形相近，意相遠: 「射」之隱喻在孔子與亞里斯多德的比較 - 政大學術集成

全文

(1)National Chengchi University 國立政治大學 Department of Philosophy, College of Liberal Arts. 形相近，意相遠: 「射」之隱喻在孔子與亞里斯多德的比較 In Image Near Together, In Meaning Far Apart: 政治. 大. 立. Archery Metaphor in Confucius and Aristotle. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. by. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. iv. Rina C Marie Un h F. Camus 甘海寧. engchi. Executive Advisor: Prof. Dennis Schilling Original Advisor: Prof. Peng Wenlin. Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Doctorate in Philosophy. April 2015 Taipei, Taiwan 0.

(2) 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. i Un. v.

(3) Abstract. Our era is characterized by growing multi-culturality. In the sphere of ethics, experience of different traditions offers the chance to appreciate variant expressions of moral wisdom which can enlighten us on perennial questions and contemporary issues. Comparative philosophy is a worthwhile but challenging enterprise. Finding suitable methods for comparing different traditions is difficult. Metaphor study is a promising trend in present day academia. The doctoral dissertation applies metaphor theory to comparing Confucian and Aristotelian ethics. Both school’s primary literature contain rich metaphoric expressions among which archery is a common source of imagery. I employ archery metaphor as tertium comparationis for investigating Eastern and Western sides. What significances does. 政治大 archery metaphor have in their ethical discourses? How does one school vary from 立 the other? From answers to these questions, we may ask further what implications ‧. ‧ 國. 學. this study of a shared metaphor might have on comparative research and metaphor theory.. n. al. er. io. sit. y. Nat. Keywords: Metaphor, Archery, Confucius, Aristotle, Ethics, Comparative Method. Ch. engchi. i Un. v. i.

(4) 摘要. 我們的時代是由發展中的多元文化所描繪。在倫理學的領域中，不同的傳統經驗提供我們機會，以理解不同道德智慧的說法，而這些不同道德智慧的說法，對於我們有關長久以來的問題以及當代的問題，可以有所啟發。而比較哲學是值得做的，但又是非常具挑戰性的計劃。找到適當的方法以比較不同的傳統是有困難的。. 政治大. 隱喻研究在現在的學術界，是一項有前途的趨勢。本博士論文應用隱喻理論，. 立. ‧ 國. 學. 來比較儒家倫理學與亞里斯多德學派倫理學。兩派的主要文獻包含豐富的隱喻表達，其中射箭是一項共同的隱喻資源。我以射箭隱喻為共同因素，來研究東方西. ‧. 方兩個方面。在倫理的論述中，射箭隱喻有著什麼樣的意義呢？在此二學派之中，. sit. y. Nat. io. n. al. er. 其中一個學派又如何與另一學派不同？從這些問題的答案，我們也許可以進一步. i Un. v. 追問，在比較研究中，對此共享的隱喻做研究，會有什麼樣的含義。. Ch. engchi. 關鍵字：隱喻、射箭、孔子、亞里斯多德、倫理學、比較哲學. ii.

(5) Acknowledgements The student owes a debt of gratitude to very many persons. To begin with, the executive thesis advisor, Prof. Schilling, for encouragingly, carefully and patiently guiding the student throughout thesis research and writing; the original thesis advisor, Prof. Peng Wenlin, who has been a support and inspiration whilst recovering from illness; long-standing mentors in the faculty, especially Prof. Chan Kang and Prof. Lin Zhenguo. College staff have also been extremely helpful, to mention, Yan Feng and A-Ren. In the course of doing research, the student had the opportunity to interview various academics whom she holds in high esteem: Prof. Liu Jeeloo (CSU-Fullerton, USA); Prof. Eirik Harris (City University, HK); Prof. Huang Yong (CUHK, HK); Prof. Bernhard Fuehrer (SOAS, London); Prof. Yao Xinzhong (King’s College, London); and, Prof. Wen Haiming. 政治大 and Prof. Li Wei (Renmin University, Beijing). Prof. David Charles (Oriel College) 立 deserves very special mention for enabling the student to spend a month of truly ‧. ‧ 國. 學. eye-opening research exchange at Oxford University in May 2014. Likewise, the student spent a fruitful month of academic exchange at Peking University’s Institute of Advanced Humanistic Studies and owes gratitude for it to students and staff.. sit. y. Nat. Last but not least, the student is indebted to family and friends who saw her through months of “groping in the dark and grappling with ideas”. She received much support. n. al. er. io. in diverse forms – material, moral and technical – from her parents and siblings, roommates and friends, in particular, Duygu for help with proofreading, Sze Wan with formatting, and Eugene (佑禎) with translating.. Ch. engchi. i Un. v. iii.

(6) TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1. Statement of Topic, Aims of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Method of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 PART I: GROUNDWORK CHAPTER ONE: Metaphor, The Coming of Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1. Background History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2. Metaphor Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3. Metaphor as Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4. The Schematicity of Metaphor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33. 學. ‧ 國. 5. 6.. 政治大 Metaphor Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 立 Thematics on Interpretation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 ‧. PART II: CONTEXT RECOVERY ARCHERY IN ANCIENT CHINA AND GREECE CHAPTER TWO: Foreword. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 The Bow in Ancient China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 1. Narrative & Poetry: “The Bow as Heavenly Weapon”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51. sit. y. Nat. n. al. er. io. 2. War Weapon Par Excellence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 3. Archery Rituals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68. Ch. engchi. i Un. v. CHAPTER THREE: Archery in Greece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 1. The Bow in Greek Mythology and Epic Tales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 2. Archery as Athletics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 3. No Match for the Hoplon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 PART III: CORE STUDY ARCHERY METAPHOR IN CONFUCIUS & ARISTOTLE CHAPTER FOUR: Archery in the Analects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 1. Preliminaries: Confucius and Archery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106 2. An 3.7: The Gentleman’s Competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 3. An 3.16: The Way of the Ancients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 4. An 15.6: Straight as an Arrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .133 iv.

(7) 5. Recap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 CHAPTER FIVE: Archery in the Nicomachean Ethics 1. Preliminaries: Ethics Lessons from the Gym . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 2. NE 1.2: The Chief Good as Knowledge Aim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 3. Core Books: Moral Excellence as Middle Target . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 4. NE 10.7: Philosophical Ideal, Limits of Archery Metaphor . . . . . . . . . . . 170 5. Recap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175 PART IV: COMPARISON CHAPTER SIX: So Close and So Far . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 1. East and West: Metaphoric Encounter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .179 2. Moral Agency: Insights from Archery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .195 3. Comparative Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .207 4.. 政治大 Metaphor Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .211 立. ‧ 國. 學. CONCLUDING REMARKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215. ‧. APPENDIX: Dissertation Summary in Chinese 導論 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 一、隱喻理論 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 二、射箭的背景. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221. sit. y. Nat. n. al. er. io. 三、射箭隱喻 (一)《論語》. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 (二)《尼科馬哥倫理學》. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .223 四、結論 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .225. Ch. engchi. i Un. v. BIBLIOGRAPHY Sources on Chinese Culture and Thought. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 Sources on Greek Culture and Thought. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .234 Shared Sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .240. v.

