As I’ve already explained, since you keep using figurative to mean “not true/historical/factual” instead of what figurative really means, which is language that requires pragmatic inferences to interpret the intended meaning, I can’t do this. The way I determine whether language is intended as figurative or literal is by looking at the shared context and guessing what the speaker most likely intended to communicate.
Lol, and as I have explained no one would let their kids kids give a figurative explanation for starting a fire.
Falling back on my experience with Wittgenstein’s works, I think yall are using figurative in an unusual way. The definition of figurative on dictionary.com is:
of the nature of or involving a figure of speech, especially a metaphor; metaphorical and not literal:
so let’s look up literal.
There are 4 meanings 3 of which apply here
*in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: *
the literal meaning of a word.
*following the words of the original very closely and exactly: *
a literal translation of Goethe.
true to fact; not exaggerated; actual or factual:
being actually such, without exaggeration or inaccuracy:
Once again, if you will excuse me for using logic, figurative is ‘not literal’ and literal is actual, factual, without exaggeration or inaccuracy, then by the transitive rule of logic, then figurative is not 'actual or factual and with exaggeration and inaccuracy. That is the dictionary definition of figurative. I think I am using that word in accordance with the definition and you are using figurative inaccurately, not literally.
If we can’t even agree that we shouldn’t make up the meaning of words in these debates, then we have reached an end. You are free to use the word ‘figurative’ inaccurately, but your communication will run into people like me who believe that words are useful ONLY if they have agreed upon meanings, not meaninsg like Huxley commented on—again, here is his comment on the way Biblical scholars misuse words and alter their meanings.
“If we are to listen to many expositors of no mean authority, we must believe that what seems so clearly defined in Genesisas if very great pains had been taken that there should be no possibility of mistakeis not the meaning of the text at all. The account is divided into periods that we may make just as long or as short as convenience requires. We are also to understand that it is consistent with the original text to believe that the most complex plants and animals may have been evolved by natural processes, lasting for millions of years, out of structureless rudiments. A person who is not a Hebrew scholar can only stand aside and admire the marvelous flexibility of a language which admits of such diverse interpretations.” Thomas H. Huxley, “Lectures on Evolution” in Agnosticism and Christianity, Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1992), p. 14
I don’t feel like beating my head against the wall since you are not using the English language in its agreed upon word definitions. If meanings are squiggly then communication is impossiblestrong text