Hello All,
 
  Here's my real response to the text.  I misunderstood the directions to the assignment when I posted the questions earlier.  But that's okay.  The important part was to get some questions up.

  According to George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, authors of Metaphors We Live by, metaphors largely direct how we think, write, and act.  I find this to be a novel and innovative idea, but it really shouldn't be.  When we look at language critically, it is actually quite obvious.  The authors point to such well-used (and well-worn) metaphors as "Time is Money", "Argument is War", and "The Mind is a Container".  Whether we actually say that the "mind is a container" is regardless, as the metaphor "Cramming for an exam" suggests that the mind is, in fact, a receptacle of some sort. 

  What was most interesting to me about Lakoff and Johnson's assessment was not necessarily how ground-breaking their words were, but instead how oblivious I have been to how malleable a tool language can be.  While I knew most people, myself included, use metaphors all the time to make sense of the world, it never occurred to me how dependent we are to metaphors to explaining the most every of tasks and procedures.  Chapter 2 articulates the point clearly: "The fact that we in part conceptualize arguments in terms of battle systematically influences the shape arguments take and the way we talk about what we do in arguing (Lakoff and Johnson 7)." Whoa.  The authors suggest that if we "couched the terms of argument along the lines of dance instead (paraphrase here),"  we may have a different perception of argument. 

  As mentioned in the discussion questions, I never really saw how language could be anything other than neutral.  Language is after all, built upon words.  Words are tools in my estimation, so it stood to reason that language should be an uncharged term with little "baggage."  But if we listen to Lakoff and Johnson, they will present another side.  When they explain the "Time is Money" metaphor, they show a concept that could only exist in materialistic, post-Industrialization society."  This concept didn't exist until the advent of factories and assembly lines.  This aspect of the metaphor debate is really a chicken-and-the-egg discussion.  Whereas I believed that language was the chicken, and society's use or misuse of language was the egg, I no longer believe this.  Instead, Lakoff and Johnson argue that language is formed as a result of societal pressures.

  We can break this down even further.  Lakoff and Johnson say that "Standard theories of meaning assume that all of our complex concepts can be analyzed into the undecomposable primitives.  Such primitives are taken to be the ultimate 'building blocks' of meaning (69)."  In other words, we can explain complex phenomena with simple terms that themselves are merely descriptors, and are untainted by metaphorical exaggeration.  The authors argue that this is not the case, and instead point to the interconnectedness of everything as support.  Unfortunately, things get a little fuzzy here, and the authors point to the example of how infants learn how causation works.  I missed the jump somewhere along the way.  Maybe we can bring this up in class. 

  While metaphors are social constructs, it is sometimes difficult to see them as such, and often look to them more as semi universal truths because they can explain so many things we see in the world.  The authors touch on this topic when addressing our idea of a conversation.  The authors say that "It is in terms of imposing the CONVERSATION gestalt on what is happening that we experience the talking and listening that we engage in as a particular kind of experience, namely, a conversation (83).  In other words, we look at a verbal discussion between two people in a particular way because society has prescribed a certain set of norms that we ought to adhere to when engaging in that activity.  Decorum aside, this makes sense. 

I could point to a dozen other examples from the text that helped illumine the influential place that metaphors hold in our language, thoughts, and actions.  We should be mindful of metaphors as they can potentially color language-- both for good and for bad.  This skill will be of the utmost importance for us living in this most intellectually taxing age. 

Joe

ias#09

Hey everyone, my name is Zach Caruso.  I'm still new to Grad School and semi-new to blogging, but I'm glad to be a part of this.

Joe, I really loved the questions you presented here, and I want to weigh in a bit.  I'm going out of order, but when it comes to philosophical discussions, my mind tends to bounce all over.

#5 is a great point.  My biggest question has always been how can we define anything in the world when we, as humans, have created the definitions for them?  The book says that words have fixed meanings, aren't they only "fixed" because society has agreed upon their definition and meaning?  Therein lies the problem; we create words, names, definitions, etc, and then they are accepted as being true or "fixed".  The sky is only blue because someone created the word "blue" and attached it to that specific color, and it was socially accepted as "fixed".

#2 is another good one.  But you also have to wonder if the use of metaphors on an unconscious level (i.e. not even realizing that our "argument is war" rationale, for example, is a metaphor we commonly use), are we actually limiting our ability to conceptualize an aspect of life?  Is a metaphor handcuffing us to a specific way of thinking of a given situation, or does the metaphor actually make things easier on us by giving us a pre-determined container in which to fit our thoughts?

Just felt like I should throw in my two cents.  But as my dad always says, "That and four bucks will get you over the bridge."

Zach

In Metaphors We Live By, George Lakoff and Mark Johnson explore the structure of language and metaphor as a reflection of meaning established through both individual and social experience.  Lakoff and Johnson introduce readers to several categories of metaphor applied in every day language and continue to argue that all metaphorical concepts are culturally constructed. 

In Chapter 30, Lakoff and Johnson discuss how difficult it can be to achieve mutual understanding when people do not share the same culture, knowledge, values and assumptions (231).  The discussions of truth and understanding being based on experience throughout the text reminded me of an anecdote my sister shared with me during her time overseas.  (For those who aren’t aware, I have a twin, Kristy, who married military and lived in Oman for three years.) 

Once in Oman, Kristy had been excited to learn she could continue her morning ritual of drinking Starbucks before starting her work day in the Embassy. (Yes, this establishment exists in the Middle East.)  During one of her early visits, Kristy ordered a café mocha.  Aware that the Omanis prepare certain foods excessively sweet, as she placed her order, she added, “Little bit of chocolate”, holding her index finger a short distance from her thumb to emphasize her request.  The Omani employee nodded in agreement, but when Kristy sipped her mocha, it was sickeningly sweet.  She immediately made her distaste known to the employee, who responded with the same hand gesture Kristy had delivered, but with the words, “Little bit of coffee?”  Although Kristy’s initial request had been clear, the Omani interpreted her gesture based on his own cultural experience. 

I’m not sure I would define this verbal exchange as metaphorical, but I believe the surrounding actions speak to our tendency to make assumptions and draw conclusions based on our understanding of an experience.  Not sure if this anecdote can also be discussed in terms of the “container” metaphor, with the varying degrees of sweetness—or ratio of mocha to coffee—serving as a reflection of Eastern to Western tastes and the preferences with which we identify.