(8) INTRODUCTION (With) the discovery of the fact of pluralism, that the truth admits of more than one valid formulation, (…) the very thing that was formerly a scandal and a disgrace to philosophy, namely that philosophers do not agree, turns out to be its great virtue, for through it are revealed essential features of all thought, present indeed everywhere, but nowhere so clearly as in philosophy. - Walter Watson1. 政治大. 1. Statement of Topic, Aims of Study In our global and technological world, traditions intermingle constantly. As a matter of fact, contact between different cultures is nothing new. It has been there since the dawn of recorded human history, often evidencing itself as a catalyst in the formation of civilizations, or in the rise and fall of empires. What is new in our age is that cross-cultural encounter is no longer limited to specific fields of human activity, such as navigation, military exploits and mercantile trade. Nor is it limited any longer to certain places, say, imperial courts and urban markets. In varying degrees, the experience of multi-culturality has come to involve everyone and meets us at every. 立. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. er. io. sit. y. Nat. turn.. In ethics too, the experience of multi-culturality is keenly felt and impels us on occasion to come to terms with varying moral views and standards. Comparative ethics comes across as a platform for reflecting on how different moral traditions square against each other and for bringing their wisdom to bear on perennial questions as well as contemporary issues. This doctoral dissertation is a comparative study of Confucian and Aristotelian ethics based on archery-inspired metaphoric expressions that emerge in their primary literature. Archery appears to be an important source of images for figurative speech in the Analects and the Nicomachean Ethics. The aims of the research are: (1) to acquire new perspectives for understanding Confucian and Aristotelian ethics by. n. al. Ch. engchi. i Un. v. focusing on what I take to be a significative metaphor in the moral discourse of each of the two schools, (2) to work out a well-grounded and on par comparison of the two traditions based on separate inquiries into archery metaphors, finally, (3) to articulate ideas that can contribute to comparative methodology and more fruitful 1. From the Preface of his book The Architectonics of Meaning: Foundations of the New Pluralism (SUNY, 1985). 1.

(9) cross-cultural dialogue. In the process of developing this research, I hope to show too the relevance of these classic schools to our era by allowing their thoughts to enlighten us on perennial subjects. There will also be opportunities to comment on metaphor theory. The research is of great interest: in adapting metaphor as tool for comparison, I develop an intercultural and interdisciplinary study that offers a fresh approach to the usual ways of doing comparative philosophy. Moreover, the research is in line with current trends in the academe of taking metaphors seriously, in our case, of literary metaphors occurring in early texts. The need for such study is evident. To date, studies and joint academic exercises on comparative Eastern and Western philosophies abound. From resulting publications and discussions, however, it is apparent that scholars in the field are struggling to find suitable methods for simultaneously handling starkly different traditions, struggling too to find “neutral grounds” when weighing differing stances. The challenges that beset comparative philosophy are many. There are frequent. 政治大 such as out-of-context and. blunders to be mindful of, anachronic readings, oversimplifications and illicit assimilations (Wong 2009), as well as “word fetishism”, that is, the face value and often forced matching of equivalent terms between two traditions (Slingerland 2000, 322-323). Apart from these more or less technical flaws is the use of approaches that seem to work better for one side than the other. Shun Kwongloi has coined the term “asymmetric tendency” for the rampant phenomenon in comparative philosophy of adapting Western concepts or frameworks (Shun 2009). In the same vein, Philip Huang complains of the. 立. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. sit. y. Nat. n. al. er. io. prevalence of a “rational choice approach” which sets Western investigative practice as universal standard in research and indiscriminately applies the rigor proper to empirical sciences onto studies in social sciences and humanities. Such approach, he complains, pays “little respect for qualitative knowledge about the cultural specificities of different societies” (Huang 2000, 25-26). If blunders and one-sided approaches are not enough, more fundamental issues are at stake which challenge either the possibility or the worthwhileness of comparative philosophy. There is Alasdair MacIntyre’s famed notion of incommensurability between independent traditions (MacIntyre 1988), as well as parochialist or relativist mindsets which dampen the potentials of cross-cultural. Ch. engchi. i Un. v. exchange for mutual enrichment. I take all these hurdles to be indicative of the need to refine tools and approaches in comparative work. Several decades of experience in comparative investigations has led to some consensus among leading scholars about basic requirements for balanced comparisons. There is, for example, the recognition of language as door to understanding a tradition with its key aspects and subtleties 2.

(10) (e.g., MacIntyre 1991, 111; Huang 2000, 23-24; Shen 2013, 5).2 In this respect, familiarity with the original language of primary texts becomes indispensable for perceiving the weight and breadth of thoughts expressed therein. Apart from language, attention to the historical and cultural context – to which we may also add psychological context, such as the overpowering concern that motivates the speaker or writer – is crucial to understanding ideas.3 Perhaps more exigent still is the challenge of opening up to less familiar modes and expressions of rationality (Northrop 1946; Hall and Ames 1987; Yu 2007: 13-14; Sun 2009: 404-405, Zong 2010; Shen 2013, 3,6). In response to cultural differences that lead to conflicts or segregation, Huang suggests cultivating a bi-cultural attitude. In the same way that a person can learn more languages beyond her native tongue, one can also come to discover different cultural viewpoints, to acquire, that is, a “comparative and critical perspective from thoroughgoing acquaintance with at least one other culture.” Bi-culturality means. 政治大 being able to enjoy the “co-presence of two cultures (in a) continued interaction with 立 undetermined outcomes and creative possibilities” (Huang 2000, 27-28). Such an ‧. ‧ 國. 學. attitude is conducive to intercultural understanding and transnational visions and alternatives as it goes beyond parochialism, cultural imperialism, and even radical relativism. Huang’s words are grand, yet he gives concrete examples of persons and places in which bi-culturality is a reality. A basic premise of this research is that comparative philosophy, though arduous, is worthwhile. The sheer amount of literature that has been produced in. sit. y. Nat. n. al. er. io. the field and the insights these yield sufficiently attest its value. Moreover, when it comes to ethics, learning from Aristotle and Confucius seems particularly meaningful. We may expect to be brought to ponder about themes which conjure up to living well (εὐ ζῆν, NE 1.4 1095a20) or dying content (夕死可矣 An 4.8).. Ch. engchi. i Un. v. These said, I wish to press forward with the vision of comparative philosophy that guides this research. The stakes for doing comparative philosophy vary. There are authors who treat comparison as a tool for better understanding traditions compared (e.g., Yu Jiyuan’s “friend as mirror” method in Yu 2007). Many authors use comparison as a way to seek solutions to current moral issues from alternatives 2. What Gadamer wrote about the hermeneutic role of language in cultural understanding is helpful, see Gadamer 2003, 434-474. 3 To give a couple of examples of how comparative authors turn to background knowledge to explain discrepancies, Vincent Shen suggests that Chinese thinkers were originally motivated by concern, leading to practical wisdom, while Greek philosophies started with wonder that blossomed into theoretical disciplines, cf. Shen 2013, 6. In similar vein, Ni Peimin defends Confucianism from May Sim’s charge of lacking a rational foundation by explaining that it was originally intended as a “Gong Fu” (功夫) system, so that its justification lies in the effectiveness of its practice rather than theoretical argumentation, Ni 2009, 313. 3.

