Metaphor and Metaphilosophy: Wittgenstein, MacDonald, and Conceptual Metaphor Theory

IF 0.9 2区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Cameron C. Yetman
{"title":"Metaphor and Metaphilosophy: Wittgenstein, MacDonald, and Conceptual Metaphor Theory","authors":"Cameron C. Yetman","doi":"10.1111/ejop.13038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The discipline of philosophy has been critiqued from both within and outside itself. One brand of external critique is associated with Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT), the view that human cognition is partially structured by pervasive and automatic mappings between conceptual domains. Most notably, Lakoff and Johnson (1999) claimed that many central philosophical concepts and arguments rely on an unacknowledged metaphorical substructure, and that this structure has sometimes led philosophy astray. The purpose of this paper is to argue that Lakoff and Johnson's critique is anticipated by the work of post-Tractarian Wittgenstein and his student, Margaret MacDonald. In the <i>Blue Book</i>, Wittgenstein outlines a method for identifying and resolving philosophical puzzles generated by misused grammatical analogies, although his discussion lacks a precise characterization of exactly how and why such analogies lead to trouble. In a 1938 paper, MacDonald offers such a characterization, which I outline and then connect back to Wittgenstein. In addition to this interpretive work, I supplement Wittgenstein and MacDonald's diagnosis using evidence from CMT which suggests that linguistic metaphors and analogies often originate in or are motivated by more fundamental analogical mappings in <i>cognition</i>. The supplemented account carries implications for how philosophical arguments ought to be formulated and critiqued.</p>","PeriodicalId":46958,"journal":{"name":"EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY","volume":"33 3","pages":"1038-1053"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ejop.13038","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejop.13038","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The discipline of philosophy has been critiqued from both within and outside itself. One brand of external critique is associated with Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT), the view that human cognition is partially structured by pervasive and automatic mappings between conceptual domains. Most notably, Lakoff and Johnson (1999) claimed that many central philosophical concepts and arguments rely on an unacknowledged metaphorical substructure, and that this structure has sometimes led philosophy astray. The purpose of this paper is to argue that Lakoff and Johnson's critique is anticipated by the work of post-Tractarian Wittgenstein and his student, Margaret MacDonald. In the Blue Book, Wittgenstein outlines a method for identifying and resolving philosophical puzzles generated by misused grammatical analogies, although his discussion lacks a precise characterization of exactly how and why such analogies lead to trouble. In a 1938 paper, MacDonald offers such a characterization, which I outline and then connect back to Wittgenstein. In addition to this interpretive work, I supplement Wittgenstein and MacDonald's diagnosis using evidence from CMT which suggests that linguistic metaphors and analogies often originate in or are motivated by more fundamental analogical mappings in cognition. The supplemented account carries implications for how philosophical arguments ought to be formulated and critiqued.

隐喻与元哲学:维特根斯坦、麦克唐纳与概念隐喻理论
哲学这门学科受到了内外两方面的批评。一种外部批评与概念隐喻理论(CMT)有关,该理论认为人类认知部分是由概念域之间普遍和自动的映射构成的。最值得注意的是,Lakoff和Johnson(1999)声称,许多核心哲学概念和论点依赖于一个未被承认的隐喻亚结构,而这种结构有时会使哲学误入歧途。本文的目的是论证拉科夫和约翰逊的批判被后特根斯坦和他的学生玛格丽特·麦克唐纳的工作所预见。在蓝皮书中,维特根斯坦概述了一种识别和解决由错误的语法类比产生的哲学难题的方法,尽管他的讨论缺乏对这种类比如何以及为什么会导致麻烦的精确描述。在1938年的一篇论文中,麦克唐纳提出了这样一个特征,我将其概述,然后将其与维特根斯坦联系起来。除了这个解释性的工作,我补充了维特根斯坦和麦克唐纳的诊断使用证据从CMT表明,语言隐喻和类比往往源于或由更基本的认知类比映射的动机。补充的叙述包含了哲学论证应该如何表述和批判的含义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
11.10%
发文量
82
期刊介绍: ''Founded by Mark Sacks in 1993, the European Journal of Philosophy has come to occupy a distinctive and highly valued place amongst the philosophical journals. The aim of EJP has been to bring together the best work from those working within the "analytic" and "continental" traditions, and to encourage connections between them, without diluting their respective priorities and concerns. This has enabled EJP to publish a wide range of material of the highest standard from philosophers across the world, reflecting the best thinking from a variety of philosophical perspectives, in a way that is accessible to all of them.''
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信