners) fresh ways of examining ideas and viewing the world. — ThoughtCo - Metaphor Definition and Examples

(Too many consecutive posts; this is what happens when you don't think things through) — jamalrob

My previous response was a bit flippant.
I actually enjoyed seeing your thought process at work; the way you clarified what you meant.
I had intended to return and pick out some of the key points to further discuss.
Or perhaps simply bullet-point...
To avoid any misrepresentation on my part, perhaps you could gather them up in a summary ?
Or not. Thanks, anyway. Grateful for all your input :100:

But for me, all this is too much literary input! :grin: — Alkis Piskas

OK. I was surprised by that but appreciate your continuing feedback.
What is...or what do you mean by... 'too much literary input' ?

I actually enjoyed seeing your thought process at work; the way you clarified what you meant. — Amity

No problem. I aim to please! :grin:

I had intended to return and pick out some of the key points to further discuss.
Or perhaps simply bullet-point...
To avoid any misrepresentation on my part, perhaps you could gather them up in a summary? — Amity

Unfortunately my mind seems to have moved on to more verdant pastures.

Unfortunately my mind seems to have moved on to more verdant pastures. — jamalrob

Neepheid :razz:

:lol:

what do you mean by... 'too much literary input' ? — Amity

I mean I have taken in too much literature data, esp. terms. I am not at all in the literature field, you see. Hence "too much input" for me, i.e. I am fed up with metaphor stuff! :grin:

I enjoyed the discussion though! :smile:

I mean I have taken in too much literature data, esp. terms. I am not at all in the literature field, you see. — Alkis Piskas

I am not in the 'literature field' either.
But I've discovered that metaphors play an underestimated role in the way we think and discuss...practically everything, every day ! Not just in literature.

Philosophy is all about discussing ideas and the way we think, no ?
I think a greater awareness of how we use language is pretty vital.
An understanding of our understanding, if you like...
Especially when interacting with others from different cultures. To clarify and avoid misinterpretation.

The input hasn't just been about terminology.
For me, a basic outline of the different types and use of metaphors has been most useful.
But yeah, perhaps too many definitions out there.

The OP was just a starting point for a greater exploration.
Like you, I've enjoyed it but perhaps enough already :smile:

I think we should play a game of 'Spot the Metaphor !'
Could be fun in 'The Holiday Short Story Competition' :wink:

I've enjoyed it but perhaps enough already — Amity

Maybe you must stop being fed with this stuff before you get yourselg an indigestion! :grin:
Otherwise, you have good points about the usefulness of literature. If not anything else, it can add some "color" or "salt" to philosophical discussions. But, as a principle, I personally am very strict about exact language when it comes to logic and philosophy. There must no be ambiguity in the logical world, including descriptions, examples, distractions, etc. So, literature is not so much of value to me. I prefer adding "spice" to a discussion using "colorful" examples, including analogies. Analogies are great. Much better than metaphors! :smile:

What's the Ancient Greek for 'Neepheid' ?

What's the Ancient Greek for 'Neepheid'? — Amity

I don't know what does this word mean and I can't find it in the Web ...

Neepheid is Scottish for Turniphead.

Turniphead.

From Urban Dictionary: an original and creative insult, implies that someone looks or is stupid, by suggesting that their head is like a turnip.
used by merlin to insult prince arthur.

“what can i say arthur? you look like a total turniphead.”

So, is there an example in Ancient Greek literature or philosophy ?
Plato might have a choice word ?

Much language is based on dead metaphors, yes. We make new ideas out of old ones. We make abstractions from physical things.

Tenor and vehicle are there in the history of the word, and in my own experience exploring the phenomenology of metaphors, we are still mixing realms in our minds, not that we notice this unless we more or less meditate on it.

But then it isn't really a one word metaphor.

Like my example of saying 'Lion' when referring to the boss. Other words or the target is present, though not verbalized. And with dead metaphors we, more or less, forget, that we are using other things or ideas to refer to whatever we are labeling. But two 'things' are present.

But two 'things' are present. — Bylaw

The question is not how many things are present. I have already covered that with my definition of the metaphor. The question was "are there one-word metaphors".

The word itself, in the context of its use, can have a figurative meaning that is expressed by a literal expression. The parallel between the figurative and the literal make room for the two "things" present, which you insist be present. Yes, I don't deny your claim at all; I deny your claim that because two "things" are present, a single word can't carry that complex idea. Yes it can, I gave examples of it. You are arguing stating things which I understand and agree with, but you failed to see that dual meanings can be carried by a single word, and the dual meanings are present at the same time and in the same respect.

I might be wrong but I maintain God is a one word metaphor. Even if you are a believer god is still a metaphor for something beyond human understanding. For an atheist, any use of the word is metaphoric.

Metaphor goes deep...

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphor/ — Amity

Having learned a bit more about 'metaphor', I return to the SEP article:
Now more digestible, a soupçon for starters:

Philosophers need to elucidate (a) the nature of the difference between taking language literally and taking it metaphorically, the nature, if you will, of the reinterpretation language undergoes when we take it metaphorically, and (b) the nature of the division of expressive labor between a metaphor’s focus and its frame...