(11) posed by time-honored traditions.4. As a matter of fact, my intention to compare. two ancient schools is partly driven by my high regard for classical traditions which, because they touch upon enduring human questions, can continue to enlighten us on present issues (Neville 2001, 1; Yu 2007, 10).5 In continuation, other authors engage in comparative philosophy with a view to developing a hybrid, even “global”, philosophy. The latter case would entail extracting what seems best in different traditions, for example, the robust metaphysics grounding Aristotelian ethics (Sim 2007), or the “rigor of structural organization and logical formulation of Western thought” (Shen 2013, 9). For my part, I agree that comparison – a form of contact with an other – could be a springboard for appreciating unique cultural identities. To achieve this result, however, I deem examination of a tradition’s context and primary literature fundamental to the understanding of that tradition. Our focus on metaphor is beneficial in this regard. Metaphors are highly context-dependent linguistic. 政治大 phenomena, and comprehending archery metaphor in the Analects and 立 Nicomachean Ethics will require of us serious inquest into the background of the ‧. ‧ 國. 學. utterances and their image source. Exploration of archery in ancient Chinese and Greek societies will thus be necessary work for metaphor exegesis and comparison. In engaging in comparative philosophy, I am not interested in seeing a hybrid or global philosophy even if it were to successfully fuse the best of different traditions. Instead, the idea of comparative philosophy that inspires me consists, first, in acquiring the bi-cultural perspective described by Philip Huang (Huang 2000); second,. sit. y. Nat. n. al. er. io. in being a learning ground for the kind of multi-cultural dialogue that intermittently takes place in and around us6; and, third, in the ability in the end to appreciate the unique ways that different traditions tackle human moral condition. In this light, I do not think it necessary in the process of comparison to take sides on every point of difference. Most of the time, I suppose it will suffice to acknowledge that there are alternative positions that are simultaneously valid. However, I would not hesitate “to take sides” where appropriate for critical analysis.. 4. Ch. engchi. i Un. v. In the inaugural issue of Dao Journal of Comparative Philosophy, Robert Neville’s opening article classifies studies with such motivation as “the normative approach to comparison” which “centers on addressing contemporary problems and looks to the historical positions as resources for contemporary thinking”, see Neville 2001, 2. 5 I am obviously influenced by Gadamer’s notion of the “classical”, as described in his landmark work Truth & Method, see Gadamer 2003, 285-290. 6 In Neville’s words, comparative philosophy is a “paideia for participation in a global philosophic public”, and that “the need for a global public creates the ideal and that ideal drives comparative philosophy”, Neville 2001, 1, 11. 4.

(12) 2. Literature review In the past three decades, not a few Western scholars have taken interest in comparing Aristotelian and Confucian ethics, among them a large contingency of North-American based academics. The interest is to a large extent an off-shoot of the revival of virtue ethics in the West. Elizabeth Anscombe’s biting article “Modern Philosophy” (1958) played an instrumental role in this movement by pitting the rich moral psychology of past ethical inquiries against the calculations, colds laws and abstract principles of modern utilitarianism, deontology and consequentialism. A bulk of studies comparing Confucius and Aristotle were and are being developed along the lines of virtue ethics in its variant streams (e.g., ancient, Humean, Christian, etc.). With regard to comparing Confucian and Aristotelian ethics, in 2007 alone, two monograph works were published, namely, Jiyuan Yu’s The Ethics of Confucius and Aristotle: Mirrors of Virtue (Routledge) and May Sim’s Remastering Morals with Aristotle and Confucius (Cambridge University Press). The same year saw. 政治大 two other books that tackle Eastern virtue ethics, that is, Bryan Van Norden’s Virtue 立 Ethics and Consequentialism in Early China (Cambridge University Press), and an ‧. ‧ 國. 學. anthology co-edited by Philip Ivanhoe, Working Virtue: Virtue Ethics and Contemporary Moral Problems (Oxford University Press) which gives responses to current issues from different strands of virtue ethics, Confucianism included. Other notable publications in this area include those of Shun Kwongloi, who analyses virtue concepts in Mencius and Zhu Xi, and of his one-time teacher, Lee Yearley, whose thoughtful studies reflect the intricacies of applying the terms “virtue” and “virtue. sit. y. Nat. n. al. er. io. ethics” to variant moral traditions.7 In this research, I imagine that there will be much occasion to broach on the topic of virtue in Confucian and Aristotelian ethics. I will refrain, however, from adapting a virtue ethics model for comparing the two schools. I have two reasons for this. In the first place, it seems to me that more important and fertile points of comparison can be drawn between Confucius and Aristotle than their notions and specifications of virtue. The metaphor of archery alone – in the instances of its use in the Analects and Nicomachean Ethics – could lead to rich discussions about moral action and judgment, agency and responsibility, education and cultivation, motives and ends. Other possible and interesting points of comparison suggested by scholars. Ch. engchi. i Un. v. are their notions about the practicality of ethics (Yu 2010), their non-minimalist ethic (Wang 2010, 311), the strong sense of overpowering ends, and the awareness of a socio-political dimension to personal moral striving. These themes may be relevant 7. Worth consulting for suggestions on how to develop comparisons between Eastern and Western moral traditions in a circumspect manner are his book, Mencius & Aquinas: Theories of Virtue and Conceptions of Courage (SUNY, 1990), and his article, “Virtue Ethics in Ancient China: Light Shed and Shadows Cast” in King & Schilling 2011. 5.

(13) to “virtue”, but I do not think it necessary to force discussions about them into relation with it. In the second place, it seems to me that the disparity in the two school’s conceptions of virtue – widely equated with “de” (德) and “arête” (ἀρετή) – calls for a more thorough and separate study than I can presume to undertake in this research. I think such study has long been overlooked in the field and would be much welcome. 8 To date, there are isolated publications in English which seek to reconstruct original Chinese renditions of “virtue”, for example, a book by Mark Csikszentmihalyi, and articles by Alan K.L. Chan and Chen Lai.9 For the time being, however, I fear that since virtue ethics is a well-defined and long-standing approach to moral inquiry in the West, adapting virtue ethics as framework for comparison could easily run the risk of imposing Western categories. Of the works mentioned earlier that were published in 2007, for example, Yu Jiyuan takes considerable pains to contextualize concepts or ideas within each tradition and draws interesting. 政治大 parallelisms, while May Sim offers creative and insightful ways of relating Confucian 立 and Aristotelian ethics with present-day concerns such as human rights and ‧. ‧ 國. 學. environmentalism. Both, however, rely heavily on Western frameworks or approaches and, overall, seem to fall short in appreciating the intricacies of Confucian ethics.10 With these examples in mind, I cannot help but echo a doubt raised by Stephen Angle who, in a book review about a similar attempt to explicate ancient Confucianism in terms of virtue ethics, wrote that “without a clearer sense of the kind of virtue ethics that Mengzi is advocating, it is hard to be confident that Van. sit. y. Nat. n. al. er. io. Norden’s use of the category ‘virtue ethics’ is contributing to our understanding of early Confucianism” (Angle 2009, 300). With regard to publications on the more specific topic of archery metaphors in Confucian and Aristotelian ethical literature, there are – to my knowledge – no existing works as yet. This is unsurprising, as the focus and modus operandi of the research are new. Scholars have taken note of similar metaphors used by Confucius 8. Ch. engchi. i Un. v. Even Shun Kwongloi, for example, who does conceptual analysis of traditional Confucian virtues, recognizes that using the term virtue can be knotty in writing about Chinese ethics: “such a concept as virtue should be screened (…) in that the concept densely involves a particular historical context unique to Western philosophy; thus, using it as an analytic tool is not likely to enable us to grasp something underlying what can merely be grasped by the tool”, Kim 2010, 136, 138. 9 See Mark Csikszentmihalyi’s book “Material Virtue: Ethics and the Body in Early China” (Brill, 2004). An article by Alan K. L. Chan explicates de based on ancient bamboo inscriptions: "Interpretations of Virtue (De) in Early China” in Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 2011 (1). For more glimpses of specifically Chinese renditions of virtue or virtue ethics, see Chen 2010, Wang 2010, Liao 2011. I find these three articles written by homegrown Chinese scholars to be highly illuminative of what a Confucian concept of “virtue” or “virtue ethics” might be. However, what they suggest as points of concurrence with the West sound either too vague or play down characteristic features of Western conceptions of virtue. 10 Regarding Yu’s book, I offer my book review in Camus 2010. As for Sim’s book, Ni Peimin’s book review is worth consulting, see Ni 2009, 311-319. 6.

