(Also available on Bitchute.)
There is a tendency for thinkers to use metaphor and allegory to reframe a problem or issue in a way that clarifies or simplifies it. The problem with metaphor and allegory is that they necessarily change or obscure details. Therefore, the solutions you propose from looking at a metaphor might be way off.
Even worse, the retreat into metaphor can be so deep that no concrete solutions even appear, and you end up with long periods of idle musing.
Another point is that metaphors, being abstractions, are less assailable than concrete arguments. The metaphor-user can pick and choose which elements of the metaphor to view as valid.
Here are some examples:
First, the overuse of the notion of “negation” in Hegelian dialectic. I once read someone who applied negation to a plant growing, calling a sprout the negation of the seed, the leaves the negation of the sprout, and the flower the negation of the leaves.
You can make the definition of “negation” so vague that it simply refers to any change at all.
Second, Keynes’s “Animal spirits.” This was, in my opinion, an attempt to avoid a careful, detailed, falsifiable attempt to understand market phenomena, instead replacing them with a vague metaphor that does whatever it does, analysis be damned.
Finally, Mencius Moldbug uses a “Telephone Pole” metaphor. He says that small or minimal government is represented by the telephone pole standing up, and only small efforts are needed to keep it standing. A large state is represented by the pole on its side, and much effort is required to lift it.
The problem with this is twofold: 1) it isn’t clear what actions lift the pole, and 2) it seems like some of the proposed actions are closer to rolling the pole around on the ground, crushing anything in its way.
When faced with someone insisting on metaphors rather than concrete statements, watch out. Metaphor and allegory can be used to simplify and clarify, but the metaphor always needs to be translatable back into concrete proposals. If you think someone is using a metaphor to deceive you, demand they get back to brass tacks.
As an example of “brass tacks,” let’s look at End the Fed. This is a specific policy proposal with a specific justification, namely that state monopolization of money allows the state to inflate and devalue the money, stealing from all holders of cash. It lets them choose and support cronies, directing new funds to them preferentially. It lets them bailout cronies, too. And it allows the state to support whatever immoral wars it wants to fight without the people feeling the squeeze.
But even more than this, people who advocate for Ending the Fed can list a variety of proposals that would at least help. For instance, getting rid of legal tender laws and allowing states or private organizations to mint gold, silver, or some other commodity money. Reducing the Fed’s power, either by limiting the amount of money it can create, limiting the assets it can have on its books, reducing its ability to form subsidiaries, etc. is another idea. Clarifying its mandate, so that it has less leeway to fiddle with the economy is yet another. At minimum, we support ongoing audits of the Fed, to help reduce its ability to pick winners and losers.
My point is that, if someone using a metaphor can’t pull it back to reality just like how I described End the Fed, watch out! They may be trying to use metaphor to give themselves a vague yet unassailable argument.