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

I was with you until this.

Any way of thinking is given the name logic. — Agent Smith

Yes, there are different kinds of logic. I see the idea of logic as being the idea of the connectivity and coherence of thought. If thoughts were disconnected (if there was no underlying logic of their associations and relations) we would have nothing. So there is formal, rule-based logic, but I would say there are also logics of metaphor, of painting, of poetry, of music, of athletics, of dance, of metaphysics, phenomenology and so on. — Janus

I'm ok with that, I guess, although it is pretty circular. Earlier, I described possible connections between thoughts based on my personal experience:

So, back to the question of what connects the different elements. First - I'm sure there's probably more than one cognitive science way of seeing this such as, speculatively, the location where the element is stored in the brain or when the memory was created. Maybe there is some sort of tag that allows connection of thoughts, memories, etc. with similarities. Someone help me out here.

Personally, when I create a new thought, idea, memory, I experience it as tagged with a mental image. Letters I sometimes experience as colored. I usually see "L" as white or beige. "D" as a light yellow. Since those colors are similar, when I can't think of someone's name, I may come up with Dan when his name is Larry. Other tags might be a feeling, mood, tone. Of course, there are billions, trillions, quadrillions of connections between neurons in the nervous system, so things are immensely more complicated than this. — T Clark

I guess that describes what the two of you would call a "logic," whether or not you would agree with my particular formulation. If that's the case, then we agree.

Sorry. Let me clarify. Assume that is is established. Hypothetically, what then? — emancipate

We're all done (brushes dust from hands). We congratulate ourselves on a job well done.

I shalt refrain from analyzing your mind and your intentions. — god must be atheist

And then you go on to do exactly that.

So anyway, what does it matter if metaphor can be a single word or not? So it's established that metaphor cannot be a single word. Great. What now? — emancipate

It hasn't been established. It's a claim I've made, but I don't think everyone agrees.

As far as I can tell, all that has been established is that a metaphor cannot be a single word without context, which, however, has no bearing on the OP. — jamalrob

Here is the OP:

Recently I heard a philosopher speaking about a certain term Heidegger used as being a 'metaphor"....yet, is not a metaphor a comparison between a minimum of 2 terms, concepts, etc. For example, a metaphor is "she has a heart of gold".....we have here the metaphorical vehicle ("Gold") and the tenor or subject of the metaphor... ("heart"). But neither "heart" nor "gold", when taken alone, constitute a metaphor. — jancanc

Why doesn't it have any bearing?

I assume you mean all of them. — Alkis Piskas

Yes.

The example used py the poster himself --"she has a heart of gold"-- also fits to the abobe scheme, — Alkis Piskas

I agree, this is a metaphor.

In my example "he holds a chair in physics" the word "chair" is used figuratively. — Alkis Piskas

I'm not sure about this. Technically, I think it is what's called a metonymy. From the web:

In rhetoric, change of name; a trope or figure of speech that consists in substituting the name of one thing for that of another to which the former bears a known and close relation.

Maybe it can be both.

If, however, the topic asks for striclly single words, i.e. creating a metaphor by uttering a single word, — Alkis Piskas

This is how I interpreted the OP. As I noted in my previous response to @god must be atheist, it is my understanding that a metaphor is made up of two parts. In a one word metaphor, the second part has to be implied.

A metaphor is not a comparison. A metaphor is a meaning attributed figuratively to a parallel literal meaning. — god must be atheist

We seem to be running across the question of what a metaphor is and isn't. Seems like a good time to define the word. Here are several definitions from the web:

• A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in “a sea of troubles”
• A figure of speech by which, from some supposed resemblance or analogy, a name, an attribute, or an action belonging to or characteristic of one object is assigned to another to which it is not literally applicable; the figurative transfer of a descriptive or affirmative word or phrase from one thing to another; implied comparison by transference of terms: as, the ship spread its wings to the breeze; “Judah is a lion's whelp,”
• A figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money)
• A metaphor is a figure of speech that, for rhetorical effect, directly refers to one thing by mentioning another.

