Abstract

ABSTRACTLloyd claims that analogies might be misleading, but might similarly allow for insights not open to those who pursue ‘inappropriate quests for certainty.’ Analogy is then presented as a flawed vehicle for discourse, useful despite that flaw, the potential to mislead, because it simultaneously delivers benefit. The problem then becomes to identify the falsehood present in the analogy in order to gain insight. Certainty is inappropriate because this is impossible. If, however, it be considered as an expression of the Parmenidean paradox of being and non-being, analogy becomes essential to the discussion of multidimensional truth through a simultaneous expression of that which is defined and that which is set apart from the definition. This paper argues that reflection on Parmenides in relation to analogy leads to a further and stronger grounding for the necessity of analogy in philosophical discourse.