|
31 Oct 09 - 01:34 PM (#2756749) Subject: BS: Treacherous metaphors From: McGrath of Harlow In another thread someone quoted the saying "you don't fight fire with fire" in a dicussion about what's the best way to act in certain situations. And after a while it occurred to me that, while that might be good advice when it comes to how we act in those situations, it's not necessarily good advice when it comes to dealing with actual fires, for example forest fires. And that set me thinking about other times we use metaphors which don't actually reflect reality. For example "you can't turn back the clock" - which of course is absolute nonsense. Didn't we all hav to do precisely that a couple of weeks ago? That's one way metaphors can be treacherous, when they don't actually reflect reality. And the other way is when they might be accurate enough, but they shouldn't in fact be seen as carrying any weight in the arguments where they get deployed. For example it's quite true that oil and water don't mix - but that doesn't mean that different types of people don't mix, and yet it gets trotted out in that kind of argument. So does anybody feel like coming up with a few more examples? |
|
31 Oct 09 - 01:49 PM (#2756762) Subject: RE: BS: Treacherous metaphors From: Melissa You can catch more flies with honey.. ..except I don't think flies are interested in either honey or vinegar |
|
31 Oct 09 - 01:56 PM (#2756772) Subject: RE: BS: Treacherous metaphors From: Amos The map is not the territory. This honored expression is only true if you are bigger than the map. Otherwise it may very well be the territory. A |
|
31 Oct 09 - 01:56 PM (#2756773) Subject: RE: BS: Treacherous metaphors From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Seems to be that there's nothing wrong with the metaphor of "fighting fire with fire" itself which is purely descriptive, the problem lies in inappropriate useage by sticking "you can't" onto it. |
|
31 Oct 09 - 02:11 PM (#2756789) Subject: RE: BS: Treacherous metaphors From: meself I believe I've more often heard it used in the positive, as, "We'll have to fight fire with fire". But then, I belong to a rather bellicose social circle. Whether that is the 'correct' or original usage, I have no idea. |
|
31 Oct 09 - 02:14 PM (#2756792) Subject: RE: BS: Treacherous metaphors From: Bill D "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree" to indicate tendency of children to behave as their family did.....which is quite obvious when it happens, and just as often not obvious. Many people feel a need to classify their universe in simple ways, and metaphorical homilies are one way. These can often make a good point if they are not taken literally. (You can't teach an old dog new tricks) |
|
31 Oct 09 - 02:14 PM (#2756793) Subject: RE: BS: Treacherous metaphors From: VirginiaTam tow the line or toe the line Meaning I suppose either give in and do what you are told or fight, rebel? It a context thing. |
|
31 Oct 09 - 02:49 PM (#2756823) Subject: RE: BS: Treacherous metaphors From: Joe_F "Fight fire with fire", to me, is a vivid metaphor precisely because, taken literally, it denotes something that is sometimes appropriate & sometimes not. But, of course, my vivid metaphor may well be your dead metaphor. A widespread cluster of metaphors that IMO is a powerful & pernicious tool for question-begging is that of support, as in "foundations of mathematics", "ground of all being", and "basis of morality". Such phrases are often used to presuppose a hierarchy without examining whether one really is dealing with a hierarchy or with a network. And the metaphor itself is flawed, in view of the discovery that the earth is round. Given any sufficiently eccentric part of the earth, such as a mountain or a bridge, it is meaningful to ask what holds it up; but that does not make it meaningful to ask what holds the earth up, because the earth is itself the local standard of upness. So also with morality: some parts of it may be argued to justify other parts, without supposing that morality as a whole needs justification. Likewise, no doubt is cast on arithmetic by disputes over Whitehead & Russell's demonstration that 1+1=2. |
|
31 Oct 09 - 02:59 PM (#2756834) Subject: RE: BS: Treacherous metaphors From: meself Heard some wag on CBC radio point out the other day that while "the early bird catches the worm", the "early worm" gets caught .... |
|
31 Oct 09 - 03:03 PM (#2756836) Subject: RE: BS: Treacherous metaphors From: McGrath of Harlow But of course when you use the Sun as the local standard of upness,the question "what hold the Earth up" is perfectly meaningful. |
|
31 Oct 09 - 03:16 PM (#2756845) Subject: RE: BS: Treacherous metaphors From: meself The question is, of course, what holds the sun up? |
