Aristotle and the Question of Metaphor
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Aristotle and the Question of Metaphor Matthew Stephen Wood Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctorate in Philosophy in Philosophy Department of Philosophy Faculty of Arts University of Ottawa © Matthew Stephen Wood, Ottawa, Canada, 2015 Abstract This doctoral dissertation aims to give a comprehensive and contextual account of Aristotle’s theory of metaphor. The dissertation is organized around the central claim that Aristotle’s definition of metaphor in Chapter 22 of the Poetics, as well as his discussion of it in Book III of the Rhetoric, commit him to what I call a vertical theory of metaphor, rather than to a horizontal one. Horizontal theories of metaphor assert that ‘metaphor’ is a word that has been transferred from a literal to a figurative sense; vertical theories of metaphor, on the other hand, assert that ‘metaphor’ is the transference of a word from one thing to another thing. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, the dissertation itself has five chapters. The first chapter sketches out the historical context within which the vertical character of Aristotle’s theory of metaphor becomes meaningful, both by (a) giving a rough outline of Plato’s critical appraisal of rhetoric and poetry in the Gorgias, Phaedrus, Ion, and Republic, and then (b) showing how Aristotle’s own Rhetoric and Poetics should be read as a faithful attempt to reform both activities in accordance with the criteria laid down by Plato in these dialogues. The second and third chapters elaborate the main thesis and show how Aristotle’s texts support it, by painstakingly reconstructing the relevant passages of the Poetics, Rhetoric, On Interpretation, Categories and On Sophistical Refutations, and resolving a number of interpretive disputes that these passages raise in the secondary literature. Finally, the fourth and fifth chapters together pursue the philosophical implications of the thesis that I elaborate in the first three, and resolve some perceived contradictions between Aristotle’s theory of metaphor in the Poetics and Rhetoric, his prohibition against the use of metaphors in the Posterior Analytics, and his own use of similes and analogical comparisons in the dialectical discussions found in the former text, the De Anima and the later stages of his argument in the Metaphysics. In many ways, the most philosophically noteworthy insight uncovered by my dissertation is the basic consideration that, for Aristotle, all metaphors involve a statement of similarity between two or more things – specifically, they involve a statement of what I call secondary resemblance, which inheres to different degrees of imperfection among things that are presumed to be substantially different, as opposed to the primary and perfect similarities that inhere among things of the same kind. The major, hitherto unnoticed consequence I draw from this insight is that it is ultimately the philosopher, as the one who best knows these secondary similarities, who is implicitly singled out in Aristotle’s treatises on rhetoric and poetry as being both the ideal poet and the ideal orator, at least to the extent that Aristotle holds the use of metaphor to be a necessary condition for the mastery of both pursuits. This further underscores what I argue in the first chapter is the inherently philosophical character of the Poetics and the Rhetoric, and shows the extent to which they demand to be read in connection with, rather than in isolation from, the more ‘central’ themes of Aristotle’s philosophical system. ii Table of Contents Abstract ii Acknowledgements v 1. Introduction: Aristotle and the Question of Metaphor 1.1 General Introduction 1 1.2 Metaphor as a Contemporary Philosophical Question: Interaction or Similarity? 4 1.3 Metaphor as an Aristotelian Question: The Status of Rhetoric and Poetry 19 2. Chapter 1: Aristotle’s Theories of Rhetoric and Poetry as Responses to Plato 2.1 Introduction 36 2.2 Plato’s Criticism of Rhetoric as an Art: Gorgias and Phaedrus 40 2.3 Plato’s Criticism of Poetry as an Art: Ion and Republic 51 2.4 Aristotle’s Rhetoric as a Response to Plato 63 2.5 Aristotle’s Poetics as a Response to Plato 77 2.6 Conclusion 100 3. Chapter 2: Aristotle’s Definition of Metaphor and its Philosophical Implications 3.1 Introduction 104 3.2 Aristotle’s Definition of Metaphor, and his Theories of Signification and Style 107 3.3 Metaphor as the Most Important Element of Poetic and Rhetorical Style 120 3.4 Metaphor, Simile, and the Perception of Similarities 141 3.5 Review of Some Recent Literature: Aristotle and the Cognitive View 158 3.6 Conclusion 176 4. Chapter 3: Metaphor, pro_ o)mma/twn and e0ne/rgeia 4.1 Introduction 178 4.2 Textual Issues: ki/nhsij or mi/mhsij? 