If metaphors are not only ornamental but can augment the impact of meaning, thought not semantically, would it then be acceptable to use metaphors in philosophical discourse?
My question from the q&a depends on my argument that while metaphors can be translated to purely literal language, that is that they do not introduce any unique semantic meaning, they still possess an twofold import that literal language lacks. The second half of the import is increased potency; metaphors, as with most indirect communication, has the potential to render the meaning of the metaphor more potent and longer lasting. A smartly crafted metaphor will have more impact.
Now, if this is true, which I do think so, there may be some venerable reasons to employ metaphors in philosophical discourse. I chose philosophical discourse as it is my discipline and the discipline of this seminar, but it may hold true for other academic writing as well.
So the question is: does the increased impact provide a benefit enough to override the inherent imprecision of a metaphor?
No comments:
Post a Comment