This is one of the few ideas that I present to students that they tend to respond with a bit of enthusiasm and wonder. In contrast to something like a discussion on "discourse" where people might be able to appreciate its function but perceive it as an "academic" concept, this is the sort of discussion where the lights will really come on for some people. I'm so glad you've given me something else I can recommend... I hope to support you on patreon at the point when I can get myself a permanent position.
Glad to finally see this on Lakoff and Johnson, they were on my reading lists a few years ago and still use their paradigm of embodied cognition in philosophy of mind.
A linguistic understanding of though has been the 'backbone' of philosophy for a while, but at the moment I'm getting interested in the findings of neurologists, which are that thought is not primarily textual but is translated into text. I think this of fundamental importance and needs to be addressed by philosophy. A large part of the metaphors in this video refer to bodily experience and spacial orientation, which seems like a level of cognition that comes before language and has left traces in our expressions because of the need to translate our non-textual thoughts into text.
The traces found in metaphorical expressions are in general attributed to neural cross-domain mappings. "Translation" may be introducing something quite antithetical to metaphor theory.
My favorite is when referencing a relationships in past tense with, "you will always live in my heart". This carries on from when memory is thought to reside in the heart. "You will always live in my brain", doesn't really have the same affect.
I just started reading this book a week ago so the video is incredibly timely. The study about describing crime as a monster vs a virus is fascinating and really speaks to how narrative oriented our conception of the world is. You should check out Gerard J. Steen's followup to that original study where he replicates with a few additional controls and argues that the metaphorical framing effect isn't as strong as the original paper implies.
For the philosophically-minded among us (which I'm sure is quite a few of you, if you're watching this channel), I would also recommend checking out Lakoff and Johnson's other work, "Philosophy in the Flesh." It is a look through some of the major topics/thinkers in the history of philosophy through the lens of conceptual metaphor and embodied cognition. It looks like a bit of a tome, but it is written in a clear and digestible manner. I, for one, enjoyed it.
I've had to read this book to write an essay on metaphors as part of my linguistics course in uni, and your video is honestly such a life-saver! After only 12 minutes I know what I want to focus on in my essay and I can go back to the book with some sense of direction, thanks a ton
My Spanish semantic teacher shared with us students this link so we could have the possiblity to watch this amazing and beautiful video. I made me think and learn so much... Thanks for explaining something like metaphors which I never knew they were conditioned by the experience, culture and language of speakers.
Metaphor is vital to understand because it's irreducible unlike paraphrasing something, which leads to something literal. The literal has no excess. Metaphor on the other hand is expressive thus being able to shape and change thought like this video makes a great example of. You can't paraphrase metaphor.
I don't think your point will hold up - there is no "literal" which has no excess. Even terms defined technically have pre-set limits and those limits are not absolute.
@@Hegeleze you're right yeah my bad, but literal language within predefined networks aren't going to provide much newness. "10 is like a number" certainly already has a background but its not gonna provide a new background for future utturances. How would u explain the metaphor/paraphrase assymetry?
Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful! Your video is a virtual reality suit. Metaphors we Live By has sat unread on my iPad for a couple of years, expected to be immensely valuable yet I bounced off the content in its native form. Your video provides a wonderfully straightforward conceptual framework that structures the Lakoff and Johnson Universe - from inside its cockpit I shall energetically explore the book as Spiderman, as Socrates and as Shakespeare - thankyou, thankyou, thankyou 🔆
Interesting. I started making instagram reels where I talk about addiction and as a result of explaining complex (to me) ideas I have become very aware of metaphors. How often I think in them and how often I use them to explain things. This video is going much deeper! I’m going to check this book out.
I am encouraged to see an effort to take MWLB seriously. When I had to read this in a philosophy of language class it changed my life. I was then allowed to take a full semester of independent study on metaphor. One criticism might be a failure to convey just how different this is to accepted theory.
thank you for this video! I have a bumpy relationship with conceptual metaphor. In my university days I got in love with it. I wanted to write my thesis within the framework presented in "Moral Politics" by Lakoff. I found it extremely frustrating because I couldn't apply the binary model (liberals v. conservative) to the situation in Polish politics. It became so frustrating that I dropped the idea of writing the paper. What do you think about the models of Strict Father and Nurturant Parent presented in "Moral Politics". Do you find it a valid description of political arena or is this concept flawed at some point? BTW are you familiar with Mouffe and Laclau? I think they are presenting a reasonable perspective on politics. It's not as immersed in linguistics as Lakoff, but it takes a lot from (post)structuralism.
