|
| 
| Authors: George Lakoff, Mark Johnson
Publisher: University Of Chicago Press
Category: Book
List Price: $16.00
Buy New: $10.88
You Save: $5.12 (32%)
Rating:  29 reviews
Sales Rank: 8922
Media: Paperback
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 256
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.8
Dimensions (in): 8.4 x 5.3 x 0.8
ISBN: 0226468011
Dewey Decimal Number: 401
EAN: 9780226468013
Publication Date: April 15, 1980
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
|
| Customer Reviews:
 A Revolutionary Insight April 16, 2002
31 out of 35 found this review helpful
If we talk about relationships we might say: "She was in the driver's seat" but we "reached a fork in the road" and now we're "on the rocks" and we may "go our separate ways." Lakoff and Johnson point out that each of these expression uses some version of a metaphor that "Love is a Journey" -- where the journey may be by boat, by car, or walking. Metaphors like these are not special poetic creations, but are part of the day to day way we talk and think about relationships. In the same way, prices "go up", people "get close", the future is "down the road" and cognitive scientists "defend" their "positions." Metaphors like these are not simply a playful use of words. They are part of the way that we think.
This is some of Lakoff and Johnson's fascinating description of the pervasive role of metaphor in human cognition. To this reader, it has all the hallmarks of a great scientific discovery: it is original, profound, simple, and obviously true. For this reason alone, the book deserves five stars.
However, the book fails to give it's marvelous subject the treatment it deserves. The writing, while clear and full of common sense, is often uneven. The organization is lopsided -- much of the book is devoted to attacking straw men and and hand waving attempts to expand their discovery into some kind of murky philosphical revolution. This is confusing, easy to criticize, and a waste of time. Worst of all, they blunt the greatest weapon of any truly great idea: its simplicity.
Seminal, and there's more to the story now July 28, 2004
26 out of 30 found this review helpful
*Metaphors We Live By* seminally remarked that language is metaphoric at a much deeper and more pervasive level than had previously been understood. For example, the metaphor ``time is money'' is built into the language: we spend time, invest time, waste time, squander time, borrow time, and so on. It further argued that humans reason using metaphors that ground abstract concepts (like time) in concrete ones (like money, which you can hold in your hand). We use these metaphors in an extended way (both borrowing time and spending it) and coherently (merging different metaphors to reach sensible conclusions). These conclusions have stood the test of time and if anything increased in impact over the years. Lakoff, Johnson, and their students have followed in later work with preliminary models of how neural circuitry for controlling motor actions is reemployed in other thinking, thus shedding light on how thought is grounded, on how the working of neural circuitry acquires meaning.
Roughly a third of *MWLB* is devoted to philosophy, arguing that because thought is so heavily metaphoric, ``there is no reason to believe there is any absolute truth or objective meaning''. They have since rethought this conclusion, and their 1999 book *Philosophy in the Flesh* claims to have accepted the existence of objective reality, but still argues that there is no objective metaphysics of such phenomena as time, causality, or morality. Since many different metaphors are used in understanding causation that each describe something different, they argue there can be no essential causality. This is such a radical conclusion that we should be loath to accept it without strong evidence, but from their perspective it appears inescapable.
These ideas also feed into Lakoff's book *Moral Politics*. Conservatives often argue that liberals are emotional and irrational-- a noteworthy magazine of the right is thus called *Reason*. Lakoff, because he doesn't believe in an objective reality or an objective morality in any ordinary sense, accedes to this without firing a shot. Rather than dispute that liberals are emotional and irrational, he argues that rationality is a mirage.
*Metaphors We Live By* greatly impressed me, and was an important stimulus for my 2004 book *What is Thought?*. *WiT?* proposed fundamental organizing principles of thought, from which Lakoff and Johnson's empirical observations regarding metaphor emerge in a natural way. *WIT?* explains ''understanding'' as the computational exploitation of the underlying structure to the world, and argues (based on discoveries in computer science made in the 20+ years since *MWLB* appeared) that it is produced through evolving a compact computer program. This program can only be so compact yet so powerful by reuse of meaningful subroutines-- which gives rise to metaphor. Thus simple fundamental principles that explain many other aspects of thought also organize and cause Lakoff and Johnson's observations. Note however that my proposal, rather than denying the existence of Platonic structure as do Lakoff et al's various books, is built on top of it: the underlying compact Platonic structure explains how understanding is possible. Yes we have many different metaphors for dealing with causality, but they all exploit the fact that there is a very simple description of the physics of the world, and this simple description presumably includes or implies ''essential causality''.
