Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DrakBalek t1_iuy79ge wrote

Reply to comment by Tuckinatuh in The meaning crisis and language II — We need to ‘believe’ myth and metaphor in order to understand ourselves by Melodic_Antelope6490

>In the context of conveying meaning I would argue myth and metaphor are always useful tools.

Whenever someone uses words like "never" or "always," I like to ask myself, " . . . are we sure?"

For instance, do we consider math equations to be a means of conveying meaning? If the meaning I want to communicate is highly technical, like an equation, should I resort to a myth or a metaphor? Let's say my intent is to convey the location of something to someone. "Where's your house?" is the question I want to answer; should I tell the querent my address or a story about how I came to live there?

Yes, myth and metaphor are useful tools for communicating information; but the utility of a given tool is dependent on the user's intent.

You can use a hammer to pound a screw into a block of wood . . . but you're better off using a screwdriver.

(and that is an example of when using a metaphor (or simile) is particularly useful.)

6

Tuckinatuh t1_iuzgt5z wrote

Ok but you left out the part where I said “in the context of conveying meaning”. Information transfer != meaning. I’m using meaning in the metaphysical sense here; that excludes addresses and math equations.

2

DrakBalek t1_iv0jkaq wrote

I guess I have to question whether it's possible to have "meaning" without information. (and vice versa)

That's an interesting thought, I don't think I have an answer for it.

1