(14) and Aristotle. Studies on the theme, however, have mostly been limited to abstract, metaphorical concepts such as harmony (和) and the middle (中). An example is Prof. Alan Chan’s article “Harmony as a Contested Metaphor and Conceptions of Rightness (Yi) in Early Confucian Ethics” (cf. Chan in King & Schilling 2011, 37-62). Edward Slingerland, who vigorously applies cognitive theories in his examination of metaphors in Chinese texts, also offers a handful of relevant material.11 In one article, Slingerland explains the notion of “wu wei” (無為) – which he translates as “effortless action” – as a common, metaphorical concept between Daoist and Confucian schools. His manner of analyzing “wu wei”, however, disregards its specific context and nuanced meaning between the two schools, leaving us with a concept which may be metaphorical but is nonetheless an abstract notion, an empty image. It is interesting that while Chinese scholars readily recognize the significance of archery as metaphor in Confucius just as Western scholars do with regard to Aristotle, in-depth study has not been done from either side. Commentators of the. 政治大 Nicomachean Ethics are generally satisfied to dedicate a couple of lines in their 立 glosses to point out use of figurative speech inspired by archery. On the Chinese side, ‧. ‧ 國. 學. there is a rare article by James Behuniak who looks into archery-inspired metaphors in early Confucian texts such as the Analects, Mencius and the Liji. Behuniak ends his article with strong comparative slant by matching Confucian ethics with the social pragmatism of John Dewey, a modern thinker who also had recourse to archery metaphor. Behuniak does more than Slingerland in contextualizing archery before attempting to explain metaphoric expressions deriving from it, so does Lisa Raphals. sit. y. Nat. n. al. er. io. when attending to the significance of archery ritual in understanding virtue notions of early followers of Confucius.12 There will be occasion to glimpse at their insights when we discuss archery metaphor in the Analects in chapter 4. Yu Jiyuan steps forward in recognizing archery as a common metaphor in Confucius and Aristotle. Unfortunately, he only takes brief notice of the fact and offers an explanation of the metaphor in a way that speaks more for Aristotle (cf. Yu 2007, 79-80).. 11. Ch. engchi. i Un. v. To name some examples, “Body and Mind in Early China: An Integrated Humanities-Science Approach” in Journal of the American Academy of Religion 2013 (1); “Metaphor and Meaning in Early China” in Dao 2011 (1); “Conceptions of the Self in the Zhuangzi: Conceptual Metaphor Analysis and Comparative Thought” in Philosophy East and West 2004 (3); and “Effortless Action: the Chinese Spiritual Ideal of Wu-wei” in Journal of the American Academy of Religion 2000 (2). The last article has become a book by the same title by Oxford University Press, 2003. 12 Refer to their articles: James Behuniak, “Hitting the Mark: Archery and Ethics in Early Confucianism”, Journal of Chinese Philosophy 2010 (4): 588-604; and, Lisa Raphals, “Embodied Virtue, Self-Cultivation, and Ethics” in Ethics in Early China, eds. Chris Fraser et al. (Hong Kong University Press, 2011). 7.

(15) 3. Method of Research It is apparent from the foregoing that there is a need to explore more about methods and tools for comparison that can fairly tackle the traditions compared while being able to appreciate their distinctive features. In the face of comparing Confucian and Aristotelian ethics, the following questions arise: is there a neutral ground on which to stand? Is there a suitable method that can do justice to the traditions under study? Further, given that each person has inescapable cultural and mental prejudices, is it realistic to imagine that a perfectly impartial and objective comparison can be done? In this regard too, should comparative work be left to persons of mixed parentage, or who have sojourned long enough in different places so as to have acquired the cultures of those places which he pretends to understand? As I begin to undertake this research, I surmise the following answers to these questions. First, I doubt if a “perfectly balanced comparison” is possible, neither does it seem necessary for a fruitful comparison. In this research, I shall not be too. 政治大 concerned about placing Confucius and Aristotle on “equally balanced scales” as to 立 attempt to understand each side’s views in the light of moral themes that come to ‧. ‧ 國. 學. the fore from metaphor study. I believe that placing them side-by-side – not “on equal scales” – will yield insights that are valuable enough. Again, I do not aim for a “perfectly-balanced and impartial comparison” of Confucian and Aristotelian ethics. Instead, I envision this proposed research to be an exercise in comparative philosophy that will, given a topic, allow the incipient saliencies, nuances, and perhaps also thought structures of the participating. sit. y. Nat. n. al. er. io. traditions to stand out. The task of trying to understand Confucian and Aristotelian ethics on “their own terms” constitutes a tall order. Notwithstanding, I am confident that it can be achieved to some degree by exercising comparison with caution and earnestness. The measures of caution and earnestness which I propose to take are: (1) sympathetic reading of both moral traditions; (2) substantial use of each side’s primary literature; and, (3) careful study of their respective historical-cultural milieus. Having stated the above and going back to a question previously raised, it seems to me that while being of mixed Eastern and Western parentage or sojourn would be an asset for comparative work, I do not think it indispensable for two reasons. First, I suppose that measures such as I have outlined above can provide for. Ch. engchi. i Un. v. comparative research in ways that go beyond the sheer fact of simultaneously belonging to different races or places of residence. Instead, acquiring a bi-cultural perspective seems both more workable and essential. A second reason – one which I take to be an aid to acquiring a bi-cultural perspective – is that the set-up of present-day academic research in itself entails a collaboration of minds and exposure to multi-cultural influences. Add to this are advances in technology and education 8.

(16) which, through better opportunities for travel, language-learning, and data-sourcing, contribute to expanding the learner’s cultural base. Exploring archery as metaphor seems promising. Metaphors, as will be discussed thoroughly in the first chapter, are linguistic and literary phenomena whose cognitive potentials have been re-discovered in recent decades. While I agree with Slingerland about the potentials of metaphor for cross-cultural studies, I refrain from applying in my study the kind of metaphor theories that seem to have more implications and use for brain science than philosophical research. I shall not treat archery metaphor as a mental structure, nor as formal category ala Kant, much less claim its network of associations to correspond to neural mappings in the brain. I hold strong cognitive views about metaphor, but my working notion and approach to it will vary greatly from Slingerland’s. Characterized by divergence from direct speech, a metaphoric expression is an image-ridden verbal expression where noted features of an image supplied by the. 政治大 source domain resemble and exemplify a subject usually of higher-order. Compared 立 to usual concepts, metaphors are less abstract, and comprehending them invites ‧. ‧ 國. 學. broad, tangential knowledge about the speaker, receptors and a host of other contextual details and associations surrounding the utterance. In poetry, metaphors enhance words with image and dramatic effect, while in prose, they lend force to arguments and, at times, enable the conveyance of thoughts that elude direct speech. Now, there are comparative scholars who like to note the disparity of language between Eastern and Western philosophies (e.g., Northrop 1946, Cheng &. sit. y. Nat. n. al. er. io. Bunnin 2002, Sun 2009, Zong 2010). It is widely held, in concrete, that Confucius’s language is heuristic while Aristotle’s is analytic. Setting aside the truth of the claim, what is clear is that both sides had recourse to metaphor in communicating ethical views. Upon reading the Analects and Nicomachean Ethics, archery struck me as a powerful metaphor that could function as a hermeneutic tool not only for understanding early Confucian or Aristotelian texts but also for comparing them inasmuch as archery is a common theme in their figurative speech. My initial investigation into the usages of archery metaphor in these two works indicate that although sample passages are not many, they are nonetheless significative and link. Ch. engchi. i Un. v. to a string of central passages. Metaphoric expressions inspired by archery touched on fundamental matters such as rituals, benevolence, and early rulers in the Analects, and the ethical mean and eudaimonia in the Nicomachean Ethics. From ancient times up until the last dynasty, archery in China held pride of place in military, ritual and sporting practices. In ancient Greece, by contrast, archery was largely a foreign skill that only gained limited importance due to a combination of 9.