Literary theorists regularly acknowledge the existence of extended metaphors, unitary metaphorical likenings that sprawl over multiple successive sentences. There are also contracted metaphors, metaphors that run their course within the narrow confines of a single clause or phrase or word. They reveal themselves most readily when distinct metaphors are mixed to powerful, controlled, anything but hilarious effect:

Philosophy is the battle against [the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of our language]. (Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, §109) — SEP: Metaphor

The article continues, giving different accounts and traditions:

Ancient philosophers and rhetoricians viewed metaphor as a temporary self-explanatory change in the usage of a general or singular term, typically a noun or noun phrase. When we resort to metaphor, a term that routinely stands for one thing or kind is made to stand for another, suitably related thing or kind instead, and this change in what the term stands for occurs on the fly, without warning and without special explanation. — SEP: Metaphor 2. The Ancient Accounts

Aristotle kicks things off...others get a mention...with further links:

On ancient rhetoric and poetics more generally, see the entries Aristotle’s Rhetoric and Plato on Rhetoric and Poetry in this encyclopedia. — SEP- Metaphor

Then - not for the 'faint-hearted':

4. Four Traditions
4.1 Semantic Twist Accounts
4.2 Pragmatic Twist Accounts
4.3 Comparativist Accounts
4.4 Brute Force Accounts
5. Recent developments
5.1 Metaphor and Cognitive Linguistics
5.2 Metaphor and the Context Wars
5.3 Metaphor and Make-Believe

My emphases above show clearly the answer to the OP's question.
'Can a Metaphor be a single word?'
In a word: Yes.

I deny your claim that because two "things" are present, a single word can't carry that complex idea. Yes it can... — god must be atheist

Yes indeed :100:

I might be wrong but I maintain God is a one word metaphor. Even if you are a believer god is still a metaphor for something beyond human understanding. For an atheist, any use of the word is metaphoric. — Tom Storm

I can only agree with that.

Yes it can, I gave examples of it. You are arguing stating things which I understand and agree with, but you failed to see that dual meanings can be carried by a single word, and the dual meanings are present at the same time and in the same respect. — god must be atheist

I think we are agreeing with each other. I could have said this. I should have read the whole thread, but in any case my last post was not meant to be disagreeing with you, it was simply me mulling over the examples you listed.

I suppose it comes down to what is meant by 'one word'. I think many concepts are still present when that word is said, written, heard, read. Those words you listed have histories, going back to when they were consciously metaphors. Those histories arise in the hearing/reading.
I am not denying that one can have a single word in a text that is a metaphor. Maybe it is better to say more than one concept is packed into that word.

Which is obvious with a word like Cowboy. It is certainly one word and it is a compound word with two words in it. This is out in the open.
Enlightenment is trickier. Here we have something concrete (or at least on face value more concrete) 'light', being used - for example - to communicate about a state or mind (me thinking more of the Eastern religion idea as described in the West using an English (Western) word, rather than the period of time in history, though there are overlaps in meaning. This is what we do. We have made thousands of words, for example, using motor cortext type words to describe things that are less tangible, feeling up or feeling down, say. Here something concrete, light, to describe what might be a felt state or a hallucination or what another might experience in their mental state after 50 years of meditation and seeming equanimity. Knowledge or insight = more light. We could know things better in daylight or outside the cave when we brought it into the sunlight. So, they now know all sorts of stuff cause they got more light 'in their heads'.

So, yeah. One word can do this. But that word has a history of concepts behind it.

You can't just throw a one word metaphor at people without that history and expect them to make heads or tails of it. There's an iceberg under that tip.

A word on the page wíth no one reading it, is one word on a page.

A word that is being read is in the presence of some kind of iceberg, the whole process of the word stimulating associations and meanings in the brain of the reader. And this is true of one word metaphors.

Not that you are saying one can just throw it out there and certainly not that you are denying any of my points about the process of listening or reading. This is me clarifying my mulling.

Since I mentioned the motor cortex, I could say 'downshift' (US English) is a single word, could be a single word instruction from a driving teacher. But it is a vast set of nerve system and muscular actions that were once all separate, single words in themselves. I suppose in a way I am wondering what 'single word' means in terms of use. I wholeheartedly agree that single word metaphors exist. Now that we know this (or believe it) what do we conclude?

So, here I am using those nervous system changes and muscular movements as a metaphor for all the conceptual activity (mostly no longer conscious with a dead metaphor) going on when a one word metaphor is used. Yes, one word on the page or as sound in the air. Words stimulate a lot of activity (-ies) when read/heard. The activities are where the meat is.

EDIT: I mulled a bit and realized that one could argue that enlightenment is not one word but three. Of course, there are other examples of one word metaphors that are not this, but my completely fetish compells me to mention it. We have two 'en's the first means something like within or in. The second makes a noun a verb and 'ment' means something like a process, so making a noun out of a verb that was made out of a noun. And some words in German would have, for example, even more words in one word. This doesn't mean we can't have one word metaphors, since other examples are not built up like this. Though history surrounds those with other words or tenors.

