Metaphors We Live By

I read this book back in the 90s while I was studying psycho-linguistics as an undergrad and then grad student. My linguistic interest aptly augmented my interest for roles in information technology - implementation and management (ie communication principles, hierarchical, object-oriented, top-down, bottom-up, etc analysis and implementation are all good examples of applied abstraction, which plays a fundamental role in linguistic theory). Later, while giving a lecture on technical writing to a small group of grad students, I realized that this book would be the perfect tool to bridge the gap between the writing process and the technical subjects the students were writing about. Since the book was not initially on the reading list, but I felt passionate about its potential, I purchased a copy for each student. The results were typical - some students 'got it' and others, evidently, could not make the connection. The point being that the book offers suggestions and great examples of how language works and how people think - people who have a sense of abstraction will be able to apply this book to almost any discipline. Currently, while involved in programming and numerical analysis for integration of IT projects, I still see myself thinking in terms of metaphor and realize how greatly they do impact and affect the way we live. This book goes a long way to frame the basics.

This book is exciting because, in addition to the original "Metaphors We Live By" it contains a 30 page Afterword by the authors, George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, written 25 years afterward. They track effects of their original revolutionary thinking on several different domains of discourse. They also mention one theoretical aspect of their theory of metaphors that, in retrospect, they would modify. This book is a must-have in a cognitive science library, along with Lakoff and Johnson's later books, written together and separately. "Philosophy in the Flesh" is especially notable for its further collaboration of Lakoff and Johnson, a linguist and a philosopher.

This was a great book. It's subject is how metaphors are not merely a poetic device, but a way of thinking that people use everyday and aren't even aware that they are doing it.

If you're interested in linguistics or philosophy or even psychology and sociology (or, like me, literature and math), then pick this one up as a great introduction to this creative topic.

The book's focus is on the fact that many of the sayings we use in daily life can be seen as metaphors for more literal explanations. For example it takes a chapter to explain how we feel that "up" is "good" and "down" is "bad." It is not really a book for reading. It is a philosophical look at language. If you like 200 pages of explaining how the saying "You're the top" is a metaphor for about the top being better than the bottom than this is the book for you.

After reading the other reviews, I feel obliged to opine about the book. I am a philosophy student. I generally introduce myself as a logician, but on the philosophy side. My areas of interest in philosophy are language, mind, epistemology, and metaphysics.

This book, as witnessed by the previous reviews, has a strong impact on readers. I agree with this sentiment. However, I disagree with the other sentiments that are expressed by the other reviewers. The other reviewers take the conclusions that the authors come to on face value. However, they fail to see some of the logical consequences of their view. For instance, the authors seem to be committed to what in philosophical circles is called anti-realism. This position can be boiled down to the claim that there is no external world; that may be a little harsh, but I feel that it expresses the overall point of anti-realism. the authors are committed to this position because they argue that truth, which is usually taken to be a correspondance between our statements and the facts, coherence between our statements, or some variation of pragmatism, is dependent upon metaphorical structuring of our experiences and the metaphorical concepts fittting together. This seems suspiciously circular; our metaphors and the sentences they ground are true when they fit together with the experiences that are structured by those very metaphors. we are never coming in contact with the world as is. there is always a metaphor between us and the world (except, of course, in our primitive concepts, one wonders why if primitive concepts, like up-down, front-back, can be conceptualized from experience alone, other concepts cannot be as well).

On another topic, when considering what a metaphor is, we understand that a metaphor puts two different and distinct things into a "X is B" relationship. For instance, "love is a journey." However, not all sentences of the form "X is B" are metaphors; for instance, "humans are mammals". Some, for example, are definitions. How can we tell the definitions from the metaphors? The only way is to know that the two objects in the metaphor are, in fact, different and distinct. This, however, involves conceptual understanding of the two objects apart from the metaphor. Thus, the concept has to be formed prior to the metaphor; the metaphor does not structure or ground the concept.

All in all, as a logician, I found the book to be distressing. The authors never really gave enough conclusive evidence to convince me that our conceptual system is metaphorical. In fact, the more I read the more I was convinced that their scheme presupposed a non-metaphorical conceptual scheme. However, I would recommend the book, but not in isolation. Don't indoctrinate yourself. If you read this, read something in support of the opposing position (I wish I could direct you to something here, but I have not done much research on the responses to Lakoff and Johnson). Hear all the arguments before you make a judgement as to whether our conceptual system is metaphorical.