183 4.3 ki/nhsij, e0ne/rgeia, and the Difference Between Them 185 4.4 Animating Representation, prosopopoii5a, and Personification 199 4.5 Aristotle’s Examples of pro\ o0mma/twn and e0ne/rgeia in Rhetoric III.10-11 211 4.6 Conclusion 234 5. Chapter 4: Metaphor and Science 5.1 Introduction 237 5.2 Definition, Metaphor and Homonymy 240 5.3 Demonstration and the Syllogism 259 5.4 Induction and Intuition 269 5.5 Conclusion 286 6. Chapter 5: Metaphor and Metaphysics 6.1 Introduction 296 6.2 First Philosophy as the Most Accurate Domain of Knowledge 300 6.3 Aristotle’s Dialectical Examination of Presocratic Theories in Metaphysics I 305 6.4 Aristotle’s Criticism of Platonic Participation in Metaphysics I.6-9 318 iii 6.5 Metaphor in the Text of Metaphysics VII-XII 333 6.6 Conclusion 347 7. Closing Remarks 354 8. Bibliography 8.1 Primary Sources: Ancient Texts, Translations, and Commentaries 367 8.2 Secondary Sources 371 iv Acknowledgements It is not possible to list all the people who have contributed in a substantial way to the completion of this thesis. Yet I would like to express my gratitude to some of the institutions and individuals, without whose generous help it would neither have been conceived nor written. Firstly, the financial assistance provided by both the Ontario Graduate Scholarship, and the University of Ottawa, was indispensable. In addition to this, the thesis was facilitated immeasurably by Professor Gonzalez’s criticisms and encouragement, and by his unflagging sense of when to employ one instead of the other. I also was inspired and instructed in equal measure by the seminars on ancient philosophy offered at the University of Ottawa by both Professor Gonzalez and Professor Collobert over the last four and a half years. The thoughtful comments and objections that I received from Professors Collobert, Thomas-Fogiel and Côté, at the defense of my thesis proposal in February 2013, were also extremely helpful, and contributed in no small part to the form of the thesis as it now stands. Moreover, apart from the feedback I received at the proposal defense, Professor Collobert in particular offered generous support throughout the entire writing period. Outside the University of Ottawa’s philosophy department, I would furthermore like to thank two other teachers: Professors Eli Diamond and Wayne Hankey, both from the Classics Department at Dalhousie University. In many ways, the thesis as a whole would not have been possible without Professor Diamond, as it was thanks (among many other things) to an off-handed comment of his, in a seminar on Aristotle’s De Anima in 2008, that I initially became interested in Aristotle’s theory of metaphor in the first place. I am thankful to Professor Hankey as well for inspiring me with the desire and the confidence to pursue doctoral studies in philosophy, after completing an MA in classics in 2005. Last, but most certainly not least, I owe a debt of gratitude to my friends and family for their support and companionship. My mother, father, brother and sister all offered crucial emotional support, as did my close friends, Drew Desai and Matthew Furlong, who were invaluable interlocutors in the informal discussions, sometimes by long-distance phone call, out of which this thesis grew. Most importantly, I would like sincerely to thank my wife, Yuna, for making this dissertation possible in more ways than I can say in the space allotted here. v Introduction: Aristotle and the Question of Metaphor 1.1 General Introduction This doctoral thesis argues that Aristotle’s definition of metaphor in Poetics 22 commits him to a vertical theory of metaphor, which concerns the relationship between words and things, rather than to a horizontal theory, which concerns the literal and figurative senses of individual words. In arguing that Aristotle’s theory of metaphor is a vertical rather than a horizontal one, this thesis aims to fulfill three primary objectives. (1) The first objective is to highlight the continuity of presuppositions underlying Aristotle’s views regarding poetry and rhetoric, on the one hand, and those that underlie his teacher Plato’s on the other. As we shall see, Aristotle’s discussions of metaphor are mostly concentrated in the Poetics and the Rhetoric, and they offer a unique perspective from which to consider the Platonic heritage of his teachings about what each pursuit is in general, what its essential function is, and what kind of knowledge is requisite to its mastery. If, as I argue, Aristotle’s general treatment of rhetoric and poetry must be seen as a faithful response to the views expressed in a number of Platonic dialogues (Ion, Republic, Gorgias, and Phaedrus), then the vertical character of his theory of metaphor in particular must also be placed in the context of this response in order to become fully intelligible. This is because, on my account, the vertical character of Aristotle’s theory of metaphor is inherently connected to his effort to Platonize the fields of rhetoric and poetry by yoking them to the philosophical pursuit of goodness and truth, in accordance with the guidelines laid down by Plato in the aforementioned dialogues.