@@HxH2011DRA as far as I remember, what Lakoff states in "Moral Politics" is that all kinds of various leftists (so I imply also anarchists) are just a more radical version of liberals, therefore they are assigned to the nurturant parent model. Personally, I find such an opinion to be entirely inaccurate, perhaps resulting from the bipartisan nature of American political system. If you used the word anarchist not in the meaning "libertarian socialist" but "a person claiming to abandon all rules", I beg to disagree. If I understand Lakoff's family models correctly, it's not about your declarative values but about creating two categories derived from linguistic data. That's why I find the Mouffian approach to be more thorough. Instead of creating some arbitrary categories, it investigates different points and lines of tension and equivalences between various collective identities. If I'm misinterpreted the Lakoffian model at some point I would be thankful for pointing it out.
No way! I just decided to to my thesis on this subject! I hope it will be a bit less frustrating for me as I will be analyzing it's application to the US binary model it was built on.. I would be interested to hear if you find the family metaphors within the Polish language. It seems there is a lack of actual experimental data to support the Strict Father and Nurturant Parent models as a basis for conservatism vs liberalism. While his ideas make intuitive sense, the 'linguistic evidence' he poses in "Moral Politics" and "Your Brain's Politics" is questionable. Let me know if you have any more thoughts!
@@laurabarta2465 Presumably, the data would be found in examples of actual political discourse. To do any of this, one needs to be skilled at detecting the underlying, structuring metaphors as they often reveal the logics at work.
I've been reading Nietzsche and Derrida on metaphor lately and have been wondering about this book. Is it more or less Nietzsche's take but from a cog brain science perspective? Are their metaphorical categories deduced a priori? Or they are also figurative based on sensory input/memory?
It's gonna be Rene Gir-hard...but you can take it...like the Dark Knight---we may not be effectively aware of what we want, YET we instinctively perceive...what IT IS that we NEED... That being YOU... thanks...truly...
I can't believe he is about to produce a mini-dissertation on Rene Girard... I have been not so secretly clamoring for this...for years...for almost a decade...on various channels...
great video as always!! It reminds me of Nietzsche's exploration of scientific concepts as metaphors where perceptual stimuli get copied as images, which are then reified as words, and then accepted as given concepts. What amazes me the most is how both approaches elucidate the possibility of a radical transformation of quotidian ideas. It's kinda ｐｏｓｔｍｏｄｅｒｎ
I've been waiting for this since I read this book of jokes when I was say 5 or 6 so 1973/74 so....he asks "what's a Metaphor" the answer "To keep cows in!"...get it Metaphor...Meadow for...what's a medda for? Sigh....
Fascinating with great examples, but this doesn't help me understand how our society's inoculation with metaphors actually changes how our brain works. . .anymore than any other habit. For instance, introduced to new foods, we are at first unsure about them (we may have information about the food, but no metaphors yet). They may in time become part of our "food vernacular", after which a dissemination of the foods "qualities" throughout the population may lead to popularity and eventually the development of a whole set of symbols, signs, etc that revolve around the food.. But like our use of metaphors, this doesn't really explain the way our brain's functioning changes in respect to the adoption of a new food; our brain (and the brains of societal members) just go ahead and attach meanings and "tastes" onto new foods like always. . .Is it really just Habit more than anything?