(17) factors affecting Athens and the Peloponnese in the Axial period. Notwithstanding the disparity in history, archery generated images useful for moral discourse in both Confucian and Aristotelian literatures. This happy chance enables me at present to take archery metaphor as tertium comparationis for probing into Confucian and Aristotelian ethics, a “neutral ground” for initiating and developing comparison between the two schools. Present research follows a tri-partite theoretical model: I start with a common ground for comparison – identified as archery metaphor –, proceed to separate inquiries into the context and meaning of pertinent metaphoric expressions, then end with a common forum where the two schools will be set side-by-side. Apart from comparing ethical views, the final phase will give occasion to comment about comparative method and metaphor theory. The study focuses on early Confucian and Aristotelian texts, and this limits the scope of interest to material and literary sources illuminative of the foundational periods of Confucian and Aristotelian schools.. 政治大 Likewise, since the study was first motivated by the general feeling of inadequacy 立 over comparative approaches taken by North-American based scholars, I will ‧. ‧ 國. 學. particularly seek to engage authors writing in English. This plus the student’s own language constraints force her to leave aside the wealth of relevant material in other languages. To state the major thesis, I hope to show that shared metaphors are powerful tools for comparing independent philosophical traditions. A narrower thesis is that archery is a fundamental metaphor in Confucius and Aristotle, perhaps more loaded. sit. y. Nat. n. al. er. io. and representative of each school’s moral thought than the conceptual metaphors that draw more attention in present publications. Earlier I had stated the worthwhileness of comparative philosophy as a premise of the study. According to my stated research model, however, I shall leave comparison to the final stage, so that the bulk of the dissertation will consist in independent inquiries into the two schools, allowing an encounter to take place only in the concluding forum. Such course will enable me to firmly consolidate each side’s stance – that is, as far as I am able – before gloating on apparent commonalities. I believe it is necessary to attend to the context of each school’s moral views, that context details bring nuances of meaning to key terms and expressions. Hence, only. Ch. engchi. i Un. v. after these are established would I hope to understand the similarities and differences that come to light. Herein is another premise of my study: in comparative work similarities count for little when the underlying differences are still unclear. I take context to be explanatorily crucial as it gives the necessary perspective for the practices and claims of a tradition. Without due contextualization, it would be difficult to skirt dangers such as surface-level associations, image distortion, and 10.

(18) failure to appreciate diverging views. In light of all the above, the dissertation will have the following structure: the preliminary chapter on metaphor theory serves as groundwork and will explore the nature, mechanism and comprehension of metaphors; the core chapters are independent surveys of the historical and cultural panorama of archery in ancient China and Greece, followed by separate incursions into archery metaphor in the Analects and Nicomachean Ethics; finally, the last chapter will compare the two schools based on the points that surface from the core chapters. An acquaintance who trained at modern archery recently explained what he thought unique about the sport. Archery, he said, requires the person to do much calculation, discerning and proper self-positioning before calmly releasing the arrow, that the slightest deviation in the beginning matters, that the arrow, once released, will keep at the course to which it has been directed and that, in the end, whether one hits or misses the target will depend almost entirely on oneself. From these and. 政治大 other details of archery there are poignant parallelisms that can be drawn with the 立 sphere of ethics. Turning to Confucius and Aristotle, what moral significance did each ‧. ‧ 國. 學. give to archery? How does archery metaphor function in their ethical discourse? From answers to these questions, we may ask further what implications this study of a shared metaphor might have on comparative research.. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. i Un. v. 11.

(19) CHAPTER 2. Metaphor: The Coming of Age The perspective furnished by a metaphor guides, directs, even commits us to go on metaphorically. When we adopt a metaphor, we adopt - or inherit - its respective scheme and network. - Josef Stern1. It is difficult to think of a topic of research today that draws as much attention and excitement from such diverse camps as the phenomenon of metaphor. For the most part of its history in academic writing, metaphors have been viewed as a mere literary device, a flowery alternative to factual speech. Current interest in metaphor, however, attracts scholars well beyond the fields of language and literature. As Josef Stern puts it in the preface of his monograph work on metaphor, fascination with it meets us “on every intellectual front: among linguists, psychologists, anthropologists, historians of science, art historians, and theologians; what was once a specialized topic in rhetoric and poetics has now also come to be fertile ground for interdisciplinary research” (Stern 2000, xi). The sudden surge in the past four decades of interest in metaphor has not been traced to a single person nor event. If. 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. sit. y. Nat. n. al. er. io. at all, authors cite John Middleton Murry, a prolific English writer in the first half of the twentieth century, as a forerunner of modernity’s reappraisal of metaphor (e.g., Black in Ortony 1979, 17; Punter 2007, 7). Renewed interest in metaphor seems rather to have been brought about by a convergence of factors in the academic world which created the right climate for metaphor study. For example, in philosophy, the falloff of positivism in analytic inquiry on the one hand and the application of the phenomenological method to literary theory and psychoanalysis on the other helped draw attention to manifestations of verbal communication2; in the sciences, Thomas Kuhn’s idea of gestalts and paradigm shifts showed the importance of models – akin to metaphors – in knowledge discovery and theory-formulation; the development of new disciplines such as linguistics and cognitive science also contributed to the trend. Ch. engchi. i Un. v. by furnishing us with methods and conceptual devices for examining components of. 1. From his work Metaphor in Context (Cambrigde, MA: MIT Press, 2000), 280. th For the relation between metaphor study and the vicissitudes of 20 century analytic philosophy, see Kittay 1987, 6-10. Meanwhile, Paul Ricouer and Jacques Derrida’s contributions to literary theory as well as Jacques Lacan’s exploration of metaphor and the unconscious are some ways in which phenomenology favored metaphor study. 12 2.

(20) language, modes of expression, and thought patterns underlying speech.3 The aim of this chapter is to explore what metaphor is: its features, mechanism, and ramifications. Metaphoric expressions as opposed to literal ones seem to possess surprising capacity to communicate – with force and in bulk – a mental scheme, be it a perspective, a network of ideas, or an entire thought system. Metaphoric utterances, then, seem not only more compelling than literal speech but also more complete in that they give more besides factual assertions. We want to examine what makes metaphoric expressions different from literal statements, and how it communicates what it does. This chapter’s discussion of metaphor will hopefully equip us with the necessary tools and framework to examine and interpret archery metaphor in early Confucian and Aristotelian ethical discourses. In these texts, the images deriving from archery appear doubly significant: first, since they function as metaphor, they are a valuable guide for nuanced and in-depth reading of ancient literature; then, second, inasmuch as both schools use the same image. 政治大 source to communicate moral teaching, they also serve as fair and sturdy fulcrum for 立 comparative study.. ‧ 國. 學. ‧. 1. Background History As mentioned earlier, metaphors were for a very long time regarded as mere poetic or rhetoric device. In this section, I shore up the arguments surrounding its current recognition as a figure of thought more than a figure of speech, a fundamental rather than ornate manner of expression, a conceptual instead of mere. sit. y. Nat. n. al. er. io. linguistic phenomenon.4 The history of metaphor theory which I write in this section does not pretend to be exhaustive. I intend to focus on developments in metaphor theory that will suffice to show its status in present day academia. . Fortuitous to the overall theme of this dissertation, scholars of metaphor almost unanimously point to Aristotle as the earliest Western thinker to make significant claims about metaphor. Even today, his thoughts continue to influence metaphor research. While metaphor was a peripheral topic in Aristotle’s writings, his mention 3. Ch. engchi. i Un. v. Ludwig Wittgenstein, for example, has helped modern understanding of metaphor through his notion of “seeing as aspect”, or seeing one thing as another, cf. Moran 1989, 89. 4 Andrew Goatly writes: “Over the last thirty years, however, philosophers, psychologists and linguists have begun to agree that metaphor is not something that can be easily confined, but is an indispensable basis of language and thought”, Goatly 1997, 1. George Lakoff and Mark Johnson’s Metaphors We Live By (University of Chicago, 1980) can be considered the most influential manifesto of modern-day regard for metaphor. They commit, however, to all too strong claims about its cognitive and political implications, claims which Goatly and many of our sources in this chapter are cautious about and consider unnecessary for appreciating metaphor. For criticisms of Lakoff & Johnson’s “findings”, see Stern 2002, xiii, and Steen 2009, 8, 20-21, 28. On the other hand, Edward Slingerland supports Lakoff’s strong theses and determinedly uses conceptual metaphor analysis for comparative study of Chinese and Western thoughts, see Slingerland 2004, 8-15. 13.