|
31 Oct 09 - 04:22 PM (#2756907) Subject: RE: BS: Treacherous metaphors From: Ebbie (You can't teach an old dog new tricks) Oh, but if the dog wants to please you, you most certainly can. It's the old people who have the problem. :) |
|
31 Oct 09 - 05:20 PM (#2756943) Subject: RE: BS: Treacherous metaphors From: GUEST,Uncle_DaveO If you insist on up/downness being with relation to something other than the earth, and want the sun to be the referent, then the sun would be the measure of downnness, since it pulls the earth toward it, in resistance to the centrifugal force of the earth's orbit. Gravitational attraction as such is really in every direction where there is mass. Therefore, except with relation to the earth, "up" and "down" are meaningless. Dave Oesterreich |
|
31 Oct 09 - 05:40 PM (#2756957) Subject: RE: BS: Treacherous metaphors From: Tangledwood The question is, of course, what holds the sun up? Turning the clocks back. |
|
31 Oct 09 - 07:40 PM (#2757047) Subject: RE: BS: Treacherous metaphors From: Mr Happy 'For example it's quite true that oil and water don't mix' But they do - all the time in cooking! |
|
01 Nov 09 - 04:34 PM (#2757466) Subject: RE: BS: Treacherous metaphors From: Bettynh There's a huge reservoir of metaphor in descriptions of the natural world that's lead to the whole Evolution debate, I think. Scientists don't really believe that animals adopt certain behaviors or become particular shapes and colors "because they want to escape detection." The complete description of how they got that way is just too long for conversation, and the metaphorical "because" creeps in. |
|
01 Nov 09 - 06:09 PM (#2757561) Subject: RE: BS: Treacherous metaphors From: Rowan The only thing I catch with honey is ants; they're not much interested in vinegar, though, unlike the Drosophila around the bin. An example for McGrath's list; East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet. Cheers, Rowan |
|
01 Nov 09 - 06:20 PM (#2757567) Subject: RE: BS: Treacherous metaphors From: McGrath of Harlow Of course proverbs generally come in pairs, covering both alternatives in any situation. Too many cooks spoil the broth Many hands makes light labour He who hesitates is lost Look before you leap |
|
01 Nov 09 - 06:33 PM (#2757576) Subject: RE: BS: Treacherous metaphors From: gnu Ebbie... It's the old people who have the problem. LOVE IT! Heheheheheheeeeee! McGrath.... too many broths spoil the cook. |
|
01 Nov 09 - 06:48 PM (#2757583) Subject: RE: BS: Treacherous metaphors From: Ed T Greyhound, a dog of a way to get around |
|
01 Nov 09 - 08:09 PM (#2757626) Subject: RE: BS: Treacherous metaphors From: Jim Dixon Finders keepers, losers weepers A lot of people take that literally, and assume they have a right to keep anything they find. Not true; in some circumstances, keeping something you found can make you guilty of theft. |
|
01 Nov 09 - 08:16 PM (#2757627) Subject: RE: BS: Treacherous metaphors From: Genie One that makes me cringe, ever since I learned its etymology and thought about what it means is the term "to hold [someone's] feet to the fire." It's generally supposed to mean "to hold [someone] responsible [for getting something done] or even to put pressure on someone. Often it's used in context of pressuring someone to follow through on a promise or obligation. But the term harks back to the days of the Spanish Inquisition and a torture technique: holding someone's feet to a fire until they said whatever it was you wanted them to say. It's worse than the metaphor "to light a fire under" someone, in that the implication there might be "If we set your chair on fire, maybe you'll get off your duff and get to work." That is not the same as holding someone's feet (in)to a fire. Now, when I hear people say, "We need to hold his feet to the fire," I feel like they might as well say, "We'll put the thumb screws to him," or "We'll waterboard him," or "We'll put him on the rack." It no longer conveys to me the idea of holding someone responsible for making good on a promise or obligation. |
|
01 Nov 09 - 08:22 PM (#2757632) Subject: RE: BS: Treacherous metaphors From: McGrath of Harlow ...they might as well say, "We'll put the thumb screws to him," or "We'll waterboard him," or "We'll put him on the rack." Well, I've never heard waterboard used in that contexts as yet, but the others are pretty common. And I'd have thought that most people would be aware of the torture connection. What else could holding someone's feet to the fire mean? |
|
01 Nov 09 - 08:25 PM (#2757634) Subject: RE: BS: Treacherous metaphors From: Art Thieme I never metaphor I didn't like! Will Rogers |
|
