Five Dogmas of Analytical Philosophy [Breached in Studies of Metaphor]

C. Peter Hertogh

In the introduction, 'Metaphor and the ''Dogmas'' of Analytical Philosophy', some methodological presuppositions of study of metaphor are brought up for discussion: the 'dogma' of                    [a] synchronicity, of [b] literal, descriptive meaning, of [c] cognitive meaning, of [d] context independent meaning, and of [e] language as picture of reality. The dogma of cognitive meaning is not tenable with conception of metaphor as imagery; Quine and Davidson exclude the study of metaphorical effect--that is not reducible to a specific cognitive content--from their scrutiny. Lakoff and Johnson break with the dogma of cognitive meaning but also abandon the 'objectivistic' approach of language and meaning. Analysis of metaphor requires an expansion of the notion of meaning as description (conventional meaning as the operational definition of the extension), as well as another conception of the (conventional) picture theory of language.

As sequel to informal literature studies of metaphor (see e.g. (Abstract) Metaphor, Identification,
Analysis, and Interpretation of Metaphorical Indicative Sentences of Subject-Predicate Form), we
would like to introduce two formal methodologies to study of metaphor.
First, semantic analysis of metaphor themes with help of metaphor operator M, e.g., next metaphor theme of metaphorical field 'X is a fox', resorting under cultural concept 'humans are animals' M (Alex is a fox) (context), which operator will vanish when 'system of commonplaces' (Max Black 1954/62, 1977/79), SC, of both subject and predicate are explicitated (e.g. enumerated with help of a comprehensive dictionary), and common commonplaces are selected as the literal meaning of the metaphorically used predicate, possibly narrowed by context
      x (SCAlex = SCfox) → Alex is x (context)
     M (Alex is a fox) = Alex is a clever, crafty person (context)
     (Thanks to Merriam Websters Online)
when it is about a context regarding intellectual skills, e.g., resolving mathematical exercises when doing business
     M (Alex is a fox): Alex is clever

Second, metaphor diagram surveys featuring metaphor diagram questionnaire, a two-dimensional perpendicular graph, informal coordinate system, including a vertical line, to which a set of metaphor themes are listed as discrete coordinates, and a horizontal assessment line of plausibility values (e.g. Nicholas Rescher 1976) as between 0 and 1; the diagram relates particular metaphor themes to plausibility values (P) on a many-valued plausibility scale. The survey may be used, e.g., in lecture halls to assess comprehension of study materials, or among online and in-person participatory and non-participatory audiences of workshops, seminars, conferences etc. It reduces evaluation of a metaphor theme to a statistical mean, relative to a set of metaphor themes as shown on the vertical line, within a particular academic community, at a particular place and time. E.g. P(Alex is a fox) = 0.8.
Finally, a note on applications and limitations of formal and quantitative methodologies in
philosophy and science. We may recommend philosophers not to eschew formal and quantitative
methods, formulas, graphs, charts, diagrams etc. (e.g. aforementioned logical analysis with help of metaphor operator, and community surveys with help of metaphor diagram). We may recommend scientists to be careful in presenting quantitative results, graphs etc., and to add an explanatory methodological section to their presentations (e.g. on n sample size, number of respondents of survey; N population size n is supposed to represent; MOE margin of error; details of data analysis, survey methodology etc.).
We may provisionally conclude with a Kantian two-liner
     quantitative data without qualitative explanations are blind
     qualitative explanations without quantitative data are empty
     (see ... 2015 and 2022)