Metaphors, the equations of the mind

In his book Critique of Pure Reason the German philosopher Immanuel Kant tried to seek the limits of pure reasoning. What can you hope to achieve using pure words, or in other words, what is the scope of ordinary language philosophy? Back then it was a terribly serious adventure and in some places it still is, in Oxford for instance or at other places where science is taken seriously [1].

If we use mathematics in science it is clear what we hope to find: a mathematical theory which describes nature accurately in a precise and reproducible way. We use mathematical proofs and logical reasoning and hope to find a new equation that explains everything, like the Schrödinger equation in Quantum Theory or the Maxwell equations in classical physics.

If we use mere words it is more difficult. We could invent a new word to describe an object, like a word for this green Gecko, but all possible animals and objects in the physical world already have a name and a new name would be idiosyncratic as long as only the person who has invented it is using it.

Or we could use words to describe relationships between objects: which objects are similar or related, and which are not. Similar objects are put into the same class, different objects in different classes, until we get a hierarchy of related classes. In other words you could invent a new classification or new taxonomy, like the names for species in biology.

The best thing you can achieve using ordinary language philosophy is to find a new metaphor that explains everything. Well known examples are the ghost in the shell (Ryle), the selfish gene (Dawkins), natural selection (Darwin), etc. Why is this the best we can hope to achieve? Lakoff & Johnson have argued convincingly [2] that a metaphor is not just a figure of speech used in literature, but a fundamental way how we understand abstract things. Any coherent theory to explain the world based on pure text has to use metaphors because only they enable people to use what they know about the physical world to understand more abstract objects and complex things.

Take for example natural selection which is the cornerstone of the theory of evolution. It is a metaphor from Charles Darwin: like the breeder who selects the best suited individuals, nature selects the best fitted species. The selfish gene is a similar metaphor from Richard Dawkins and the title of the book that explains it [3]. Dawkins argued genes act like selfish individuals who only use the bodies they have created to lever themselves into the next generations. They both have been extremely successful, partially because the metaphors they have found are so powerful. Nicholas S. Thompson and David Sloan Wilson used the natural selection metaphor from Darwin and shifted it to the group level [4][5]. They all relied on metaphors.

Many religious terms are metaphors too, for example Bread of Life or Tree of Life, to name just a few. Thus the priest who explains the metaphors from his ideology to his followers and the professor who explains the metaphors from his theory to his students are similar. As long as the academic theory is based on text, not mathematical calculations and equations, they both merely explain metaphors to their audience. The difference between priest and professor is of course that the priest like the teacher is no longer looking for new laws, because all important laws have already been revealed, while research professors and prophets are constantly looking for new laws, theories and metaphors to explain the world even better.

Are metaphors the equations of the mind? If intentionality is the mark of the vital [6], then one could say metaphors are the mark of understanding. They are the holy grail of ordinary language philosophy and mark the boundary of what we can hope to understand using pure words.

[1] A terribly serious adventure, Nikhil Krishnan, Profile Books Ltd, 2023

[2] Metaphors We Live By, George Lakoff and Mark Johnson

[3] The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins

[4] Darwin’s Cathedral, David Sloan Wilson

[5] Shifting the Natural Selection Metaphor to the Group Level, Nicholas S. Thompson

[6] Intentionality is the mark of the vital, Nicholas S. Thompson and Patrick G. Derr, In F. Tonneau & N. S. Thompson (Eds.), Perspectives in ethology, Vol. 13. Evolution, culture, and behavior (pp. 213–229). Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Unsplash photo of the Gecko from Rapha Wilde