Quote Originally Posted by I, Sophroniscus
I suppose Lakoff might object that I am trying to interpret his book using classical ideas when I ought to adopt his theories on faith alone.

Well, I suppose I can try. To do that I must attempt to understand what he means by the classical theory. So we must find a prototype for the word classical for which the statement "From the time of Aristotle to the later work of Wittgenstein, categories were thought be well understood and unproblematic" is true.

That in itself is a tall order, since clearly Aristotle, Plotinus, Porphyry, Kant and Peirce seem to disagree with each other. But if we add in the following the task seems impossible...
Thought is the mechanical manipulation of abstract symbols.
The mind is an abstract machine, manipulating symbols essentially in the way a computer does, that is, by algorithmic computation.
Symbols (e.g., words and mental representations) get their meaning via correspondences to things in the external world. All meaning is of this character.
~ page xii.

For it is far from clear what sort of mechanical manipulation Aristotle might have had in mind. What sort of computer might he have had in mind? History gives us few answers to that inquiry. There is the abacus, I suppose...
In spite or these problems, I suppose I should continue on my search for a prototype for the classical theory that might be of use.

As we look further into Lakoff's claims we see the following...
Machines that do no more than mechanically manipulate symbols that correspond to things in the world are capable of meaningful thought and reason.
~ page xiii.

Such a statement is bewildering, since it requires one to suppose that Aristotle, Plotinus, Porphyry, Kant, Peirce and others in between thought in such terms. Yet that supposition appears most doubtful.