Critique of conceptual metaphor theory

Lakoff and Johnson consider metaphor as a cognitive tool by which we know something else through something conventional and empirical. For them, metaphor is essentially pervasive in everyday life, not just in language, but in our thoughts and actions, and in our ordinary conceptual system in which we think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature. They claim that in traditional theories, the relationship between metaphor and thought has not been considered; Rather, they pay attention only to the linguistic interpretations of metaphors in poetry and literature, and distinguish between everyday language and literary language. Hence, the new definition, in contrast to linguistic metaphor, was called conceptual metaphor, which has features such as one-sided mapping and the principle of immutability, and is divided into types such as conventional, novel and pictorial metaphor. In this article, we have criticized the theory of conceptual metaphor and some of its internal contradictions. Some of the results are: cognitive understanding is not metaphorical but deductive; Metaphor is based on similarity and immutability is not a valid principle. Rumi's metaphorical language is a mythical language and his mental structure is consistent with ancient ideas because the linguistic and intellectual works of ancient narrations about the king and the beloved and God and love and creation are still present in the texts that Rumi read and in his public beliefs and society. It is possible that Rumi had reached such a knowledge of love without will and considered it to have such characteristics.