Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DrakBalek t1_iuvxbxy wrote

One small critique: metaphor requires common experiences and understanding in order to be effective.

"Traffic flowed like a river after rain" is largely meaningless if the audience does not possess an understanding of the words "traffic," "river" or "rain." While it's difficult to imagine a person who doesn't understand the latter two, it's not difficult to imagine a person who doesn't understand the former, given that automobiles have been around for almost a century-and-a-half. Of course, we might argue that the word means something to a person who lived in early 1800s London or New York, where horses and carts made up the hulk of traffic movements . . . but the point remains, if your audience doesn't have a common frame of reference for your words, there's a not-insignificant chance that the metaphor will either fail to convey meaning or, more likely, will convey a meaning wholly at odds with the author's original intent.

With this added context, I think there's an argument to be made that myth and metaphor aren't actually a form of knowledge. They can be used to communicate knowledge and meaning, but only under specific circumstances, and lacking those circumstances, they're just as likely to be abused, misused or simply misunderstood.

Myth and metaphor are tools of communication through which we can convey meaning; but like most tools, they're more appropriate for some situations than others.

86

zedority t1_iuyd1sz wrote

> if your audience doesn't have a common frame of reference for your words, there's a not-insignificant chance that the metaphor will either fail to convey meaning or, more likely, will convey a meaning wholly at odds with the author's original intent.

If I rephrase this as "your audience needs background knowledge to understand", then this is actually identical to knowledge. Especially when it comes to specialised knowledge, such knowledge can only truly be gained if the required background knowledge is present.

The informative statement "traffic consists of automobiles" will not be understood by anyone without the background knowledge of what an automobile is. Entire scientific journals exist which would be completely incomprehensible to anyone except experts in that scientific field.

In other words, I don't think you've found a flaw in the use of metaphor, so much as you've found a fundamental challenge to effectively communicating understanding in any way at all.

11

Snuffleton t1_iuw5jtg wrote

That sounded suspiciously like a summary of something worth a read. Can you recommend some book on that?

10

acfox13 t1_iuwtr2b wrote

You might like "Crucial Conversations - tools for talking when stakes are high". They discuss "shared pool of meaning" - ensuring you and the person you're trying to communicate with are actually understanding each other well.

Oh, and "The Power of Myth" by Joseph Campbell

20

drkgodess t1_iuz8bon wrote

>You might like "Crucial Conversations - tools for talking when stakes are high". They discuss "shared pool of meaning" - ensuring you and the person you're trying to communicate with are actually understanding each other well. > >Oh, and "The Power of Myth" by Joseph Campbell

Thanks!

2

DrakBalek t1_iuw9ozi wrote

gawd, I wish I could. Unfortunately, these are simply my thoughts as filtered through my years of experiences and nerdy interest in these topics.

Maybe someone better informed than me knows if there's a related published work?

14

A_Literate_Foozle t1_iuzhohr wrote

georges bataille and his work with the college of sociology is relevant on this and seems to resonate with what you’re saying. mircea eliade attended these lectures and worked on related topics as well. strongly recommend either avenue if you’re interested in thinking further.

3

Tuckinatuh t1_iuy2omk wrote

In the context of conveying meaning I would argue myth and metaphor are always useful tools. There aren’t better tools. There are bad metaphors, though. To your point about traffic, like you said, as a concept it is new. If metaphors restrict themselves to ancient concepts, though (fire, love, pain), they are able to fulfil their purpose for a broader audience.

5

DrakBalek t1_iuy79ge wrote

>In the context of conveying meaning I would argue myth and metaphor are always useful tools.

Whenever someone uses words like "never" or "always," I like to ask myself, " . . . are we sure?"

For instance, do we consider math equations to be a means of conveying meaning? If the meaning I want to communicate is highly technical, like an equation, should I resort to a myth or a metaphor? Let's say my intent is to convey the location of something to someone. "Where's your house?" is the question I want to answer; should I tell the querent my address or a story about how I came to live there?

Yes, myth and metaphor are useful tools for communicating information; but the utility of a given tool is dependent on the user's intent.

You can use a hammer to pound a screw into a block of wood . . . but you're better off using a screwdriver.

(and that is an example of when using a metaphor (or simile) is particularly useful.)

6

Tuckinatuh t1_iuzgt5z wrote

Ok but you left out the part where I said “in the context of conveying meaning”. Information transfer != meaning. I’m using meaning in the metaphysical sense here; that excludes addresses and math equations.

2

DrakBalek t1_iv0jkaq wrote

I guess I have to question whether it's possible to have "meaning" without information. (and vice versa)

That's an interesting thought, I don't think I have an answer for it.

1

glass_superman t1_iv03flf wrote

What you've written reminds me of a scene from Il Postino, when the postman is trying to understand why Neruda writes in metaphors. The whole movie might be a good way to think about myths and metaphor...

Anyway:

You see, Mario...

I can't tell you...

in words different

from those I've used.

When you explain it,

poetry becomes banal.

Better than any explanation...

is the experience of feelings

that poetry can reveal...

to a nature open enough

to understand it.

1

Lonely_Cosmonaut t1_iv0ip98 wrote

Im particularly interested in state mythologies and how we use them or are used by them, do you think people can exist without any kind of „story“ or constructed narrative?

2

DrakBalek t1_iv0jfje wrote

I don't, actually. Our brains are wired for certain kinds of communication and storytelling is one of the more critical aspects of our basic nature.

This isn't to say that "story" (or constructed narratives) exist independent of people ~which is a position I encounter a lot on the internet ~rather, that it exists in our minds and in our words.

And, by extension (and to some degree), through our actions.

2

Lonely_Cosmonaut t1_iv0kiq6 wrote

I think this is the most striking topic in philosophy and it cuts straight through to our daily lives. I agree with you. I think that human beings have been telling stories since there were human beings, and that infact perhaps even telling stories is an attribute of being human itself. It’s dangerous and it is only rarely explored in serious work I’ve noticed, sometimes in Fiction like Frank Herbert’s Dune. (An excellent series on this very topic)

As an aside I don’t think that we fully understand mythologies and their applications and I’m deeply fascinated by them.

3

MisterVee87 t1_iuxb3qh wrote

Traffic flowed like a river is a simile, not a metaphor.

Traffic is a river is a metaphor. And it requires none of the things you said. It requires the ability to abstractly compare the two things for their abstracted commonality.

0

DrakBalek t1_iuxcd7x wrote

That's fair, I usually get those two mixed up.

. . . of course, so did the author of that Medium article . . .

>It requires the ability to abstractly compare the two things for their abstracted commonality.

And how should the audience compare these two things for the abstracted commonality if they're not familiar the things they're comparing?

1

Melodic_Antelope6490 OP t1_iuyfj14 wrote

To clarify here - A simile is a subcategory of a metaphor, it's just stated differently. So all similes are metaphors but not all metaphors are similes. It's arguable there are only two tropes - metaphor and symbol, with metonymy and synecdoche essentially being kinds of metaphors. But Traffic flowed like a river is a verbal way of referencing an underlying metaphor 'traffic is a river', just like 'we got off to a bumpy start' references an underlying metaphor 'a relationship is a journey', or 'they really swallowed that' the metaphor 'ideas are food'. In other words metaphors can be referenced indirectly.

3

[deleted] t1_iuxcs67 wrote

[removed]

−12

BernardJOrtcutt t1_iv02cf6 wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1