Metaphor in Philosophical Works

In Wednesday's class, we discussed the pros and cons of using metaphors in philosophical works.  The most significant negative aspect of the idea was the vagueness inherent in metaphorical language; the most significant positive aspects were the brevity, potency or vividness, and attention-drawing aesthetic value of such language.  One aspect we did not address, however, is the emotionally evocative nature of metaphors.

The way in which metaphors tend to create emotional reactions in those to whom they are addressed makes them very useful in persuasive contexts, such as political speeches, persuasive articles, and religious scripture.  All of these contexts freely make use of emotion to convince their addressees to change or strengthen their views to match those of the person or people using the metaphor.  Philosophical essays, on the other hand, are typically supposed to convince their readers of the validity of their point through rational argument, not appeal to emotions or intuitions.  Using metaphors to persuade others in a philosophical context is, I think, a misuse of metaphor.  Using metaphors for other purposes (clarification, example, aesthetic value) in such a context, however, is not inadvisable.