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. ==