I think it is reasonable to say that a metaphor is a comparison, but whether or not we do, it clearly requires two elements. This from Wikipedia:

The Philosophy of Rhetoric (1937) by rhetorician I. A. Richards describes a metaphor as having two parts: the tenor and the vehicle. The tenor is the subject to which attributes are ascribed. The vehicle is the object whose attributes are borrowed.

A single word does not provide both parts unless it is somehow implied. If I say "A**hole!" the "You are an..." is implied.

Headed for bed.

Taoism, if I'm correct, is paradox-oriented; Not at all sure if they're true paradoxes but the general idea seems to be nonsense makes sense or there's no such thing as irrationality, every fool or looney needs the right context to be seen as wise or sane respectively. — Agent Smith

It's a long story, but no.

That must be the Taoist in you. How does that fit into your professsion as an engineer where you'd be constrained by logic. Should I walk on a bridge you built? — Agent Smith

What makes you think that engineers are "constrained" by logic? I've always thought that Taoism is the philosophical system most consistent with science. Anyway, I never designed bridges, so you're safe.

As Janus said, it's all logic which I interpret to mean that just like chaos is order undeciphered, illogic is logic undeciphered. — Agent Smith

I don't know what that means. @Janus wrote

If thoughts were disconnected (if there was no underlying logic of their associations and relations) we would have nothing. So there is formal, rule-based logic, — Janus

I don't think that is true. Again, I'd like t hear from someone who knows more than I do.

Logic, it seems, has morphed. meaning-wise: It was once a specific way of thinking (contradiction intolerant systems like categorical, sentential, predicate logics) but now it's just a specific way thinking (contradiction tolerant systems; vide paraconsistent logic, dialetheism, logical nihilism). — Agent Smith

I not sure what you mean here either. Seems like you're saying that there is something that connects thoughts, we'll just call it "logic" even though it isn't what we normally think of as logic. Kind of a circular argument.

I don't experience ideas as connected logically.
— T Clark

That must be the Taoist in you. — Agent Smith

Everything I wrote is based on my personal experience of thinking from the inside. That's what it feels like to me. I'd like to hear what a cognitive scientist has to say. I'm skeptical that the incredibly complex process of thinking is mediated by logical connections between thoughts.

If I may ask, how are thoughts connected to each other? Same question for ideas as expressed in propositions, theories, beliefs, and so on. — Agent Smith

I'll speak, tentatively, for knowledge, thoughts, feelings, memories, fantasies, imagery, and other mental ... what's the right word? Experiences? Phenomena? I won't speak for facts, propositions, theories, etc. My way of seeing these things is based on introspection and it is idiosyncratic. I've laid it out on the forum before. I don't propose it as the truth. It's just a way of thinking that I find helpful and that fits my own experience of those phenomena and how they relate.

When I think about this, I can see an image in my mind. It's a cloud lit from within. Like a cloud, it is amorphous and it's elements are not well defined. I can think of this several ways. Sometimes, as someone with an interest in eastern philosophies, I think of this as the Tao as discussed in the "Tao Te Ching." Sometimes I think of it as a model of the world I carry around with me that allows me to see, feel, how new knowledge fits in with my current understanding. It includes things I learned in school, sure, but also many more things I never learned explicitly. Things I just accumulated based on experience from the time I was born. Nobody ever taught me that if I let something go it will fall to the ground. I knew it before I had words and long before I'd ever heard of gravity.

Sometimes my inner engineer pops out and I think of the cloud as a truss, a structure made up of connected elements. Any change in one element telegraphs through the whole structure resisting the change. Unless the new element is consistent with what I have experienced, it will have a hard time fitting in. Here's an example of a truss:



So, back to the question of what connects the different elements. First - I'm sure there's probably more than one cognitive science way of seeing this such as, speculatively, the location where the element is stored in the brain or when the memory was created. Maybe there is some sort of tag that allows connection of thoughts, memories, etc. with similarities. Someone help me out here.

Personally, when I create a new thought, idea, memory, I experience it as tagged with a mental image. Letters I sometimes experience as colored. I usually see "L" as white or beige. "D" as a light yellow. Since those colors are similar, when I can't think of someone's name, I may come up with Dan when his name is Larry. Other tags might be a feeling, mood, tone. Of course, there are billions, trillions, quadrillions of connections between neurons in the nervous system, so things are immensely more complicated than this.

