criticism of objectivist view

"On the standard objectivist view, we can understand (and hence define) an object entirely in terms of a set of its inherent properties. But, as we have just seen, at least some of the properties that characterize our concept of an object are interactional. In addition, the properties do not merely form a set but rather a structured gestalt, with dimensions that emerge naturally from our experience." (#60 2125)

"Briefly, an objectivist would say that objects have the properties they have independently of anyone who experiences them; the objects are objectively similar if they share those properties. To an objectivist it would make no sense to speak of metaphors as "creating similarities," since that would require metaphors to be able to change the nature of the external world, bringing into existence objective similarities that did not previously exist." (#60 2672)

"We agree with objectivists on one major point: that things in the world do play a role in constraining our conceptual system. But they play this role only through our experience of them. Our experiences will (1) differ from culture to culture and (2) may depend on our understanding one kind of experience in terms of another, that is, our experiences may be metaphorical in nature. Such experiences determine the categories of our conceptual system. And properties and similarities, we maintain, exist and can be experienced only relative to a conceptual system. Thus, the only kind of similarities relevant to metaphors are experiential, not objective, similarities." (#60 2675)

"Plato, typical of persuasive writers, stated his view that truth is absolute and art mere illusion by the use of a powerful rhetorical device, his Allegory of the Cave." (#60 3225)

"Aristotle, on the other hand, saw poetry as having a positive value: "It is a great thing, indeed, to make proper use of the poetic forms,... But the greatest thing by far is to be a master of metaphor" (Poetics 1459a); "ordinary words convey only what we know already ; it is from metaphor that we can best get hold of something fresh" (Rhetoric 1410b)." (#60 3227)

"There is an excellent reason for people to try to view a life situation in terms of an objectivist model, that is, in terms of a consistent set of metaphors. The reason is, simply, that if we can do this, we can draw inferences about the situation that will not conflict with one another. That is, we will be able to infer nonconflicting expectations and suggestions for behavior. And it is comforting—extremely comforting—to have a consistent view of the world, a clear set of expectations and no conflicts about what you should do. Objectivist models have a real appeal—and for the most human of reasons." (#60 3717)

"One obvious utility for the study of formal objectivist models in the human sciences is that they can allow us to understand, in part, the ability to reason and function in terms of a consistent set of metaphors." (#60 3729)

"The study of the building-block structure, the inherent properties of the parts, and the relationships among them has traditionally been called grammar." (#60 3453)

"This tradition is epitomized by the linguistics of Noam Chomsky, who has steadfastly maintained that grammar is a matter of pure form, independent of meaning or human understanding. Any aspect of language that involves human understanding is for Chomsky by definition outside the study of grammar in this sense." (#60 3465)

"the abstraction view claims that there is a single, very general, and abstract concept buttress, which is neutral between the building "buttress" and the argument "buttress." According to this view, "He buttressed the wall" and "He buttressed his argument" are both special cases of the same very abstract concept." (#60 1894)

"the abstraction theory would not distinguish between metaphors of the form A is Β and those of the form Β is A, since it would claim that there are neutral terms covering both domains." (#60 1914)

"Categories are open-ended. Metaphorical definitions can give us a handle on things and experiences we have already categorized, or they may lead to a recategorization. For example, viewing LOVE as WAR may make sense of certain experiences that you took as LOVE experiences of some kind or other but that you could not fit together in any meaningful way. The LOVE IS WAR metaphor may also lead you to categorize certain experiences as LOVE experiences that you had previously not viewed as such. Hedges also reveal the open-ended nature of our categories; that is, an object may often be seen as being in a category or not, depending on our purposes in classifying it. Though categories are open-ended, categorization is not random, since both metaphors and hedges define (or redefine) categories in systematic ways." (#60 2166)

"In addition to sentences that have no meaning without context, there are cases where a single sentence will mean different things to different people." (#60 263)