So, I just got hold of a copy

So, I just got hold of a copy of:

“Portraying Analogy (1981), which was the first fundamental examination of the topic since Cajetan (Thomas Cajetan) in 1498″ by JF Ross.

Since the practicality of analogy (and misuse of it, especially metaphor, where the mapping is often very abstracted analogies) has been an interest of mine ever since the school tests of: hand : palm :: foot : sole – finding a complete, modern treatment of Analogy from a classic Philosophical point of view will be a treat for me.

Also, as I don’t generally “speak Philosophy”, this will be a good excuse to learn some of the subtleties of the lingo as i go along, because I have a strong interest in Analogy and I love the idea that there was a 500 year gap between similar works.

No question for you to ponder here, just sharing an interesting find.

===

Same here. That is one of the BEST written papers on Analogies I ever saw. It’s my “go-to” link whenever someone is using an analogy and considering it something ‘real’.

I send the link to this paper and walk away ’til they’ve read it. smile emoticon

===

[I’m fangirling but in both cases, I remember the feeling as I was reading through them: FINALLY SOMEBODY SAID IT! ]

===

Ok, I’m still in the introduction but wow, I expect this to be a thick but good read for me.

The author had been working on analogies his professional career, mostly working in the realm of theology, but when he tried to tackle advancements in analogy via philosophy, he discovered that the SAME MISTAKES were being used by Philosophers for the last 500 years because they are based on 500 yr old assumptions about language that we now know just aren’t so, yet they’re embedded.

This is an example of what I have to look forward to: this should be fun smile emoticon

===
I suspect it’s a lot like Wittginstein but already, by page 18, he’s gone deeper into it. He’s not restricting himself to the logic of it and in fact he’s going _against_ the constructivist assumption and into the commonly used sensemaking as a basis.

His focus so far seems to be, “How can a single word have so many senses?”

It’s one of those things that so common, we don’t even notice that we’re doing it.
==
It’s a bold move that he’s doing: After his introductory areas that I’m in right now, it seems that he’s planning to skip over 500 years of Philosophy to continue where medieval philosophers left off.

It’s the very kind of that thing that could put cracks in the foundations of EVERY Philosopher in the last 500 years. smile emoticon

==

I haven’t had my coffee yet and I’m expected to get interrupted any second now by a nephew wanting me to join him in one of his Christmas present games. Him and a few others here love to grab my attention during the day.

But I like having a meaty project waiting for me like this that I can turn to when I have free moments like right now smile emoticon

===

Hm, honestly I don’t know yet. I think he might be striking a blow at the whole “this word means these things in these senses”: ie – our addiction to dictionary defining. I could be wrong but that’s the sense I’m getting.

===

Same. I have some mathematical stuff (I have some quantum friends who put stuff way out of my head on their profiles and I like to skim through and try to understand them. I don’t ‘get’ the math but the english parts usually aren’t *too* bad. Just the other day I read something long and complicated and I was like, “Wait, he’s borrowing from imaginary time to make this work, right?” and my friend was like, “well given the [long four paragraph explanation as to why], yes” tongue emoticon

=

 

it’s a math thing. Kinda like borrowing from the past to use in the present except they’re not borrowing from the past, but rather borrowing from another timeline that isn’t there basically. The thing that makes Quantum mechanics so flexible, is they’re allowed to borrow from things that don’t actually exist to make their math work, just as long as they don’t borrow it for TOO long.

oddly enough, it seems to work. Gives them more wiggle room over classical physics.

==

 

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


× 4 = twenty

Leave a Reply