bougie@pine.circa.ufl.edu (BRO) (01/14/91)
In article <26303@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>, bougie@pine.circa.ufl.edu (BRO) writes... > (Lakoff's paper is available on a listserver who's address I'll > find & post later.. It is also somewhere in recent archives of > comp.ai) Lakoff's paper is available by sending an e-mail message with only one line: HELP LAKOFF to: LISTSERV@UNIWA.UWA.OZ.AU (My newsreader won't let me look at directories of postings marked read.. could somebody help find his paper in comp.ai?) =================================================================== John Bro bougie@pine.circa.ufl.edu Univ of Florida bougie@ufpine (Bitnet) Gainesville
mcdermott-drew@cs.yale.edu (Drew McDermott) (01/15/91)
Let me begin by saying that I agree completely with George Lakoff's
political conclusions in his recent postings. We are rushing headlong
into a bloody war that is unlikely to gain us much, basically to avoid
a humiliation that George Bush's unnecessary rhetoric has made
inevitable. We should all be screaming at our leaders to stop this
madness.
Having said that, I would like to argue that Lakoff's argument from
his "theory of metaphor" is just silly. Simplified, it comes down to
this:
(a) All human thought is mediated by metaphor
(b) The metaphors of people who disagree with Lakoff are bad.
I am inclined to agree with (a), without necessarily acknowledging its
cosmic significance. However, if all thought is indeed mediated by
metaphor, that leaves us in the position of having to use metaphor as
we carry on with our arguments about war and peace. Arguing that our
opponents' thought processes are warped by metaphor is
pseudoscientific twaddle. It may be wrong to bomb Iraqis, and part of
the problem may be our lumping all Iraqis together, but the fault
would lie in nationalism and racism, not in the metaphor of "nations
as persons." The latter is simply one of the ways we think about the
former. If we didn't use this metaphor, we'd use another one.
-- Drew McDermottdaryl@oravax.UUCP (Steven Daryl McCullough) (01/15/91)
In article <26303@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>, bougie@pine.circa.ufl.edu (BRO) writes: > Lakoff is pointing out that while metaphor is a very useful means > of simplifying reasoning (analogy) it is also capable of misleading us into > oversimplifications. I'm not going to claim that Bush, Baker, Azziz & co. > do not and cannot see the schematicity of their metaphors (nor that they do > and can!) but public opinion to a large extent seems to be content with > the "truth" that war=a game, Saddam=Iraq (state=person), or Sadam=dragon & > US=white knight & Kuwait=damsel in distress. It just *ain't that simple*!! Lakoff's analysis seems to me to be trite, superficial, and insulting. It assumes great stupidity on the part of nearly everyone except himself: of course ordinary people can't handle subtlety. Do you (or Lakoff) really have evidence that people are unaware of the complexities of the Persian Gulf situation? If Lakoff is taking the oversimplification of slogans such as "We can't reward aggression" and "Saddam Hussein is the equivalent of Hitler" as evidence for superficiality of thought, I believe he is making an error. It is in the nature of slogans to be simplistic; on the other side of the fence on this issue is the equally simplistic slogan "No Blood for Oil!" In my opinion, the kind of "psychologizing" that Lakoff is engaging in is the absolute *worst* thing one can do for meaningful political debate. Rather than discussing issues of what we want to accomplish and how best to accomplish it, we are reduced to discussing psychological quirks and personalities. I think a Freudian analysis is just as bad, for the same reason. ("Margaret Thatcher sent the military to Falklands out of penis envy." or "Men like missiles because they are phallic symbols.") A few points about the particular metaphors that Lakoff brings up: (1) War = a game There are certainly are senses in which this is an apt metaphor. Both involve strategy, have teams, have an objective, etc. These analogies are *not* coincidental, since many games, such as football, chess, soccer, boxing, etc. were invented as metaphors for war. There are certainly ways in which war is not like any game, namely the fact that many people get killed, and a team may not be punished for breaking the rules. Rather than saying simply that "War= a game" is a bad metaphor, Lakoff could contribute something real to the debate if he pointed out some particular mistakes people were making based on a faulty use of this metaphor. A possible mistake is to assume that "Those people on my team are people I can trust", which is certainly wrong in the case of certain allies such as Syria. (2) Saddam = Iraq This is a pretty lame example for Lakoff. People only believe this metaphor to the extent that it is appropriate. Saddam Hussein *is* Iraq to the extent that his will determines whether Iraq invades or withdraws from Kuwait, etc. To get Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait, it is Saddam Hussein who must be convinced, not the average Iraqi citizen. In what sense has this metaphor misled anyone? (3) Saddam=dragon, US = white knight, Kuwait= damsel in distress. Another lame example. I don't think anyone believes this analogy except in the most obvious sense. Once again, if you claim "It just *ain't that simple*!!" tell us how people are being misled by the analogy. > CNN reported that while 51% of Americans (when asked point-blank) > are in favor of going to war with Iraq, that figure drops to something like > 30% when they're asked if getting Iraq out of Kuwait is worth 1000 American > lives. That %age drops to around 15% if you postulate 20,000 dead. Deaths > just don't seem to be part of the war=game metaphor and it's too easy to > forget! The game metaphor also makes it too easy to forget about the "post- > game" situation. It is NOT all over once the fat lady sings! Your evidence doesn't back up your claims. The poll quite obviously indicates that people are willing to risk lives to get Iraq out of Kuwait, but aren't willing to lose a large number. How does this show that people are being misled by the "game" metaphor? If anything, it shows that people are overconfident of US military prowess to think that a war can be won with a small number of American casualties. It *is* a serious problem if people have an unrealistic expectation of the costs of war, but there is no evidence that metaphorical thinking caused this state of affairs. > In sum, I don't think it is a good idea to underestimate the role > of metaphor in reasoning. It can play a causal role. Lakoff's analysis > cannot be brushed off so easily. Yes, it can. Quite easily. Daryl McCullough
gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) (01/15/91)
In article <28045@cs.yale.edu> Drew McDermott writes:
]Let me begin by saying that I agree completely with George Lakoff's
]political conclusions in his recent postings. We are rushing headlong
]into a bloody war that is unlikely to gain us much, basically to avoid
]a humiliation that George Bush's unnecessary rhetoric has made
]inevitable. We should all be screaming at our leaders to stop this
]madness.
You have just farted in public, to use a metaphor. One of the reasons
for the seperation of newsgroups is so that people who don't want to
see arguments about touchy political situations don't have to. They
just avoid the newsgroups where such arguments are permissable. Now
people who disagree with you have the choice of either (1) letting you
get away with a propaganda coup, or (2) also farting in public to
correct your ignorance. I hope those who disagree with McDermott
will be satisfied with this reply and not carry on a debate on the
topic.
--
David Gudeman
gudeman@cs.arizona.edu
noao!arizona!gudeman