Without going any further, I don't experience ideas as connected logically. Maybe someone with more of a cognitive science or cognitive philosophy background can help here.

Some one-word metaphors — god must be atheist

I don't think any of these words, with the exception of "shit," is a metaphor. There has to be a comparison for it to be a metaphor. To say "She is a trailblazer" is a metaphor. Just "trailblazer" by itself is not. I think "shit," as an exclamation is a metaphor, because it represents "This situation is shit," which is a comparison.

So are you both saying "inaction" does not itself count as an action? How about if I said, "The action of not working hard".. "If everyone did other than working hard...". Is there a way that's acceptable? Maybe I'm not getting the meaning of "positive behavior" or where he says that as opposed to "not doing". — schopenhauer1

According to Kant's formulation that I quoted, something becomes a categorical imperative when I will that it be universal. I think the act of will is the important factor.

Also, and maybe this is a quibble, the work hard obligation would only be applicable in situations where hard work is needed.

Actually, the list comprises all words with double meanings, where a secondary meaning refers to, is connected to and extends the primary meaning, to describe something different in kind. — Alkis Piskas

I don't think these are metaphors. The word "chair" is not a metaphor sitting there by itself. There has to be a context in which a comparison is made. Not sure of that.

Isn't "chair" a metonymy? I guess it could be both.

One must work hard, because if one does not work hard was universalized, no one would work hard and living itself would be difficult. One cannot judge without being alive, thus a contradiction (of sorts). — schopenhauer1

One of the ways Kant formulated the categorical imperative is

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

I'm not sure of this, but don't you have the idea of the categorical imperative backwards? Isn't it the positive behavior that is universalized as an obligation? I think that makes a difference, doesn't it?

Added more to last post. — schopenhauer1

This is a good idea. I'll use it from now on.

Can a Metaphor be a single word? — jancanc

Shit!

Asshole!

Yes, I think the idea is quite simply that if it’s introspection then it’s not science, and there’s an optional detour through philosophy. (If introspection, then philosophy, and if that then not science.) — Srap Tasmaner

I would like to examine this statement a bit. When you say that introspection isn't science, do you mean that introspection can't be studied by science. That's clearly wrong. If you mean that introspection has to be a fundamentally different method of gaining knowledge than science, I think I disagree. First, clearly introspection is required to study introspection scientifically. Also, a personal report of introspection can be verified, or at least corroborated, by looking at other reports of introspection, examination of brain activity, evaluation of differences in behavior, and other pretty standard psychological testing methods. Or are you saying, as many here do, that psychology isn't science?

Much of my way of knowing the world is based on introspection. That's certainly true of mental processes, but also more objectively observable phenomena (do I believe that?) and, certainly, philosophical approaches.

There is still a part of world in which introspection is considered a good thing, a praiseworthy thing, perhaps even a thing one ought to do or one must do to lead a rich and fulfilling life. (We get threads about it here.) Still, it’s not science, which makes it — from a point-of-view I’ll cheerfully admit is made of straw — something like a ‘hobby’, all well and good but not something ‘serious’. — Srap Tasmaner

If this actually does represent a common view here on the forum and in philosophy in general, it represents a massive failure of introspection in itself. If you think that you know things just based on reason and logic, you are not even aware of how you know things. Is knowing how you know things science?

I almost feel tempted to let science win whatever argument it wants to have with philosophy. If science wants to claim it’s the only sound or reliable way of producing knowledge systematically — sure, you can have that; philosophy can produce something else, understanding maybe. — Srap Tasmaner

Science has no argument with introspection, just some scientists.

(In this context, I always thought it odd that the new biologically sophisticated version of psychology ends up being called “cognitive science”, as if knowledge is the only mental phenomenon that matters.) — Srap Tasmaner

It pleases me that you recognize that cognitive science is psychology. Many people who like to denigrate psychology as not a science are unwilling to acknowledge that. Perhaps if they were a bit more introspective they wouldn't.

A question that just popped into my head - is introspection the same as intuition? I think the answer is clearly "no," but I think they are painted with the same brush by many.