(21) of it in a handful of treatises sufficiently show his awareness of its ubiquity and import. Aristotle explores metaphor in chunks of the Rhetoric and Poetics, as well as in isolated areas of the Posterior Analytics and Topics. I surmise, however, that insights and instances of metaphor use in philosophical works such as De Anima, Nicomachean Ethics and Metaphysics lend more support to modern treatment of metaphor than overt passages in other manuscripts. It is beyond the scope of present study to look into the matter in detail, but there will be occasion to mention some ideas along the line in the course of this chapter. While scholars generally acknowledge the significance of Aristotle’s early remarks on metaphor, they are divided as to Aristotle’s regard for it. A number of authors criticize Aristotle for giving little importance to metaphor by keeping it out of serious philosophical discourse (e.g., Lakoff & Johnson 1980; Punter 2007). 5 One author notes, for example, that while any “serious study of metaphor is almost obliged to start with the works of Aristotle”, in reality, Aristotle regarded metaphors. 政治大 as “primarily ornamental, not necessary (but) just nice” (Ortony 1979, 3). Other 立 authors, however, think otherwise. For the latter group, whatever Aristotle may have ‧. ‧ 國. 學. written explicitly about metaphor has important implications that come to light only with careful reading and a general understanding of Aristotelian thought. Going through relevant passages about metaphor in the Aristotelian corpus, it seems to me too that such is the case. In what follows, I gather Aristotle’s ideas about metaphor. It is a valid starting point and somewhat unavoidable too since much of current studies on metaphor continue to take impetus from his claims, criticizing them, revising. sit. y. Nat. n. al. er. io. them, or taking them further. Let us turn to Aristotle’s definition: a metaphor is “giving the thing a name that belongs to something else; the transference being either from genus to species, or from species to genus, or from species to species, or on grounds of analogy” (Poetics 21: 1457b6-8). The bottom line of Aristotle’s understanding of metaphor – more explicit in the surrounding discussion than in the definition itself – is that it contemplates a semblance between things that are different, a semblance which motivates a name transfer. The idea sounds simple enough yet is rife with implications about the pedagogical, rhetorical, poetic, cognitive and, perhaps, even deeply philosophical significance of metaphor. Pedagogically speaking, metaphors. Ch. engchi. i Un. v. are highly conducive to knowledge transmission and acquisition by virtue of the similarities to which they call our attention. Going back to the definition above, genus and species refer to varying scopes of classifying things according to similar. 5. The charge seems anachronic. Despite Aristotle’s sparse but succinct comments about metaphor, it took posterity two millennia to draw out its significance, equipped with new sciences and input from a broader base of linguistic and cultural data. I return to this matter later. 14.

(22) traits. The sentence “the boy was planted on the ground”, for example, posits a likeness between the upright, immobile stature of a plant and a standing boy. There is a transference or cross application of the concept “plant” to the boy, as both plant and boy are classified on the basis of such similarity of being fixed firmly in place. We notice, however, that the word used metaphorically, “planted”, primarily refers to vegetal things and is applied only derivatively to the boy. The metaphor, in this way, transfers a name – in this case a verbalized noun – ordinarily said of plants to a person who is standing still. In a simple metaphor such as this, there is a name or concept transfer between two terms, plant and boy. Metaphors based on analogy, on the other hand, draw attention to similarities in relations between things more than isolated features. Analogies are more complex since they involve at least four terms. Aristotle explains metaphor by analogy as follows: “(metaphor) from analogy is possible whenever there are four terms so related that the second is to the first, as the fourth to the third, for one may then put the fourth in place of the second and. 政治大 the second in place of the fourth” (Poetics 21: 1457b16-19). To give an example, 立 sunlight is to plants what water is to people. A possible metaphor from this parallel ‧. ‧ 國. 學. relationship could be to say that: “the plant is thirsting for sunlight” which projects the human need for liquid nourishment onto plants’ need for sunlight. To return to the topic, metaphors are conducive to pedagogy by calling attention to similar things. Usually, of the terms or relations set together in a metaphoric statement, we are more familiar with one term – or relationship – than the other. When a metaphor points to how a known thing is similar to a less known thing, we. sit. y. Nat. n. al. er. io. then gain some knowledge or better understanding of the less familiar term. The fact that a metaphor mediates between two terms – or relations in the case of analogy – shows the mechanism of metaphor as a tool for knowledge acquisition. At the same time, it also explains how metaphors offer a smooth and stimulating way to learn. Since metaphors often involve terms in which one is more known than the other, it means by the same stroke that they do not consist entirely in already familiar terms (which would bore us for we know them already), nor only of unfamiliar terms (which may simply leave us confounded). By linking the familiar with the unfamiliar through a perceived similarity between the two, a metaphoric statement thus “conveys a new idea, a new fact, to us by means of the general notion of (that) which. Ch. engchi. i Un. v. is common to both things”, and so leads us to “get hold of something fresh” (Rhetoric 3.10 1410b12-14). To give an example, the statement “pullets are to hens what babies are to humans” plays on an analogical relationship that helps us pick up spontaneously what the new word means even without recourse to definition. The same idea about the didactic use of metaphor is confirmed in another work. Aristotle writes in the Topics, “a metaphor in a way adds to our knowledge of what is indicated 15.

(23) on account of the similarity, for those who use metaphors always do so on account of some similarity” (6.2 140a10-11).6 When we turn our attention to the Analects and the Nicomachean Ethics in later chapters, we will be able to observe how cunning similarities with archery-derived images helpfully elucidate moral themes that are either harder to grasp or simply prone to being ignored. So metaphors can occasion increase in knowledge by furnishing new data about a less known term through comparison or analogy with something already known. Other times, however, metaphors do not so much introduce something new as simply call attention to an unnoticed similarity. Take the case of the well-known Chinese adage which compares learning to rowing upstream: “learning is like rowing upstream, if you stop, the boat is washed back” (學如逆水行舟不進則退 ). Technically speaking, the verse does not tell us anything new about learning nor rowing. However, by drawing attention to a similarity between the two activities, we come to appreciate an important point about learning: that it should be on-going. In. 政治大 this case, we could say that the metaphor advances knowledge in a qualitative rather 立 quantitative way. We notice further that metaphors have a natural orientation to ‧. ‧ 國. 學. focus our attention from more vivid terms (e.g., rowing) to more abstract ones (e.g., learning). Ultimately, our sample metaphor is meant to enlighten us about learning rather than about rowing. This is what modern theorists allude to in designating a source domain (i.e., the more concrete term) and a target domain (the more abstract reality that the metaphoric utterance seeks to illustrate) when mapping out the underlying thought structure of a metaphor. More will be said of this later. Suffice it. sit. y. Nat. n. al. er. io. to say for now that by “remarking on a previously unrecognized similarity” (Kittay 1987, 3), metaphors occasion a pleasant, intellectual surprise at the same time that they instruct us on a theme. With a relationship of similarity asserted between heterogenous realities, comprehending a metaphor can be an exciting mental exercise which Aristotle likens to solving a riddle, a popular intellectual pastime of ancient Greeks. He says, in fact, that in a way metaphors are a kind of riddle or enigma (Rhetoric 3.2 1405b5.)7 6. Ch. engchi. i Un. v. George Miller, following German pedagogist Friedrich Herbart, calls the activity endemic to metaphor creation and comprehension “apperception”, that is, a mental process whereby an experience is brought into relation with a previously acquired conceptual system. The notion underlies the educational principle that “new things are learned by being related to things already known (so that) if teachers know what their pupils know, they can relate ideas they want to teach to ideas the pupil has already mastered”, see Miller in Ortony 1979, 202. Two other articles in the same volume explore the didactic import of metaphor, namely, Hugh Petrie’s “Metaphor and Learning” and Thomas Sticht’s “Educational Uses of Metaphor”. Petrie notes the usefulness of Kuhn’s paradigms for scientific learning (p. 445), while Sticht says that metaphor use stimulates both knowledge invention and retention (p. 485). 7 Aristotle explains in continuation: “Liveliness is specially conveyed by metaphor, and by the further power of surprising the hearer; because the hearer expected something different, his acquisition of the new idea impresses him all the more (…) Well-constructed riddles are attractive for the same 16.