01 Nov 09 - 08:29 PM (#2757636) Subject: RE: BS: Treacherous metaphors From: Art Thieme Arthur Treacher was one Treacherous guy. His eatery only served small birds and monkey meat. Arthur Treacherous' Finch and Chimps!!!!!!! Art Thieme |
|
01 Nov 09 - 08:50 PM (#2757640) Subject: RE: BS: Treacherous metaphors From: Slag You DO fight fire with fire when you intentionally set a controlled back fire ahead of the advancing flames. This deprives the uncontrolled fire of fuel and allows control to be established. Hence, the saying is "Well, let's fight fire with fire" or words to that effect. Someone wiser than I made the observation that ALL language is metaphor. That is precisely why it is possible to go on and on about these various topics which appear here at the 'cat. We define, stipulate, compare and contrast words and meanings but words are never the reality of the thing described (phenomenology, Thanks Edmund Husserl). Much of the inappropriateness of certain old sayings is in the correct application such as "a stitch in time saves nine" and "haste makes waste". Well, one man's medicine is another man's poison. And don't overlook equivocation in sayings such as "you can't turn back the clock". Yes, you can set a mechanical device called the "clock" forward or backward but "clock" is the metaphor for time itself which, for all we know, flows in only one direction. McGrath of Harlow makes an equivocation by not recognizing (whether intentional of not) the metaphor. It is a classical sign (but not definitive) of a schizoid personality that they only recognize the concrete aspect of the language and seldom pick up on metaphor and implied meaning of things. |
|
01 Nov 09 - 09:45 PM (#2757649) Subject: RE: BS: Treacherous metaphors From: Genie Actually, McGrath, I never thought about where "hold his feet to the fire" came from until one day I was watching a documentary on the Middle Ages. Till then I just kind of associated the phrase with others like "put your nose to the grindstone." (I also don't know where that one comes from.) But I can't think of other clear torture references that are commonly used to mean just to encourage or pressure someone to act responsibly. I never hear "Let's put him on the rack" or "Let's put bamboo under his fingernails" or the other two I mentioned. I still don't like the idea of basically saying "Let's torture [someone] until he keeps his campaign promise (etc.). |
|
02 Nov 09 - 01:31 AM (#2757702) Subject: RE: BS: Treacherous metaphors From: Dave the Gnome Backs to the wall, noses to the grindstone and shoulders to the wheel should be advice offered only to well practiced contortionists. DeG |
|
02 Nov 09 - 02:15 PM (#2758082) Subject: RE: BS: Treacherous metaphors From: McGrath of Harlow Surely "you can't turn back the clock" doesn't mean "you can't turn Time back", but rather "you can't undo changes once they have been made" - a very questionable assertion in some cases, as most people who have ever successfully assembled flatpack furniture can confirm. |
|
03 Nov 09 - 01:52 PM (#2758812) Subject: RE: BS: Treacherous metaphors From: dick greenhaus Well, I've been comparing "apples to oranges" all my life. Apples are redder (or greener). Oranges are juicier. |
|
03 Nov 09 - 01:59 PM (#2758817) Subject: RE: BS: Treacherous metaphors From: McGrath of Harlow But it wouldn't work if they weren't in fact different. That's what I meant by reflecting reality. |
|
04 Nov 09 - 07:54 AM (#2759301) Subject: RE: BS: Treacherous metaphors From: Dead Horse Time is a great healer. Tell that to my old dad after the grandfather clock fell on him! |
|
04 Nov 09 - 08:34 AM (#2759325) Subject: RE: BS: Treacherous metaphors From: Trevor Somebody told me the other day that I was blinkered and looking at the world through rose-coloured glasses! |
|
05 Nov 09 - 04:49 AM (#2759944) Subject: RE: BS: Treacherous metaphors From: Penny S. Thanks Jim for opening my eyes to the meaning of "Finders keepers, losers weepers" as being meant to be heard in full, explaining to the finder that if they keep what they have found, they will cause someone else to weep. Not a licence to bully by theft. Rather like "A place for everything and everything in its place" in which the second part cannot follow unless the first part is in place. Penny |
|
05 Nov 09 - 04:51 AM (#2759946) Subject: RE: BS: Treacherous metaphors From: Penny S. And I didn't understand what was going on in life is just a bowl of cherries until I started buying cherries regularly. Sweet ones, not quite ripe ones, pecked ones, rotten ones.... Penny |
|
05 Nov 09 - 05:48 PM (#2760420) Subject: RE: BS: Treacherous metaphors From: Slag I never met a four who didn't want to be an eight but when I said "You're an eight!" they got all pissed off. Go figure, eight! |