Infinite means in-finito, not finished, never to be finished. What in life never finishes? The finish line can be pulled away from you indefinitely. Indefinitely=infinitely? On can tell a never ending story, play infinite games. The universe goes on forever, as life in it. It never ends. Infinite! — AgentTangarine

Little kids love this. No reason philosophers won't too.

It'd be weird to say facts in and of themselves have no "logical" connections to any other facts. That they are facts at must entail a vast array of logical connections, right? — Nils Loc

Thoughts are not facts. And, no. Although it is not the subject of this thread, facts are not connected logically either.

Logical connections between ideas have been the norm for thousands of years. We need to think outside the box as it were, not a walk in the park for sure. — Agent Smith

I don't think our thoughts are connected logically. I'm not sure they are necessarily connected at all. Certainly some are not.

Do all applications of force deform? And is the deformation continuous? if I have a solidly braced steel beam spanning six inches and I hang a feather from it by a thread, will the feather eventually cause the beam to fail, or the thread to cut through the steel? — tim wood

The model for application of a force to something solid is a spring. Apply the force and the spring deflects elastically as long as you don't overload it. For elastic materials, applied force (stress) is proportional to deflection (strain). The greater the deflection, the greater the force (reaction). A spring will deflect under the force of a load as required to resist the load.

So, yes. If you hang a feather from a solidly braced steel beam, the beam will deflect enough to provide a reactive force to the feather just as if it were a spring. Steel behaves elastically within the stress range provided by a feather. If you use something much heavier, it may stress the steel beyond it's elastic range. If that happens, the steel will continue to deflect and will eventually fail.

This is, I'm certain, too obvious to state but for the sake of clarity, thoughts have, for good reasons no doubt, been 99% of the time, viewed with a rational/logical lens; humanity has, for most of its history, been (pre)occupied with the logical link between thoughts (ideas/concepts/theories). — Agent Smith

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say, but I am sure enough to be able to say you're wrong.

Here are two thoughts:

The NE Patriots will win the Superbowl this season.
The Earth revolves around the sun.

What logical connection do these thoughts have? What kind of connection of any kind do they have other than the fact that I have thought both of them? They are both expressed in English.

You can apply force all day long and not change a thing. Example: hang a weight from a steel beam; nothing happens. — tim wood

The beam bends. Not much, but enough to provide an equal and opposite reaction to the force you have applied.

To my knowledge, phenomenology isn't as much about the subjectivity-objectivity distinction as it is about what I have described as tier/level-specific/restricted phenomena. Even on the off chance that thoughts are reducible to chemical reactions, thoughts themselves don't actually obey any conservation law like chemicals do, the very idea is N/A or a category mistake. — Agent Smith

I think you and I agree, but this is a subject I'm still working on. Have you read "More is Different" by Anderson.

When I talk about mind or consciousness I use words like "feeling," "thought," "memory," or "imagination." When I talk about biology and neurology, I use words like "neuron," "neurotransmitter," or "synapse." To say this use of different language shows that the two phenomena are not the same thing is not to deny that they are intimately related.

Phenomenology is often charged by it's critics to be a matter of mere introspection, since it is understood to be dealing, not with publicly available data, but with "subjective contents" supposed to be accessed by "looking within" the mind. — Janus

You're right, and it confuses me. Here are some definitions of "phenomenology" from the web:

• A philosophy or method of inquiry based on the premise that reality consists of objects and events as they are perceived or understood in human consciousness and not of anything independent of human consciousness.
• Phenomenology is the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view. (SEP)
• Phenomenology (from Greek φαινόμενον, phainómenon "that which appears" and λόγος, lógos "study") is the philosophical study of the structures of experience and consciousness. (Wikipedia)

These sure sound like they are talking about introspection, maybe self-awareness. But when you start digging, you find the whole thing is just another western philosophical mountain of words. They seem to want to discuss human experiences without talking about the experiences themselves.

My personal way of seeing things focusses on self-awareness and the experience of the world. This is why I find eastern philosophies so attractive. Seems like I should be attracted to phenomenology too, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

In general, symmetry seems like a useful concept in many contexts. It can represent important underlying principles of organization.

As for symmetry in relation to symmetry breaking, I admit that's an idea I've struggled with. My unsatisfactory solution is to think about such situations as phase changes, which is a concept I find easier to understand. I'll keep trying to figure this out.