With the examples so far; argument/war, time/money it seems a bit of a stretch to consider the metaphor as a defining construct. It seems more that we use the same verbs to describe things with similar attributes, that doesn't make one a metaphor for the other though. Argument and war are both adversarial engagements, it's not that the metaphor of war makes argument adversarial. A non-adversarial argument is called a conversation. Similarly time and money are finite personal resources, spending them in one place precludes using them in some other way. It isn't an illusion created by overlaying the qualities of one onto the other. And 'time is money' isn't a meant as a metaphor, it's shorthand for an idea in the business world- that wasting time translates directly into losing money in a purely practical sense. It's identifying them as parallel processes with a causal connection, not using one to illustrate the qualities of the other. Maybe it's just the summary, but the ideas here seem like they've been manhandled to fit in with the basic theory, working hard to ignore obvious alternative explanations. And when it got to the labour/time bit I was a bit 'oh, OK that's what they wanted to do' but I'm not sure whether I'm just being cynical, seeing commies hiding under every social constructivist bed, to use a metaphor.
Maybe start by getting a clearer sense of what they argue about metaphor and sensorimotor experience (ch 4 & 5 of PitF is good), and when you've got a firm grasp on that, then maybe have another look at their argument because your response suggests to me that you've not understood their argument, with respect. They also address what you say about argument in MWLB when they deal with the distinction between Metaphorical Structuring and Subcategorization.
@@stevem815 I'm not sure why you'd make that inference. Implying that you might get a better understanding by consulting the primary sources does not suggest that "this video isn't actually a summary of their argument" and I'm a bit surprised that you responded with such an uncharitable fallacy. It's a good summary but your response suggests you've misunderstood it. I'm sorry if that's a personal affront to you - my response only intended to alert you to your misconception and to suggest how you can rectify it, and I've got nothing further to add.
@@dammysavis669 So you're saying I've misunderstood ideas that are contained in the video? I'm not taking it as an affront. I'm asking about the video, whether the thing I'm supposed to have understood is actually there or not.
Obviously Lakoff is right as the entire rationalist tradition has repeatedly assumed and Heidegger better articulated. But, there is a limit to how we can change metaphors, they have to elucidate common experience. There is a reason people poll disliking "PC culture" in the US at 90%+... they know the artificial metaphors they are given go against their experience.
@@nelsonphillips No, it isn't if it has existed from before Marxism. Also, the fact that this is the case doesn't necessitate any particular political regime.
But to what extent is that experience shaped by the metaphors people have grown up with and have used for years? If you've grown up with the idea that humans fall into one of two categories, man or woman, it's hard to accept more categories. That doesn't mean it's intrinsically human to reject more than two gender designations. There's plenty of examples of cultures where they don't have a binary gender 'system' (I don't know the proper terminology), there's nothing artificial about that.
@@Enzaio All experience is shaped by language and therefore metaphor, but this doesn't remove experience. It seems obvious that both interact, but to what extent? I am sure it matters as to the personality of the person, their abilities, their education, etc. If you want to start arguing for another system, you need to always take account of evolution and why the given paradigms were passed down as conducive to continuation of the species. By the way, the argument about there being other cultures who have different systems, this is irrelevant. Other cultures practice infanticide, kill homosexuals, stone adulterers... your argument only works if you assume it as true in the beginning (i.e., it is circular).
This is turning more and more into a linguistic anthropology channel. I love it.
This is one of the few ideas that I present to students that they tend to respond with a bit of enthusiasm and wonder. In contrast to something like a discussion on "discourse" where people might be able to appreciate its function but perceive it as an "academic" concept, this is the sort of discussion where the lights will really come on for some people. I'm so glad you've given me something else I can recommend... I hope to support you on patreon at the point when I can get myself a permanent position.
Good luck to you!
Glad to finally see this on Lakoff and Johnson, they were on my reading lists a few years ago and still use their paradigm of embodied cognition in philosophy of mind.
A linguistic understanding of though has been the 'backbone' of philosophy for a while, but at the moment I'm getting interested in the findings of neurologists, which are that thought is not primarily textual but is translated into text. I think this of fundamental importance and needs to be addressed by philosophy. A large part of the metaphors in this video refer to bodily experience and spacial orientation, which seems like a level of cognition that comes before language and has left traces in our expressions because of the need to translate our non-textual thoughts into text.
The traces found in metaphorical expressions are in general attributed to neural cross-domain mappings. "Translation" may be introducing something quite antithetical to metaphor theory.
What is a “thought?” Attending to my inner experience, It seems there nothing to grasp that might be a reduced to a “thought.”
