Formulation of the Claim
Metaphor acquires its vitality and meaning from its connection to lived reality.
Explanation
Arkoun sees metaphor as remaining creative only when it stays linked to historical experience and the social. Meaning here does not reside in the word alone, but in its relation to what people live through and know from the conditions of their existence.
When metaphor is detached from this reality, it loses its capacity for productive evocation and becomes closer to hallucination or ideological distortion. For this reason, in Arkoun’s view, its understanding is tied to the context of religious discourse and its transformations within social history.
Its Place in the Book’s Argument
This atom falls within Arkoun’s emphasis that religious language is not to be read as isolated words, but as a discourse formed within its historical and social conditions. From this perspective, metaphor becomes part of the way meaning takes shape in the text, not a linguistic ornament detached from it.
This idea serves Arkoun’s broader thesis that reading must be returned to its human and historical horizon, so that discourse is not severed from the ground on which it was born. In this context, metaphor is a sign of the intertwining of language and experience, not of their separation.
Limits of the Claim
This does not mean that every metaphor is confined to a single direct meaning, or that its connection to reality cancels its symbolic power. The point is that its complete detachment from lived experience weakens its effectiveness and exposes it to distortion.
Brief Evidence Passage
Metaphor derives its vitality from its connection to lived reality and to historical and social experience. If it is cut off from this reality, it loses much of its capacity for semantic production. Meaning does not reside in the word alone, but in its relation to what people live.
Related Links
Arkoun, history