(24) In the Poetics, Aristotle calls attention to how metaphors contribute to excellent speech as well as to magnifying speech effect. Though poets have great liberty with words to achieve dramatic effect, still “the greatest thing by far is to be a master of metaphor; it is the one thing that cannot be learnt from others, and it is also a sign of genius” (Poetics 22.1459a5-6).8 Aristotle describes metaphor together with use of foreign words and coining new terms as “exotic language” that impresses hearers because they sound new and deviate from the standard use of words.9 One thing I wish to point out with regard to the poetic use of metaphor is that the excellence in speech (λέξεως ἀρετὴ) which poetry strives for does not consist merely in being able to stir emotions. Impressing or surprising the audience through something unfamiliar has to do with the poetic effect rather than excellence. Excellent speech for its part is geared toward generating “clarity” about the theme10, of effectively getting ideas across in much the same way that a verse in the Analects says language should achieve in general: 「辭達而已」 (15.40). I surmise – safely, I think – that to achieve. 政治大 clarity in poetry means successfully displaying that which it imitates. Aristotle 立 introduces the different genres of poetry as forms of imitation through different ‧. ‧ 國. 學. media.11 In Greek poetry, metaphors were most properly and conventionally used in tragic prose, which indicates that they were a useful language device for enlightening the audience about the human acts around which the plots revolved.12 We may ask, however, why Aristotle states that metaphor “cannot be learned from others and is a sign of genius.” The claim puts metaphor-creation above ordinary poetic skills and devices mentioned along with metaphor. Unlike borrowing foreign words, coining. sit. y. Nat. n. al. er. io. new ones or altering existing ones, metaphor entails more than a technique: it involves the acumen of being able to contemplate similarities (τὸ ὅμοιον θεωρειν).13 More will be said about this in a while when we explore the cognitive function of metaphor. The natural didactic capacity of metaphor along with its poetic effect. Ch. engchi. i Un. v. reason; a new idea is conveyed, and there is a metaphorical expression”, Rhetoric 3.11 1412a18-22-24. 8 Presumably because it is not a simple skill that can be acquired by mastering a technique (e.g., methods of rhyming) nor a matter of picking up a foreign word. An incisive exercise of the mind is required to bring disparate realities into relation with each other. 9 See Poetics 22. 10 Ibid., the opening line of the same section. 11 Ibid., 1.1447a13-15. 12 Paul Ricoeur further explores the suitability of metaphor in portraying human reality in tragic works in Ricouer 1974, 108-109. 13 The complete statement reads, “to be a master of metaphor (is) the one thing that cannot be learnt from others; and it is also a sign of genius, since a good metaphor implies an intuitive perception of the similarity in dissimilars”, Poetics 22 1459a5-8. Bywater’s translation is more interpretative compared to Stephen Halliwell’s which simply reads, “this alone cannot be acquired from another, and is a sign of natural gifts: because to use metaphor well is to discern similarities”, (Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, 1995). 17.

(25) unsurprisingly make it a powerful tool for persuasion as well. In order to influence public opinion, which is the art of rhetoric, the style of delivering a speech actually counts as much as the content itself. Again, style matters for the purpose of “clarity”, this time in presenting one’s arguments. Aristotle acknowledges that, in principle, the statement of bare facts ought to convince enough. However, public speech often calls upon the orator to address a heterogenous crowd. Appeal to emotion and some measure of poetic machination then become necessary for getting ideas across – for “instructing” – those of lesser schooling in the crowd.14 Recourse to metaphor – adjusted to a moderate and appropriate level in public speech compared to poetry – helps rhetoric in various ways. As with poetry, metaphor can lend clarity to arguments and makes them impressionable: “metaphor is of great value both in poetry and in prose; prose-writers must, however, pay special attention to metaphor, because their other resources are scantier than those of poets; metaphor, moreover, gives style clearness, charm, and distinction as nothing else can” (Rhetoric 3.2. 政治大 1405a8-9). Metaphor contributes to clarity because, for one thing, it enables us “to 立 give names to nameless things” (Rhetoric 3.2 1405a35) by applying to the unnamed ‧. ‧ 國. 學. thing the name of something similar to it. Modern examples that come to mind are names we give to technological gadgets and accessories, such as “mouse” and “tablets”.15 Further, metaphors contribute to clarity by magnifying the qualities of things talked about. However, just as one can use a metaphor for highlighting something good (i.e., by transferring the name of something better in kind), one can also denigrate by choosing an inferior phenomenon as name source. The fact is that. sit. y. Nat. n. al. er. io. the creator of a metaphor has the option to liken a thing to something similar and better than it, or to something similar and worse than it. An example which Aristotle gives is how, depending on how one views theatrical events organized in honor of gods, one could either call the performers “flatterers” of the gods, or “artists”. Another example closer to our age could be to compare religion either to opium, as Karl Marx does, or to incense. Comparing religion with opium treats the former as if it were a mind-deluding vice propagated by an elite circle, ultimately a social evil which the government must work to eradicate. Incense, on the other hand, is non-addictive, soothing, and even therapeutic, so a metaphor based on it would sound less derogatory. We can see from this too that the highlighting function of. Ch. engchi. i Un. v. metaphor has ambivalent use, is open to abuse, and can obscure truth rather than 14. Rhetoric 3.1 1404a1-5. We have recourse to metaphor “when language fails”, Punter 2007, 13. An important advantage of metaphor pointed out by a number of authors is precisely its ability to expand the standard resources of the language (White 1996), enabling us to overcome cognitive and communicative limitations, Sticht in Ortony 1978, 474-475. Stern refers to this as the “catechesis function” of metaphor: that it helps fill in lexical gaps which are at times not just a matter of inadequate vocabulary but also of inadequate understanding or conceptualization, Stern 2000, 190-192, 319. 18 15.

