An example might be; I might use an example of a primitive tribe sitting around a campfire and telling stories to illustrate a point about how modern man socializes.
Or use an example of a wolf pack for instance to suggest a possible affect on mens testosterone based on the level of dominance or submission in their daily lives.
I have always considered this as using metaphors but I was told this morning that they are simply examples of things and not related to metaphors. It probably doesn’t really matter but I want to know if I am using the word properly.
It’s hard to tell based on how you’re describing what you said, but my guess is that you are not using “metaphors” correctly.
“Men are like a wolf pack” could be a simile or the set up to an illustrative example.
“Men are a wolf pack” is a metaphor, as would be referring to a group of men simply as “a wolf pack.”
Pretty much. Similes are things like “tight as a drum”, “sly as a fox”, etc.
Metaphors are used to couch things in other-than-actual terms, usually to disguise what one is really saying. “The pack of wolves in Washington, led by their rabid leader, has once again fed on the carrion of the sheep.” You’re left to insert your own names or groups.
Pack of wolves - agressive group of people using their numbers to exert power
Washington - metaphor for government. Washington happens to be where the federal government is located, but it’s a metaphor because it’s being used to signify the government, not just some random other group in Washington, DC or people in Washington state or one of the many municipalities called “Washington.”
Rabid - agressive to the point of irrationality
Fed on - taken advantage of
Carrion - resources
Sheep - easily manipulated people
The meta-metaphor of wolves feasting on their kill to describe the unequivocal triumph of the power group.
There is school of thought that views all language as essentially metaphor, such that when Chefguy says, “Metaphors are used to couch things in other-than-actual terms,” his use of the word couch is just as much metaphor as those other terms he used deliberately to be metaphors.
Oh cool, I wasn’t aware of that distinction. Thanks.
The OP’s example may or may not apply. It depends how the comparison is made.
Example:
“Similarities in human social behavior across eras and cultures suggest that certain psychological needs are a result of nature, not nurture. Are co-workers chatting around the water cooler really so different than primitive humans trading stories around a campfire? In both cases, people are gathered around a source of sustenance while strengthening and reinforcing their relationships with each other.”
I don’t think the campfire cavemen constitute a metaphor there.
(I also don’t stand my my above statement about nature vs. nurture. I was just trying to think of a good example.)
The example is bullshit as far as I can analyze it. At the campfire, who killed the meat that they need heat to cook? How many people do jobs that are in between the killers of the meat and the eaters of them meat? At the water cooler, I think it is pretty obvious that no one drinking that water had anything to do with making it safe to drink or transporting it to its present location. There are layers and layers of middlemen when it comes to them having that water. It is not like the folks at the fire paid a bunch of taxes to pay a bunch of layers of people that they do not know to get the meat on the fire.
I see what you mean… It isn’t exactly a metaphor, because it’s making a comparison as a comparison.
To phrase it another way, “I was at my job at Xerox Corporation the other day, and, during the lunch-break, I and the other cavemen around the campfire got to wondering about the wage-price index.” That, I think, is definitely a metaphor.
So, yeah, much depends on construction.
And, yeah, Vaevictis’ post didn’t make a damn lick of sense.
I have had a long standing habit of looking for simple examples when having a hard time conveying a thought. Usually these examples would be from something in nature. In my own mind I have always thought that was speaking metaphorically. I recently used that term when describing a writing style to someone.
If metaphor is not the right word is their a word that would describe the use of examples to make points?
There’s a distinction between a metaphor and an example. A group of cavemen telling stories around a fire isn’t a metaphor for human social interaction; it’s a literal example of it.
A metaphor is when you equate something to another thing which is literally different in order to point out some characteristic which they both share but which is more readily apparent in the second thing.
If I say “When it comes to women, John’s a pig” I’m not saying John is literally a pig. He’s a human being. I’m making the point that he shares characteristic which we commonly ascribe to pigs.
But if I say “When it comes to women, John’s a typical guy” I’m not using a metaphor. John literally is what I’m saying he is.
Agreed. I tried to give examples – “The riot was a giant amoeba in the city’s heart” – that weren’t just examples, but partook of the abstraction, one might almost say the poetry, of metaphor.
Thus, my example of a bunch of modern office-cubicle workers in Dilbertland (a metaphor right there) as cave-men sitting around the campfire, discussing wage-price structures: that certainly is a metaphor.
Query: does this mean a metaphor must, by necessity, be “false?” A riot is not an amoeba; my co-workers are not cave-men. (Most of 'em, anyway.)
We use metaphor so that one mind can feel another, not just understand another.
The literal term of the metaphor is what I want you to feel, on a gut level. But I’m not sure you can do that; at least, I’m not sure you can feel it the same way that I feel it.
So I use a…what would be the best way to put it?..comparative example that I believe you would be more likely to feel/respond to. That is the figurative term of the metaphor.
So it’s as if I’m saying: “O.K. You got that? Well, that’s how I feel about this.”
Metaphor is transcommunication, in the sense that it attempts to transcend the symbolic limitations of ordinary language. Words are the most inconvenient form of communication that I can think of, offhand.
Except for all the others? Seriously, what’s better? Pictures are nice, but the bandwidth is less. Maps are lovely, but a proper map carries a lot of extra information, data you don’t actually need. (I don’t need to know all the streets in the neighborhood; I just need to know which streets to take to get to the grocery store.)
Yes, some concrete forms of communication are more concise. Hitting someone really hard in the face conveys a very succinct message. But without words, your messages are going to be limited to that level of simplicity.
Try explaining the History of the Reformation using a medium other than words.