I mean no disrespect, but could you please refrain from making this discussion about specifically american politics?... Covid in america and Trump seem to usually distract the topic completely from its trails. I'm sure there are threads that are specifically about those things. — Qmeri

Will do.

For ex, rather one agreed that the last presidential election was stolen or that the election went off fair and square, both sides should have been able to state their opinions on the matter equally. And yet, as we all saw, they were not. — laura ann

This is not true. People who think that the election was stolen from Trump have fully expressed their opinions many times from many podiums, including mainline and right wing TV, radio, websites, and newspapers. This in spite of the fact that no evidence has been provided in any forum that the election was not fair and well-run. The stolen election is like the flat earth.

There are not two equal sides to every question.

The same thing happened with COVID. People actually lost their jobs for simply stating their opinions on the policies and mandates. — laura ann

Can you name anyone who lost their job just for stating their opinion against the federal government's Covid policy? I'm guessing you can't. If there were people who did, it was a very few. On the other hand, at least one person was prosecuted for telling the truth, e.g. the person who managed the Covid database for the State of Florida. School funding has been withheld to school districts in Florida that implemented Covid policies recommended by the CDC.

800,000 people have died from Covid in the US. How are there two sides to that fact?

I was referring to this... To me it seems like you are claiming that I'm making a case for racial differences and such to be genetic and its somehow important for me. Technically case is not a claim, so a slight error from me... But the text never says I have ever made a case for such a thing... It just says that I have witnessed some people making cases and how they were treated for such a thing — Qmeri

It was pretty clear to me from your OP that you were not making a claim that inequality is based on genetics. I didn't, and I didn't intend to, say that you had.

Some thoughts:

• There are certain subjects that will raise hackles and lead to conflict. Genetic racial differences is one of those subjects.
• People who make those arguments know, or should know, that they are raising provocative issues that will lead to conflict.
• Mainline science has been used to make false claims of genetic differences between races which support racial discrimination and subjugation for centuries.

Some editorial opinions

• There should be open discussion about just about anything.
• Genetic differences between races, if they exist, are not relevant to how black people are treated. Distrusted. Disliked. Disrespected. Systematically prevented from exercising their unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
• People who bring up issues of genetic racial differences sometimes, often? usually? do it to undermine claims of discrimination.
• As for those people - boo hoo.

You immediately started expressing assumptions about me and claiming that I made arguments that had not happened. — Qmeri

I went back and checked. I didn't claim that you made any arguments that you didn't.

When did I make a case that racial differences in intelligence or other characteristics are genetic? — Qmeri

You wrote that "arguing against people being genetically equal" is taboo. You used that as an example of lack of respect for freedom of speech, which you indicate is a bad thing. How have I misrepresented that? What am I missing?

These comment are proving the bad methodologies of modern equality movement way faster than I though. — Qmeri

As I noted, this subject gets people going. I don't think my response showed any "bad methodologies."

I wasnt trying to bait people to prove the point of my text, — Qmeri

I think you were being knowingly provocative. Not necessarily anything wrong with that, but what were you expecting?

arguing against people being genetically equal is pretty much a taboo and you get almost immediate social repercussions for it… There aren't that many ways to truly get cancelled on the internet and the community becoming a hostile and silencing force against you… But on this issue, irregardless of the fact that there is nothing close to a scientific consensus on the issue, and that there are obvious arguments for either side, if you argue for inequality, you get labeled a racist and/or sexist and cancelled quicker than for any other issue. — Qmeri

So-called science has been used to justify discrimination against black people for hundreds of years. It is inextricably intertwined with social attitudes and political actions that have kept them in poverty and subjugation all that time. It is not surprising that endorsing scientific arguments for racial inferiority will raise hackles and voices.

Given that history and present day conditions, why is it important to you to make the case that racial differences in intelligence or other characteristics are genetic? What social value does it promote?

Come now. Are you seriously claiming this is comparable, or analogous, to saying this? — Ciceronianus

Yes. I think it is. Descartes says suppose our world is an illusion created by a demon. What if... He doesn't propose that it is or appears to be. He does acknowledge that it could be, but then goes on to say "These habitual opinions of mine are indeed highly probable... it is more reasonable to believe than to deny them."

