Thoughts on this, /lit/? I'm about 75 pages in and its kind

Can you describe the basic thesis of the book?

>>9717571
as I said I'm only 75 pages in right now, but its pretty much about how all our language/memes/thoughts are based on analogies, which are nebulous and constantly changing.

>>9717578
This has been done many times before, e.g., by the people who inspired Fauconnier's/Turner's theory. Which this book actually uses and cites, though fairly badly it looks like.

But F+T are massive, derivative hacks compared to many major writers on this topic in the last 50-100 years. Ctrl+f'ed Wittgenstein, just ONE of them, and not only is he barely mentioned, this is the mention:
>We might begin by asking what a bird is. According to classical philosophers, whose view went essentially unchallenged in philosophy for centuries, until the studies of philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, published in the 1950's, the category bird should have a precise definition consisting of necessary and sufficient conditions for an entity’s membership in the category, such as “possesses two feet”, “has skin covered with feathers”, “has a beak”, “lays eggs”.

Classical metaphysics/ontotheology was "unchallenged" until the "studies" of Wittgenstein in the 1950's?

Jesus Christ. I'm normally sympathetic to eclectic and sui generis studies, that just get their ideas out and don't feel beholden to academic orthodoxy. But why bother including shit like this if you're going to be so lazy and retarded about it?

>>9717602
Okay now I'm fucking pissed off. One of the most enormous figures in that group of philosophers who have covered the issue of metaphor is Bachelard, and I stumbled on his name and got excited for a second.

They're citing Bachelard saying metaphor is BAD. No, you fucking dolts, Bachelard is saying exactly what you're saying in many parts of the book, that metaphors have certain complexes of associations and structural logics that can "block" people from thinking differently about objects, which is why a FREE PLAY of metaphorical and creative thinking is needed, rather than rigid conformity to programmatic ways of looking at things.

What a shit book. Written shorter and better and more insightfully by someone a hundred years ago, and not only do they ignore him, they cherry-pick a quote from him (presumably while googling "metaphor philosophy") and present him as the opposite of his real position, which is 100x better than the book's. Fuck Hofstadter. I used to think he was OK.

>>9717616
lol ok, glad your so fired up about it, now reccomend me some books

>>9717660
He probably recommends Bachelard

>>9717544
Hoffstader is a terrible writer who got famous because people felt smart reading his bloated book of gimmicks.
He has a few good ideas and you can get them all from I Am A Strange Loop and even that could easily be condensed to maybe 100 pages by someone with actual skill.

File: 1370674247820.gif (999KB, 250x251px) Image search: [Google]

999KB, 250x251px

>>9717602
>asking what a bird is

That's actually a good starting point. What ARE birds?

>>9717976

I don't think he's a terrible writer, but I would agree that his insights could be reduced to a much smaller book.

It's fluffy feathering can be relatively relaxing though, if you're taking a break from more stimulating reading.

>>9718762

>it's

its*

And that was in relation to I Am a Strange Loop.

>forgive me I'm day drinking in the sun

Nothing that hasn't already been said ITT, it's fine but not to be read in full or at all if you can stomach more specialized works