The Role of Metaphor in the Process of Knowledge

Drd. Ahmed Mihaela Meral

Summary:
A few considerations upon the concept of metaphor
The Passing from theories of meaning non-centred on the cognitive aspect of
metaphor to theories which accept this aspect
Metaphor, scientific knowledge and literary creation
Bibliography
A few considerations upon the concept of metaphor

The aesthetical dimension of metaphor is the first obvious aspect when we

consider the metaphor, but indifferent the role of metaphor as a style figure its cognitive
dimension can’t be missed. Obviously, in literature this dimension (the cognitive
dimension) is not a theoretical issue, in literature the metaphor is used mainly because the
emotional force that it engages. If the metaphor was staring with the modern period the
preoccupation almost exclusive of literature and theology, today the study of metaphor is
the object of some disciplines like the philosophy of language, the philosophy of science
or the cognitive sciences. As a result metaphor is no longer considered a value due to the
rhetorical effects produced (the way it was before modern times), although this
perspective upon metaphor has an advantage unlike the literary perspective, this
advantage is represented by the theoretical achievement that metaphor is no longer
considerate a non systematically phenomenon or a simple effect of literary language. Eva
F. Kittay considerate that:
“While earlier debates concerned metaphor’s cognitive value, current debates
accept its cognitive function and ask if this function is properly assigned to metaphoric
meaning and whether it is a distinctive form of cognition not reducible to other forms such
as the capacity to recognize similarity and make comparisons.”1

The irreducibility of metaphor of its most easy to notice elements reveals its
cognitive value.
I don’t know if there is a clear and noncircular definition of metaphor (or
only one definition of metaphor). We can only know that the metaphor is connected with
the figurate meaning, so it is some how opposed to the literal meaning. But this
distinction is itself problematical because we don’t have clear rules which can help us to
make the right distinctions between the literal meaning and the figurate meaning, these
distinctions are in a strong dependence with a pragmatic of language, of its usage, more
than of semantics of language, of its significations.
1
Kittay, F. E.; Metaphor în Encyclopedia of Philosophy; Second Edition
Donald M. Borchert, Editor in Chief; Macmillan, USA, 2006, page 166
 Gabriel Sandu and Jaakko Hintikka are taking in consideration some
meaning lines; this concept is implicated in a modal logic. Due to this concept the
structure of metaphor can be explained.

The Passing from theories of meaning non-centred on the cognitive aspect of

metaphor to theories which accept this aspect

Many theoreticians sustain this perspective upon metaphor, upon them I will
take into consideration only Lucian Blaga and Roland Barthes. The literary theory
generally takes into consideration metaphor only due to style aspects, as a style figure.
Lucian Blaga considers any cultural creation as being determined by style
and metaphor. Lucian Blaga sustains that the revelatory metaphors which came from the
human way of existence, putting accent on what was developed later by aestheticians as
autonomic literary universe specific for human kind. At Lucian Blaga the existence of
revealing metaphor is determined by the existence of the horizon of mystery and of
revelation. Blaga makes a clear distinction between the plasticizing and the revealing
metaphors, this distinction shows the possibility open to a cognitive value of revealing
metaphor.
Roland Barthes sustains the fact that metaphor has a central role in text, but
even so science doesn’t use metaphors. This way is instituted a separation between
scientific and literary, religious or philosophical text; obviously we don’t have this
distinction from Roland Barthes, I only want to underline that he shows why the text
without scientifically, moral, religious or political elements can’t be reduced at a discurs
which implies those elements, he shows in what consists the value of such a text. A text
that doesn’t contains an of the elements enumerated above remains a valuable one and its
value contains in what Roland Barthes names the pleasure of text., and here metaphor
receives an aesthetical autonomy due to the aesthetical value that is implied.
Roland Barthes uses the kantian distinction between value judgements and
logical judgements presented in the third kantian critique.
 These points of view on metaphor although opposed can be sustained on my
opinion equally pertinent (even if, obviously, this is not the problem here in this text, still
Blaga and Barthes came from the domain of philosophy of culture, their theoretical
purposes are different and here is not the appropriate place for a comparison), these
obvious differences show that metaphor is a concept that can be the source of interest for
so different theoreticians for the diversity achieved.

Metaphor, scientific knowledge and literary creation

The limit of advantages brought for knowledge by metaphor is that it not

only comes from certain domains where is used frequently (as art or religion) but from
which it can’t be taken off completely, even when it is used in a scientific work, from
aesthetical approaches. In this way comes the question how open is art at such a point of
view, the disciplines where in this moment we can only talk about some approach from
philosophy of culture, more precisely aesthetics. Are these domains susceptible for a
scientific approach? In the question above I start, obviously, from the premise that
aesthetics is not a science (because this is not a point of view unanimous accepted this
specification must be made).
As we noticed at Blaga metaphor passes from literary creation to science
and at Barthes metaphor maintains strongly in literary creation domain. Nevertheless
these theories don’t explain elements as the structure or the genesis of metaphor, that’s
why for an approach that uses the tools of logics, like the work of Gabriel Sandu and
Jaakko Hintikka (see bibliography), these approaches don’t say too much.

Bibliography:
• Barthes, Roland; Plăcerea textului; Editura Cartier, Chişinău, 2006
• Blaga, L; Trilogia culturii (Geneza metaforei şi sensul culturii);
Editura Minerva; Bucureşti, 1985
• Dicţionar de termini ai filosofiei româneşti. Secolul XX; Colţescu, V
şi Grecu C (coordonatori); Editura Universităţii de Vest; Timişoara; 2004
• Encyclopedia of Philosophy; Second Edition, Donald M. Borchert,
Editor in Chief; Macmillan, USA, 2006
• Hintikka, J and Sandu, G; Metaphor and Other Kind of Nonliteral
Meaning; In Aspects of Metaphor, edited by J.Hintikka.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1994