My favorite is when referencing a relationships in past tense with, "you will always live in my heart". This carries on from when memory is thought to reside in the heart. "You will always live in my brain", doesn't really have the same affect.
I just started reading this book a week ago so the video is incredibly timely. The study about describing crime as a monster vs a virus is fascinating and really speaks to how narrative oriented our conception of the world is. You should check out Gerard J. Steen's followup to that original study where he replicates with a few additional controls and argues that the metaphorical framing effect isn't as strong as the original paper implies.
For the philosophically-minded among us (which I'm sure is quite a few of you, if you're watching this channel), I would also recommend checking out Lakoff and Johnson's other work, "Philosophy in the Flesh." It is a look through some of the major topics/thinkers in the history of philosophy through the lens of conceptual metaphor and embodied cognition. It looks like a bit of a tome, but it is written in a clear and digestible manner. I, for one, enjoyed it.
I've had to read this book to write an essay on metaphors as part of my linguistics course in uni, and your video is honestly such a life-saver! After only 12 minutes I know what I want to focus on in my essay and I can go back to the book with some sense of direction, thanks a ton
My Spanish semantic teacher shared with us students this link so we could have the possiblity to watch this amazing and beautiful video. I made me think and learn so much... Thanks for explaining something like metaphors which I never knew they were conditioned by the experience, culture and language of speakers.
Incredible content as always, deserve awards for such work.
Metaphor is vital to understand because it's irreducible unlike paraphrasing something, which leads to something literal. The literal has no excess. Metaphor on the other hand is expressive thus being able to shape and change thought like this video makes a great example of. You can't paraphrase metaphor.
Are there any methods to help improve my writing and speaking using metaphors?
I don't think your point will hold up - there is no "literal" which has no excess. Even terms defined technically have pre-set limits and those limits are not absolute.
@@Hegeleze you're right yeah my bad, but literal language within predefined networks aren't going to provide much newness. "10 is like a number" certainly already has a background but its not gonna provide a new background for future utturances.
How would u explain the metaphor/paraphrase assymetry?
Thank you!! Lakoff was on on my reading list for 2020
I just happened upon this last night; I really appreciate how he layed this out (huh, another metaphor).
You're bloody good.
Love the delving into linguistics.
Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful! Your video is a virtual reality suit. Metaphors we Live By has sat unread on my iPad for a couple of years, expected to be immensely valuable yet I bounced off the content in its native form. Your video provides a wonderfully straightforward conceptual framework that structures the Lakoff and Johnson Universe - from inside its cockpit I shall energetically explore the book as Spiderman, as Socrates and as Shakespeare - thankyou, thankyou, thankyou 🔆
Helpful exposition. Thanks
This is my first time I've watched one of your videos, it is valuable work man! Keep up the good job.
Thanks awfully.
Interesting. I started making instagram reels where I talk about addiction and as a result of explaining complex (to me) ideas I have become very aware of metaphors. How often I think in them and how often I use them to explain things. This video is going much deeper! I’m going to check this book out.
Wonderful! I loved this video
im so happy my teacher showed me this
Great videos man gotta send some money for more. Keep it up ! Great thinkers.
Awesome analysis, thank you for your work.
absolute lifesaver
The analytical framework I used in my doctoral thesis was influenced by Lakoff and Johnson’s work on contemporary theory of metaphors.
🎶row row row your boat, gently down the stream,merrily, merrily merrily, life is but a dream.”
Happy rowing!
Your videos are “bomb.” Hehehehe
Take my updoot and leave
Do a video on Schopenhauer!
Very well done 👍. Just helped sealed the deal in buying the book. Hey look, I used a metaphor. I sealed it up, it's not going anywhere lol.
I am encouraged to see an effort to take MWLB seriously. When I had to read this in a philosophy of language class it changed my life. I was then allowed to take a full semester of independent study on metaphor. One criticism might be a failure to convey just how different this is to accepted theory.
what's the accepted theory?
beautiful
“The essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another”
thank you
I'm be referencing this video alot in the future
Thanks
What if we learned to embrace depression, instead of fighting it?