Metaphors Can Keep Your Illusions Intact October 5, 2005
26 out of 72 found this review helpful
The Authors thought they had something new to say. They did, but it was mostly new jargon (coherence, spatialization, experiential, orientational) that can never be adequately defined. Why on earth couldn't these Authors coin metaphors to clarify their thesis? What was their thesis? In the Afterword they call it the Neural Theory of Language. In short, neural connections in the brain can link the abstract idea with a concrete image and metaphorical thinking is, therefore, inescapable.
When the Authors write "Metaphorical thought is unavoidable, ubiquitous and mostly unconscious" (P. 272) what are they attempting to convey? How can they describe something that is mostly unconscious? Claiming that the mechanisms in the brain for using metaphor are all unconscious makes it clear they don't know what they are talking about.
One problem for the authors is their claim that the concepts like UP-DOWN are universal. They often cite cultural and environmental differences to support their ideas but omit more universal differences such as the zero gravity environment. When one is orbiting the earth in zero gravity it is difficult to find an up or a down, or a top or bottom. Likewise, even on earth, when one stands on one's head, the feet point upward.
The most audacious part of Author's thesis is that using metaphors can create a new reality. Their claim is that if one either acts upon or believes a metaphorical view, this constitutes a "reality." Of course this all depends on what one calls reality. I always preferred Phil Dick's description: "Reality is that which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
The fallacy of the Author's thesis lies in their use of the term "concept." They try to use the term concept (defined as an abstract idea) to describe being metaphorically structured. But metaphors are, themselves, abstract or non literal use of language. It is hard to see how using one abstraction to clarify or structure another abstract term could enhance understanding. When using a metaphor one shape-shifts or morphs the language into a form that one person might find helpful, another comical, and still another nonsensical. For example to say for amusement, Bette bounces around like a rubber ball, hardly adds to any understanding or a serious description of poor Bette.
 Why? March 17, 2000
25 out of 57 found this review helpful
Generally speaking, human beings prefer to frame new knowledge in terms that they are already familiar with. Metaphor is therefore one the most common ways of expressing compound ideas in a simple yet powerful/effective manner.
'The sands of time', for example, though originating from the use of sand in an hour glass, is a metaphor rich with alternative images and meanings. But how long can you go on making this very basic point?
In the case of "Metaphors We Live By" the answer is 'over 200' pages. Which is, in this reviewer's opinion, at least 200 pages TOO LONG. Many of the examples are either extremely strained, or simply inconsequential. Is "happiness" ALWAYS equated with "up"? (How about ROTFLMAO?) And even if it were, so what? By the time I got to the end of this thoroughly academic text, my primary thought was simply WHY?
Why did the authors bother to write it?
Why did the publishers bother to publish it?
And why would anyone bother to read it (if they knew in advance what it was like)?
 The metaphor of the book October 13, 2004
24 out of 30 found this review helpful
The authors have undoubtedly created a captivating account of the pervasive role of metaphor in human cognition. We certainly use metaphors in the way we communicate, but primary their focus is on how metaphors are used in how we think. That is, how do they affect our understanding and perceptions?
Metaphors seem to be visually oriented pictures by which we condense a greater concept into a manageable instance. These predefined packets of ideas are then used interchangeably as we think and evaluate choices.
One item I wished the authors had included is how metaphors originate and how they are introduced into culture. Are they usually a simplistic example from everyday life, which captures the imagination and is easily impressed on the mind? Do they develop from years of common sense wisdom?
Another aspect of metaphors which I believe to be worthy of consideration is the tendency to use them as a crutch. That is, it's easy to spout off the same old jargon and to speak in clichés. It's even worse to think in clichés. Does the person who relies too heavily on metaphors cease to `break new ground' in thinking originally and independently? I wanted the authors to address this possible darker side of the metaphor.
Lastly, I was looking for instances of when commonly held metaphors were later proven to be faulty. In other words, when have metaphors caused a culture or people group to be stuck in a rut (um...is that a metaphor?) and prevented them from progressing? And, what means of cognition can be used to determine if metaphors are true or false?
In the end this is a thought provoking book on a subject which effects every person, every day - whether they realize it or not.
|
|
|
Copyright 2008 BetterEditor.net
| |