I was just trying to say that Heidegger's use of a metaphor (if that's what it is) doesn't require that he use more than one word.

Or I could say that more than one word is always required to produce the metaphoricality of a metaphor, because a word spoken or written without context cannot be metaphorical.

Such a contextless word is likely meaningless anyway. But the requirement for contextual words does not negate the claim that the metaphor itself is a metaphor, whether it's one word or a few. — jamalrob

Spot on.
Hope furrowed brows have been smoothed.
@jancanc ?

Even if you are a believer god is still a metaphor for something beyond human understanding. — Tom Storm

Perhaps so - cue another thread - 'Is God a Metaphor ?'
Here's a relevant article:

God is a metaphor. Or so goes a particular line of thought, as it struggles to make the idea of God meaningful. Metaphors, after all, are symbols used to obliquely describe a deeper reality, to give a sense of the color and flavor of it.

And so for some Jesus followers, steeped in the overripe epistemology of deconstructive academe, this seems like a viable way to approach the Divine.

"God," they will say, "is the word we use as a metaphor to describe our aspirations." "God," folks will say, "is just a word we use to get at other realities."

And, yes, the Divine and the oblique language of metaphor are necessarily related. You can't approach the inherently unknowable in any other way than indirection, as the ancient prophets and visionaries knew...

But...
When we say "God is a metaphor," we are either missing the point of metaphor, or missing the point of faith...

...Saying God is a metaphor is saying to your lover, My love for you is a metaphor. Or telling the court, The truth I'm speaking is a metaphor. Or telling the poor, the downtrodden, and the oppressed that justice is a metaphor.

We miss the point of faith because believing that our symbolic language is the goal of faith is no more and no less idolatrous than fundamentalism. The point of faith is not and has never been the symbols we use to express it. It is the reality towards which we orient ourselves.
— Christiancentury: Is God a Metaphor ?

Unconvincing. God remains a metaphor to me - which, frankly, is a kind word for the idea. :smile:

When we say "God is a metaphor," we are either missing the point of metaphor, or missing the point of faith... — Christiancentury: Is God a Metaphor ?

Yes, a point I miss gladly as I view faith (as per Hebrews 11) as the excuse people give for believing when they don't have a good reason. Perhaps faith is a metaphor for gullibility?

...Saying God is a metaphor is saying to your lover, My love for you is a metaphor. Or telling the court, The truth I'm speaking is a metaphor. Or telling the poor, the downtrodden, and the oppressed that justice is a metaphor. — Christiancentury: Is God a Metaphor ?

No. Unlike god/s, a lover, a court, the poor - all exist and can be demonstrated to exist. Any relationship with them comes with reciprocal and measurable effects and outcomes.

The point of faith is not and has never been the symbols we use to express it. It is the reality towards which we orient ourselves. — Christiancentury: Is God a Metaphor ?

Not sure that sentence has any meaning except as a statement of wish fulfilment... What is this reality we orient ourselves towards? In faith we orientate ourselves towards an undemonstrated personal notion of some kind of supernatural entity (however that looks for the faithful) that is not a reality as such unless 'reality' is being used as a metaphor. Cue Sinatra singing Impossible Dream...

God remains a metaphor to me - which, frankly, is a kind word for the idea — Tom Storm

The idea or concept of 'God' is different from what someone might experience as a 'God', no ?

In Metaphor and Religious Language, theologian Janet Martin Soskice proposes the idea that God is a metaphor of “causal relation.” A metaphor that stands in for an as yet unidentified process that effects change in the world. — Tom Storm

Interesting. I don't usually follow philosophy of religion much. It is generally too predictable.
I've never really thought of 'God as a Metaphor' before, so thanks for that !

Perhaps faith is a metaphor for gullibility? — Tom Storm

Miss out the 'perhaps' and you could throw another good right hook for a thread :smile:

Faith is defined as a strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

Then again, consider faith in philosophy:
Faith:

Philosophical accounts are almost exclusively about theistic religious faith—faith in God—and they generally, though not exclusively, deal with faith as understood within the Christian branch of the Abrahamic traditions. But, although the theistic religious context settles what kind of faith is of interest,the question arises whether faith of that same general kind also belongs to other, non-theistic, religious contexts, or to contexts not usually thought of as religious at all. Arguably, it may be apt to speak of the faith of a humanist, or even an atheist, using the same general sense of ‘faith’ as applies to the theist case. — SEP: Faith

--------

Unlike god/s, a lover, a court, the poor - all exist and can be demonstrated to exist. Any relationship with them comes with reciprocal and measurable effects and outcomes. — Tom Storm

True. But it was 'love', 'truth' and 'justice' - concepts - that were the alleged metaphors, alongside the idea of 'God'. Just as airy, fairy ?
Do they compare ? If 'God' is seen as a metaphor for 'goodness'... ?

What is this reality we orient ourselves towards? — Tom Storm

Ah well...another hottie for philly.

Cue Sinatra singing Impossible Dream... — Tom Storm

:smile:
Or
My Way (2008 Remastered)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQzdAsjWGPg
:cool:
All so amusing...and full of metaphors...life, huh ?