😂😂hurrayyy depression, jeyyyy
Yes, the fighting IS the depression.
thank you for this video! I have a bumpy relationship with conceptual metaphor. In my university days I got in love with it. I wanted to write my thesis within the framework presented in "Moral Politics" by Lakoff. I found it extremely frustrating because I couldn't apply the binary model (liberals v. conservative) to the situation in Polish politics. It became so frustrating that I dropped the idea of writing the paper.
What do you think about the models of Strict Father and Nurturant Parent presented in "Moral Politics". Do you find it a valid description of political arena or is this concept flawed at some point?
BTW are you familiar with Mouffe and Laclau? I think they are presenting a reasonable perspective on politics. It's not as immersed in linguistics as Lakoff, but it takes a lot from (post)structuralism.
I believe there is a 3rd axis of people who abandon morals/families altogether. Anarchist, nihilist, etcetera. At least some of them
@@HxH2011DRA as far as I remember, what Lakoff states in "Moral Politics" is that all kinds of various leftists (so I imply also anarchists) are just a more radical version of liberals, therefore they are assigned to the nurturant parent model. Personally, I find such an opinion to be entirely inaccurate, perhaps resulting from the bipartisan nature of American political system.
If you used the word anarchist not in the meaning "libertarian socialist" but "a person claiming to abandon all rules", I beg to disagree. If I understand Lakoff's family models correctly, it's not about your declarative values but about creating two categories derived from linguistic data.
That's why I find the Mouffian approach to be more thorough. Instead of creating some arbitrary categories, it investigates different points and lines of tension and equivalences between various collective identities.
If I'm misinterpreted the Lakoffian model at some point I would be thankful for pointing it out.
@@pasibrzuch212 sounds about right
No way! I just decided to to my thesis on this subject! I hope it will be a bit less frustrating for me as I will be analyzing it's application to the US binary model it was built on.. I would be interested to hear if you find the family metaphors within the Polish language.
It seems there is a lack of actual experimental data to support the Strict Father and Nurturant Parent models as a basis for conservatism vs liberalism. While his ideas make intuitive sense, the 'linguistic evidence' he poses in "Moral Politics" and "Your Brain's Politics" is questionable. Let me know if you have any more thoughts!
@@laurabarta2465 Presumably, the data would be found in examples of actual political discourse. To do any of this, one needs to be skilled at detecting the underlying, structuring metaphors as they often reveal the logics at work.
I've been reading Nietzsche and Derrida on metaphor lately and have been wondering about this book. Is it more or less Nietzsche's take but from a cog brain science perspective? Are their metaphorical categories deduced a priori? Or they are also figurative based on sensory input/memory?
Metaphors are also founded in hypnotic language patterns used by Ericksonian hypnotherapists.
What is the name of the piano piece at the end of the video?
"tempo é o tecido das nossas vidas"
It's gonna be Rene Gir-hard...but you can take it...like the Dark Knight---we may not be effectively aware of what we want, YET we instinctively perceive...what IT IS that we NEED...
That being YOU...
thanks...truly...
Your videos are like a box of chocolates you never know what you are gonna get.
Then...you were...& Now...you are...
A man among men...Pilgrim in an unholy land...
I can't believe he is about to produce a mini-dissertation on Rene Girard... I have been not so secretly clamoring for this...for years...for almost a decade...on various channels...
Time is money
great video as always!! It reminds me of Nietzsche's exploration of scientific concepts as metaphors where perceptual stimuli get copied as images, which are then reified as words, and then accepted as given concepts. What amazes me the most is how both approaches elucidate the possibility of a radical transformation of quotidian ideas. It's kinda
ｐｏｓｔｍｏｄｅｒｎ
I've been waiting for this since I read this book of jokes when I was say 5 or 6 so 1973/74 so....he asks "what's a Metaphor" the answer "To keep cows in!"...get it Metaphor...Meadow for...what's a medda for? Sigh....
