Critical thinking response to excerpts from "Metaphors We Live By" by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson.
Area 1 - *Identifies and summarizes the problem/question at issue (and/or the source's position).*
This reading explained the parallels between different thoughts/actions that are generally found in our subconscious. These parallels, or metaphors, help us to process and understand situations quickly and efficiently in fast-paced situations.
Just the same as in a sports coach might use a metaphor to more quickly relay an idea, using metaphors are explained to be used to encourage fast paced learning within ourselves in many situations. This concept pushes past the barrier of language. This reading explained that our reactions are the same for in certain situations that may otherwise be unrelated, reaching into all aspects of our lives.
Just the same as in a sports coach might use a metaphor to more quickly relay an idea, using metaphors are explained to be used to encourage fast paced learning within ourselves in many situations. This concept pushes past the barrier of language. This reading explained that our reactions are the same for in certain situations that may otherwise be unrelated, reaching into all aspects of our lives.
Area 2 - *Identifies and presents the student's own hypothesis, perspective, and position as it is important to the analysis of the issue.*
What is a metaphor? Webster's Dictionary defines a metaphor as a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them. If we followed that definition directly it would be literally impossible to stray into the idea of metaphors reaching beyond language. This means that our reading is pushing to redefine the meaning of a metaphor.
Recognizing that has helped me step back a bit, knowing that an argument on this scale is not something I will be taking on all at once. Instead of arguing over a definition, I'd like to address one specific idea.
I agree with the writer's stance regarding our thoughts moulding our actions and realities. This reminded me of a Ted Talk posted in 2017 called How language shapes the way we think, by Lera Boroditsky. Recognizing how our languages affect the way we think is very important, which aligns with what the author was expressing. The difference between what the author meant and how I see these thought processes is the origin.
In the example between arguments and war, this reading really pushes the idea that war precedes thought, which precedes argument. However, I don't feel like this is accurate. Why would war precede thought? Why does war inherently come before argument? On page 5 of the reading, it is explained that arguments are not a subset of war. Pushing off of that point, I think that instead of using a war-like metaphor in traversing arguments, we have a specific reaction/thought process that precedes both war and arguments. One is not a metaphor for another, but two individual concepts with enough overlap that they give similar reactions.
Recognizing that has helped me step back a bit, knowing that an argument on this scale is not something I will be taking on all at once. Instead of arguing over a definition, I'd like to address one specific idea.
I agree with the writer's stance regarding our thoughts moulding our actions and realities. This reminded me of a Ted Talk posted in 2017 called How language shapes the way we think, by Lera Boroditsky. Recognizing how our languages affect the way we think is very important, which aligns with what the author was expressing. The difference between what the author meant and how I see these thought processes is the origin.
In the example between arguments and war, this reading really pushes the idea that war precedes thought, which precedes argument. However, I don't feel like this is accurate. Why would war precede thought? Why does war inherently come before argument? On page 5 of the reading, it is explained that arguments are not a subset of war. Pushing off of that point, I think that instead of using a war-like metaphor in traversing arguments, we have a specific reaction/thought process that precedes both war and arguments. One is not a metaphor for another, but two individual concepts with enough overlap that they give similar reactions.
Comments
Post a Comment