Metaphors: A Beautiful Nuisance

I definitely understood most and agreed with “Metaphors We Live By” by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. Lakoff and Johnson define a metaphor as a “device of the poetic imagination and the rhetorical flourish - - a matter of extraordinary rather than ordinary language.” They claim that metaphors don’t only simply make our language more brilliant and stimulating, but they also shape the way we think and understand terms, concepts, even life.

This article is definitely in conflict with John Locke’s “An Essay on Human Understanding.” Locke claimed that while, yes, metaphors make language more beautiful and poetic and attention-grabbing, it simply complicates language; no one can ever truly know exactly what you are talking about, and it only complicates future uses of that word.

While I agree with both articles, I definitely favor Lakoff and Johnson. Yes, metaphors can make language confusing. But without language, metaphors would be boring. And if anything, the confusion from metaphors in language will simply spark up good conversation. Did Locke envision a world without creative writing or poetry? Did he simply prefer only statistical, factual writing? In my opinion, rhetorical writing and debate would not be as effective without metaphors. Metaphors definitely persuade.


Works Cited
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Excerpts from Metaphors We Live By (1980). The Literary Link. Janice E. Patten. 2010. San Jose State University. Web. http://theliterarylink.com/metaphors.html.