Freud defined anger as impulses inside us which need to be released from within, because if not they’ll have negative consequences. In Lakoff’s text Anger, his objective is to prove that emotions are more than just feelings but actually they have a conceptual content explained through metaphors and metonymies in American English from folk theories. I tried to make a comparison between anger and lust metaphors in American English and Egyptian Arabic and found out that there are big similarities between them on the semantic level as they are related to heat, hunger, animal, insanity..etc.
But differences is that in Arabic anger isn’t related to kitchen tools but actually lust is because in movies when coffee spoils from kettle means that there’s a sexual intercourse or rape that’ll take place. Other point, machine expressions aren’t related to lust but rather to sports field as” I scored a goal, man” refers to sex as well.
Moving to another point which is the rape part in which social perspectives are related with metaphors. From a feminist perspective , this part has been discussed from a male point of view and at the same time as if it were directed to male readers(one of points that feminism discussed). Moreover, woman in these examples appear as nothing more than a sexual object and according to the man in the example she is responsible of the rape act(same opinion is in Egyptian society). From this example one can conclude that this act goes beyond violence against women and can be dragged under the concept of pleasure principle in Freudian terms because instead of repressing sexual desire inside he rapes women so as not to feel she has power on him if the word POWER is restricted to male use. Moreover, this attitude is called narcissistic injury according to Freud as well as he’;; feel his virility will be injured if he doesn’t do it. Besides, this part reminds us of definition as woman as womb which Simone de Beauvoir discussed in her essay The Second Sex. For all reasons mentioned above, I think he could have talked about lust in other examples other than rape.
On the other hand, Grassi in his article discussed metaphor on two levels as rational language and rhetorical one. He emphasizes that Rhetorics is the basis of the rational thought. Giving examples like in Cassandra, Cassandra represents rhetorical level due to use of images while chorus is the rational one. Afterwards, through the dialogue between both of them transfers Cassandra from the purely semantic world to the rational one. This transfer is made by metaphor which acts as bridge between these two worlds. Rhetorical language was always related to religious and semantic fields. Comparing between Rhetorics and Philosohpy, Rhetorics always had a formal function while Philosohpy was to provide knowledge. But actually, Rhetorics reaches grade of philosophy as he concluded that therefore, we can not speak of rhetoric and philosophy, but every original philosophy is rhetoric and every true and not exterior rhetoric is philosophy.
Two sum up, these two authors talked about metaphors from two different angles but allowed us to know that they are beyond pure rhetorical, linguistic figures detached from other cultural aspects.