(26) promote clarity.16 All the same, when a well-chosen or appropriate word is used, the resulting metaphor can help to illumine us on the topic: “(the appropriate) term may describe a thing more truly than another, may be more like it, and set it more intimately before our eyes” (Rhetoric 3.2 1405b11-12). As mentioned earlier, there are authors who complain that Aristotle did not take metaphor seriously, that he considered it merely “ornamental”17 to language by relegating his discussion of it to treatises on poetry and persuasion. My view, however, is that the charge is unsolicited and to some extent anachronic. In the Poetics as much as in Rhetoric, there are clues which show Aristotle’s awareness of the pervasiveness of metaphor. In this regard, two claims in the Rhetoric merit attention: first, that all use metaphors in conversation, and, second, that words are a mimesis, that is, “imitations” or images of semblance. 18 While the first claim acknowledges the ubiquity of metaphor, the second seems to me even more important as it indicates that for Aristotle, there is something metaphoric underlying. 政治大 all thought and speech, a core premise of modern cognitive research in its appraisal 立 of metaphor. We can add to these claims the fact that while Aristotle does not say ‧. ‧ 國. 學. that metaphor is necessary outside of poetry and rhetoric, he does use metaphor outside poetry and rhetoric, specifically in metaphysical and ethical treatises. This shows that metaphors for Aristotle are – at least in some way and to some extent – appropriate for expressing philosophical truths. Moreover, he regards the core of metaphoric thinking, that of “contemplating similarities”, an intellectual capacity that is exhibited also in philosophy: that of having “an acute mind (that) perceives. sit. y. Nat. n. al. er. io. resemblances even in things far apart” (Rhetoric 3.11 1412a11). Authors are naturally wont to focus on passages where Aristotle directly discusses metaphor. Yet, attention to some ideas expressed in other manuscripts in the Corpus Aristotelicum may prove even more interesting for modern research on metaphor. These ideas are easily missed since they do not mention the word metaphor (μεταφορὰ). In De Anima, for example, Aristotle states that “even when we think speculatively, we must have some mental picture of which to think” 16. Ch. engchi. i Un. v. The ambiguity which metaphors can cause is also pointed out in the Topics: “another commonplace (regarding obscurity) is to see whether he has spoken metaphorically (…) for metaphorical expressions are always obscure”, 6.2 139b3-4. 17 Aristotle does say that we can use metaphors if “we wish to ornament our subject”, Rhetoric 3.2 1405a10. The word “to ornament” (κοσμειν) carries more significance than our present-day understanding of it as “decorating” or “embellishing”. In Greek, the word relates semantically to kosmos, meaning “pattern”, “design”, and, derivatively, “universe”. To have a pattern means to have been influenced by some intelligence which orders what was previously in chaos, and intellect is likewise what is able to discern underlying patterns in nature and things. Following this vein, to ornament a subject with metaphor could imply rendering it more intelligible, precisely by showing forth its semblance with another. 18 The original lines from the Rhetoric read “Πάντες γὰρ μεταφοραῖς διαλέγονται” (3.2 1404b35) and “τὰ γὰρ ὀνόματα μιμήτα ἐστίν” (3.1 1404a20). 19.

(27) (432a10–11). The “mental picture” mentioned here seems to me to come very close to Lakoff and Johnson’s celebrated thesis of metaphorical concepts underlying human thought structures. We will say more about the image factor of metaphor in the section about metaphor theory. A modern scholar, Eva Kittay, also points out how Aristotle’s Topics and Posterior Analytics offer strong claims about the cognitive significance of metaphor over and above its usefulness in poetry and rhetoric. This significance hinges around two ideas cited earlier: that metaphors contemplate likeness and that some metaphors involve analogy. Accordingly, attending to likeness in things is not only an amusing poetic experience but also has practical and wide-reaching benefits which we might even call crucial for philosophy and the sciences. Aristotle says that the exercise is important on three counts: “the consideration of similarity is useful both for inductive arguments and for hypothetical reasoning and also for the assignment of definitions” (Topics 1.8 108b7-9). The first, inductive argument, involves inference. 政治大 from particulars of what is universal or common to the genus or species on the basis 立 of similar traits (e.g., possums carry their young in pouches; hence, possums, like ‧. ‧ 國. 學. kangaroos, must be marsupials).19 The second, hypothetical speech, benefits from inference of similarity through the principle that “among similars, what is true of one is true of all the rest” (Topics 1.18 108b12-13). So, for example, if a distant planet is discovered to have a satellite body, the latter must also be subject to the kind of gravitational and magnetic forces that are known to exist between planets and their moons in the solar system. Finally, the examination of likeness among things is also. sit. y. Nat. n. al. er. io. important for formulating definitions since assigning a formal definition to something entails identifying its characteristics on the basis of which it can be classified under the genus of things with the same characteristics (e.g., a moon is a celestial body <generic characteristic> that orbits a planet <specific characteristic>). It is obvious from the above that the contemplation of similarities is a fundamental process of reasoning across sciences. Of equal importance too for science is the concept of analogy, which, according to the Posterior Analytics, is a basis of classification and selection of species and genera of minerals, plants and animals (2.14 98a20-22). Analogy lends enormous support to natural sciences for its role in building the system of taxonomy. In moral sciences, analogy too is useful for argumentation. The. Ch. engchi. i Un. v. function argument in the Nicomachean Ethics, for example, illustrates how a happy life consists in virtuous activity parallel to how the excellence of a musician lays in being able to play his instrument well.20 With all these, Kittay’s claim that “Aristotle. 19. Note also what another author says, “connecting things of similarity is a basic operation of mind”, Hiraga 2005, 16. 20 Refer to Nicomachean Ethics I.7. 20.

(28) had already pointed out the cognitive importance of metaphor” (Kittay 1987, 2) does seem justified. Now, after Aristotle, metaphor became a topic of import mostly in the oratorical traditions of Hellenic and Roman antiquity. As can be expected, Aristotle’s discussion in the Rhetoric took prevalence, and metaphor was treated as a matter of form or style rather than content, sheer language adornment. Nonetheless, a passage from the Roman philosopher Cicero (106 - 43 B.C.) in a work on rhetoric alerts us to the fact that, perhaps just as in earlier Greek antiquity, to be ornamental did not necessarily mean to be superfluous: something could be both ornamental and necessary at the same time. Quite fittingly, he uses a metaphor to drive home the point: garments, no matter how ornate they become, are still a basic necessity (cf. De Oratione 3.155). Eva Kittay paraphrases Cicero’s point as follows: “dress, no matter how elaborate it becomes, still serves basic needs and desires for warmth, protection, etc. – so metaphor might serve as a basic need even in the midst of an affluent. 政治大. language” (Kittay 1987, 1-2). During medieval times, the trend of consigning metaphor discourse to public speech continued. Simultaneously, however, developments in theological science, be it Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, also contributed to metaphor study in late antiquity and the middle ages. The contributions of these religious traditions are frequently overlooked in present studies on metaphor, perhaps for the same reason that some useful insights of Aristotle tend to be neglected, namely that they were not discussed under the theme of “metaphor.” However, the conceptual tools, methods, and. 立. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. sit. y. Nat. n. al. er. io. themes developed in these traditions for the study of sacred scriptures do have bearing on the topic, especially with regard to metaphoric interpretation. We could think, for example, of the impact of methods of exegesis and of the distinction between literal and symbolic meanings on today’s research. Apart from developing metaphor knowledge in the sphere of textual interpretation, the sacred, theological, and pious literature of these traditions were also steeped in metaphor use. Medieval writings, academic and literary alike, illustrate the prevalence and fittingness of metaphor in exploring elevated themes. 21 They also manifest the capacity of metaphoric statements to appeal to both learned and unversed by supporting different levels of reading.22 As an aside, the potential of metaphoric expressions to 21. Ch. engchi. i Un. v. Dante Alighieri’s Divine Comedy is a fine example of medieval poetry exhibiting masterful use of metaphor through stunning and carefully-crafted allegories. 22 Joseph Stern explains the versatile communicative capacity of metaphor in the following manner: “I have emphasized how (a metaphor’s exemplification of its subject) can reveal, or render cognitively accessible, bare properties that we have no fully conceptualized means to express. But (it) can also serve to conceal a fully conceptualized and independently understood property. This second function of metaphor, concealment, is hardly mentioned nowadays, but it was a classical and widely cited explanation for the use of metaphor in Scripture and other sacred writings by medieval philosophers, 21.