He does this after he evokes ED, though. He pretends, and after pretending concludes he was correct from the beginning. — Ciceronianus

So, if I say "Suppose it rains tomorrow, will they still have the game," I'm pretending it will rain tomorrow. Is that correct?

Descartes does not "pretend" that there is an evil demon that controls our perceptions of the world. He considers the possibility and hypothesizes consequences. He explicitly states that our everyday opinions about the world are reasonable. From the Meditations:

I am driven back to the position that doubts can properly be raised about any of my former beliefs....I don’t reach this conclusion in a flippant or casual manner, but on the basis of powerful and well thought-out reasons. So in future, if I want to discover any certainty, I must withhold my assent from these former beliefs just as carefully as I withhold it from obvious falsehoods.

It isn’t enough merely to have noticed this, though; I must make an effort to remember it. My old familiar opinions keep coming back, and against my will they capture my belief. It is as though they had a right to a place in my belief-system as a result of long occupation and the law of custom. These habitual opinions of mine are indeed highly probable; although they are in a sense doubtful, as I have shown, it is more reasonable to believe than to deny them.

Bolding is mine.

This discussion has left the areas where I feel as if I have anything substantive to add the discussion. Even so, I'm finding it very interesting and thought-provoking. @Tom Storm, if I may be so presumptuous, it seems to me you have gotten what you asked for in the OP.

Good thread.

Without making any judgement of quality or value, I think my icon represents my personality and philosophy better than any other on the forum represents its owner's.

Well, let's see:

• Due to the nature of the subject of consciousness, we affect our analysis by "looking" at our own process. - A significant problem with all discussions of consciousness is the failure to define terms. It seems like when you say "consciousness" here, you mean self-awareness. Is that correct?
  
  
• Decision making can be affected by an analysis of the decision making process. - Ok.
  
  
• We are not a singular unchanging "thing", so our analysis of "free will" is hugely complicated by what exactly is on a "determined path". - I don't think free will is "hugely complicated." It's a fairly simple issue.
  
  
• The cognitive dissonance of believing in hard determinism. It's absurd to discuss a determined universe and a lack of free will. Logic and meaning of anything is absurd in this mindset. - I don't see any absurdity in thinking about determinism. It's not clear what cognitive dissonance you are talking about.
  
  
• The micro/macro layers of a conscious reality are abstract and don't exist as a physical "thing". All of our decisions revolve around abstracted forms. - You haven't defined "conscious reality." I don't know what you mean.
  
  
• We don't understand the existence of "consciousness", hence the hard problem of consciousness. Seeing as the principles of determinism, identity and free will heavily involve "consciousness" we can't "call a wrap" on any of them. - The so-called "hard problem of consciousness" generally applies to the experience of our inner lives - the pictures and words in our minds; our memories, thoughts, emotions, etc. What everything feels like. As the cliche goes, what it is like to be us. Qualia and stuff. That's not the same as self-awareness. It is my understanding that this definition of consciousness is often applied to sentient but non-self-aware animals.
  
  
• It may be impossible to understand ourselves from within ourselves - There is nowhere else for us to understand ourselves from. We'll have to do the best we can.

I responded to your previous post to me, but I'm not going to respond to this one. It's clear to me you are just trying to rile things up without putting significant effort or thought into your post. You haven't adequately defined your terms. Your facts are often wrong. You spout your opinions but don't provide any factual, logical, or moral justification. Your spelling and grammar are often incorrect.

And yet the reasoning behind the penal code is the viability of the fetus. If there's a heartbeat, the doctor can decide not to perform an abortion -- yeah this! even if the life of the mother is clearly at stake. The doctor who refuses to perform an abortion is not prosecuted. The law protects the doctor's psychic pain and liberty to decide not to participate in that decision. — L'éléphant

I believe your facts are wrong. I don't think any doctor is required to perform an abortion anywhere in the US. It certainly wouldn't be a criminal offense. Beyond that, rules vary from state to state. That will become even more true if Roe vs. Wade is overturned.

Are you really just thinking about the person getting an abortion and no one else? That's immoral. — L'éléphant

Says you.