Fascinating with great examples, but this doesn't help me understand how our society's inoculation with metaphors actually changes how our brain works. . .anymore than any other habit. For instance, introduced to new foods, we are at first unsure about them (we may have information about the food, but no metaphors yet). They may in time become part of our "food vernacular", after which a dissemination of the foods "qualities" throughout the population may lead to popularity and eventually the development of a whole set of symbols, signs, etc that revolve around the food.. But like our use of metaphors, this doesn't really explain the way our brain's functioning changes in respect to the adoption of a new food; our brain (and the brains of societal members) just go ahead and attach meanings and "tastes" onto new foods like always. . .Is it really just Habit more than anything?
actually war is just an argument
With the examples so far; argument/war, time/money it seems a bit of a stretch to consider the metaphor as a defining construct. It seems more that we use the same verbs to describe things with similar attributes, that doesn't make one a metaphor for the other though.
Argument and war are both adversarial engagements, it's not that the metaphor of war makes argument adversarial. A non-adversarial argument is called a conversation.
Similarly time and money are finite personal resources, spending them in one place precludes using them in some other way. It isn't an illusion created by overlaying the qualities of one onto the other. And 'time is money' isn't a meant as a metaphor, it's shorthand for an idea in the business world- that wasting time translates directly into losing money in a purely practical sense. It's identifying them as parallel processes with a causal connection, not using one to illustrate the qualities of the other.
Maybe it's just the summary, but the ideas here seem like they've been manhandled to fit in with the basic theory, working hard to ignore obvious alternative explanations. And when it got to the labour/time bit I was a bit 'oh, OK that's what they wanted to do' but I'm not sure whether I'm just being cynical, seeing commies hiding under every social constructivist bed, to use a metaphor.
Maybe start by getting a clearer sense of what they argue about metaphor and sensorimotor experience (ch 4 & 5 of PitF is good), and when you've got a firm grasp on that, then maybe have another look at their argument because your response suggests to me that you've not understood their argument, with respect. They also address what you say about argument in MWLB when they deal with the distinction between Metaphorical Structuring and Subcategorization.
@@dammysavis669 so this video isn't actually a summary of their argument then?
@@stevem815 I'm not sure why you'd make that inference. Implying that you might get a better understanding by consulting the primary sources does not suggest that "this video isn't actually a summary of their argument" and I'm a bit surprised that you responded with such an uncharitable fallacy. It's a good summary but your response suggests you've misunderstood it. I'm sorry if that's a personal affront to you - my response only intended to alert you to your misconception and to suggest how you can rectify it, and I've got nothing further to add.
@@dammysavis669 So you're saying I've misunderstood ideas that are contained in the video? I'm not taking it as an affront. I'm asking about the video, whether the thing I'm supposed to have understood is actually there or not.
Interesting but obvious...
first
Can we please just all agree to stop revolutionizing the way we see language. I cant take this shit anymore
Obviously Lakoff is right as the entire rationalist tradition has repeatedly assumed and Heidegger better articulated. But, there is a limit to how we can change metaphors, they have to elucidate common experience. There is a reason people poll disliking "PC culture" in the US at 90%+... they know the artificial metaphors they are given go against their experience.
bah, thats just Cultural Marxism.
@@nelsonphillips No, it isn't if it has existed from before Marxism. Also, the fact that this is the case doesn't necessitate any particular political regime.
@@Hegeleze I was using it as an artificial metaphor....... another example of my excellent humor....
But to what extent is that experience shaped by the metaphors people have grown up with and have used for years? If you've grown up with the idea that humans fall into one of two categories, man or woman, it's hard to accept more categories. That doesn't mean it's intrinsically human to reject more than two gender designations. There's plenty of examples of cultures where they don't have a binary gender 'system' (I don't know the proper terminology), there's nothing artificial about that.
@@Enzaio All experience is shaped by language and therefore metaphor, but this doesn't remove experience. It seems obvious that both interact, but to what extent? I am sure it matters as to the personality of the person, their abilities, their education, etc. If you want to start arguing for another system, you need to always take account of evolution and why the given paradigms were passed down as conducive to continuation of the species.
By the way, the argument about there being other cultures who have different systems, this is irrelevant. Other cultures practice infanticide, kill homosexuals, stone adulterers... your argument only works if you assume it as true in the beginning (i.e., it is circular).
What an awful journey described with metaphors on love :)