Metaphorical Meanings (Q&A 1)

Is a metaphor void of meaning?

In his essay, Davidson writes that "I depend on the distinction between what words mean and what they are used to do. I think metaphor belongs exclusively to the domain of use." He goes on to add "We must give up the idea that a metaphor carries a message, that it has a content or meaning (except, of course, its literal meaning)."

I have many objections to Davidson's essay, only a few of which I will enumerate here. First of all, while I acknowledge that we may draw a distinction between the meaning of words and how we use those words, I find it difficult to claim that any function of language can be exclusively either. The use of words in language may serve different functions, but the meaning of those words is integral to the communication process and thus the use for which the words are intended.

Second, Davidson's claim that metaphors have no meaning is at least partially based off of the faulty premise I argued against before. He claims that the metaphor simply uses its literal meaning to "bring something to our attention." However, when faced with a metaphor such as the popularly used "Richard is a Lion," I begin to have difficulties reconciling the message of the metaphor with the literal meaning of the words. If the nature of the metaphor functions like Davidson would have us believe, then it would make me notice that Richard is in fact a large member of the cat family. Thus, it seems to fail at distinguishing itself as a metaphor as opposed to a falsehood. But then again, with no inherent meaning or message contained within the metaphor itself, I suppose that whatever information I gleaned from my understanding of it is sufficient to appease Davidson's understanding of it's function.