Traditionally, philosophy has distinguished between two methods of reasoning: deductive logic and inductive logic.
1. Is a metaphor part of deductive or inductive logic, or has nothing to do with either?
2. And of course, why do you believe your response is correct?
I need greater insight into these questions. Thank you.
Please see response attached, which is also presented below.
1. Is a metaphor not an aspect of inductive or deductive logic?
Metaphors and logic have traditionally been seen as uneasy bedfellows. Most metaphors are simply literally false, hence logic has not much to say about them, or so these theorists argue. http://www.computing.dcu.ie/~josef/research_int.html
For example, Moore (n.d.) argues that to equate metaphor with any form of logic is a dangerous thing. The creative process is, for him at least, a hidden one. It just happens. The resulting metaphor may then be decoded into its component parts, but when that has been done, the poetry is usually lost, as happens in translation, when the end elements are more important than the inner space. Moore thinks, for example, intuitive logic, which is itself a metaphor, would be better applied to poetry; if intuitive logic is not a metaphor, then it is a paradox, much as "freezing fire," and "burning cold" are metaphors based on paradox. The "truth" (if it ...
Regarding deductive logic and inductive logic, this solution discusses if a metaphor is part of deductive or inductive logic, or if it has nothing to do with either. It also comments on the correctness of this decision. This solution is 600 words.