Kamil Wiśniewski – linguist, translator, and philosopher :)

The Aristotelian definition of metaphor

The first attempts to describe the purposefulness of the use of metaphors, how their appropriate usages ought to look like, and. above all. what a metaphor indeed is were made by the great ancient philosopher Aristotle. In view of the contemporary theories concerning metaphors, Aristotle has frequently been criticized for confining the use of metaphors to writing and ascribing them only a decorative function. Moreover, it was assumed that the thinker claimed that only extraordinarily intelligent people are able to use metaphors in an appropriate and creative fashion. While it is true that Aristotle claimed that metaphors often occur in literature and fulfill ornamental functions, he also maintained that they are equally frequently present in casual conversations. The fact is that the ancient scholar raised that issue in two of his numerous works, namely “Poetics” and “Rhetoric” and as the titles suggest he described manners of using various metaphors as well as their use both in literature, with the emphasis put on poetry, and everyday casual conversations (Mahom, 1999:70).
In “Poetics” the philosopher defines metaphor as “the application of an alien name by transference either from genus to species, or from species to genus, or from species to species, or by analogy, that is, proportion” (Mahom, 1999:71) and states that the most appealing writing style is the one characterized by the use of metaphors. Even so, he claims that too frequent use of this figure of speech would obfuscate the gist of writing, therefore, it ought to be used in moderation. What is more, in the same work he suggests that only people gifted with genuine genius are able to invent utterly new and unique metaphors.
However, in that work, Aristotle brought up the topic of metaphors only in the context of Greek literature as it was used by poets and dramatists at that time. Mahom points out that the philosopher didn’t mean by this statement that only writers use metaphors, but that their means of coinage and usage of metaphors is extraordinary in comparison with the common, everyday use by regular people. The more general views held by Aristotle, ones that concern also the use of metaphors by common language users, can be found in his book entitled Rhetoric (Mahom, 1999:71).
Only after becoming acquainted with both of those works of Aristotle should a more comprehensive view of philosopher’s ideas be held, that is one which includes both his notions about metaphors in relation to literature, as well as in relation to the common use of language. In Rhetoric the author writes about the figures of speech that are characteristic to writing. He also suggests that certain types of metaphors need to be used in casual discourse, owing to the fact that it is often thanks to them that we can comprehend certain complex, or abstract concepts. Supporting his claims by giving examples from the public speeches of politicians, Aristotle states that “We learn above all from metaphors” (Mahom, 1999:74) as they make it easy for people to understand difficult or abstract ideas. In addition to that, he emphasizes that pedagogical value by saying that metaphors not only teach us, but that they do it in a pleasing and interesting way.
Additionally, Mahom claims that it was due to the failure to carefully examine both works of the philosopher that scholars too hastily criticized Aristotle’s views, while ascribing to him ideas which he did not acknowledge. It is true that Aristotle wrote that a real genius is needed to master a good command of metaphors. However, at that point, he meant their use in literature, for solely aesthetic purposes and not their use in common everyday speech, for which, as he thought, metaphors are indispensable. Therefore, it would not be unjustified to claim that, in fact, Aristotle’s views on metaphors were more similar to contemporary ones than to those which were ascribed to him until the second half of the XX century.
To put it chronologically, before the present-day theories are accounted for, some of the mistaken premises of the classical view will be clarified. First of all, it was by and large assumed that ordinary, every-day language was utterly deprived of any metaphorical expressions and that metaphors took advantage of mechanisms beyond the scope of casual speech. This meant that metaphors were seen only as a purely linguistic phenomenon, a figure of speech characteristic only of the literary language. Furthermore, as if Aristotle’s ideas expressed in Rhetoric were ignored, subsequent scholars claimed that whatever the issue is, no matter whether abstract or concrete, it could be apprehended virtually without the use of metaphors. In contrast to the classical assumption, cognitive linguistics holds the view that metaphors not only fulfill decorative functions and make discourse more interesting, but are embedded in the very way people think about, and conceptualize the world (Lakoff, 1993:204).
Because casual language is not metaphor-free, and most certainly literary language is not characterized only by metaphorical expressions, but other figures of speech, as well as by regular phrases, it needs to be set out clearly how one can recognize a metaphor. It is claimed that when people speak of abstract concepts such as time, God, morality or emotions they naturally take advantage of metaphors. Lakoff suggests that “those concepts that are not comprehended via conceptual metaphor might be called “literal” (Lakoff, 1993:205).
Since the notion of metaphors as a poetic figure of speech has been discussed by literary studies researchers for centuries it is mainly the relatively new view on the use of metaphors in casual language that will be touched upon in the following section. What is more, the ornamental function of metaphors in writing seems to be the most vital feature distinguishing their use in literature from everyday usage. This means that the theories that focus on the ordinary employment of metaphors are also applicable to literary studies and ought to aid their understanding. The significance of the use of metaphor in literature will therefore be covered in a further chapter of the present work.
While the perception of Aristotle’s theories concerning metaphors has clearly changed with time, his definition of metaphors, although still valid for some scholars, has been either developed or transformed into another theory. Aristotle’s successors were not unanimous in their opinions concerning metaphors and their use in literary, scientific and everyday language. For instance John Lock, a famous seventeenth century English philosopher most often associated with British empiricism, claimed in his work entitled ‘Essay concerning human understanding’ that metaphors ought not to be used in philosophical inquiry (Arseneault, 2005:40). Similarly Locke’s contemporary, namely Thomas Hobbes, in his work entitled ‘Leviathan’ condemned the use of metaphors in the language of philosophy, since as he put it “metaphors, and senseless and ambiguous words, are like ignes fatui; and reasoning upon them, is wandering amongst innumerable absurdities” (Chilton, 2005:63).
Alternatively, other equally great and well known philosophers such as the eighteenth century Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his contemporary Friedrich Nietzsche, both disagreed with the criticism of metaphors. In fact both of them not only defended the use of metaphorical phrases, but also claimed that they fulfill creative and ornamental functions better than other figures of speech (Arseneault, 2005:40). As the above examples show, philosophers differ in their understanding of the value of metaphors in our daily lives. Moreover, various scholars also disagree about what types of expressions should be considered a metaphor. Because of this, several different approaches to the analysis of metaphor have been adopted. Some theorists in their view of metaphor agree that their focus should be on live metaphors, that is metaphors with many possible interpretations, while others concentrate on metaphors with a more fixed meaning, that is lexicalized metaphors, also referred to as dead metaphors. The distinction between “live” and “dead” metaphors is a matter of degree. In addition, there are still other researchers who first and foremost focus on the forms and functions of metaphors (Arseneault, 2005:42)