However, I'm even more interested in the persistence of underlying metaphors
that were clearly in use thousands of years ago just as they are now. Aristotle
and the writer or writers of Rhetorica ad Herennium focus on what
could be described as marginal metaphors, or those that are not systematic in
language and culture. However, there are other metaphors such as IDEAS ARE
OBJECTS that are systematic in both modern times and the
translations of the texts we have been reading. For an example of the IDEAS ARE OBJECTS metaphor, see how Aristotle writes about accepting oaths like
they are physical things (212). These metaphors are all around us just as they
were all around the writers we are studying, assuming that the metaphors hold
up through translation. The systematic nature of metaphor is discussed in depth in Metaphors We Live By by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, who claim that "our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature" (3). I find it comforting that these sorts of connections can be drawn between our own modern culture and the cultures that the writers of our texts were living in, as I think it shows a link in human thought processes that is persistent and inherent. In this case, we understand things in relations to other things. And that's why what Aristotle tells us about metaphor is as applicable today as it was more than two millennia ago.
As metaphors are basically my Favorite Thing Ever, I've enjoyed seeing so many colorful uses of them in these ancient texts as well. But I had never made the connection you do here, about the very nature of metaphor being something that links us to the minds of these authors. It's a great point to bring up. As it sounds you are, I'm realizing that I am absolutely the most connected to the material when reading through the metaphorical strategies the authors use.
ReplyDeleteIn thinking of the effectiveness of the different metaphors, I find it curious to map how directly each translates to us today. The more 'base' metaphors, such as the vivid and very image-based example put forth by Plato's chariot, still form in our minds what we can only assume must be almost exactly what Plato and his readers held in theirs. But if you get more incisive—by considering the words and language itself a metaphor, for example—then you can see how the communication lines have rusted slightly, and the emotional connection isn't quite as 'direct'. We have to struggle a bit more to feel the author's voice, as opposed to if we were reading a modern piece of writing.
It's valuable information, to see just what pieces of transcribable human experience are the most universal, the most immediate, and, with that, the most immortal.