Is it real?

Knowledge, like truth, is relative to understanding. Our folk view of knowledge as being absolute comes from the same source as our folk view that truth is absolute, which is the folk theory that there is only one way to understand a situation. When that folk theory fails, and we have multiple ways of understanding, or “framing,” a situation, then knowledge, like truth, becomes relative to that understanding. Likewise, when our understanding is stable and secure, knowledge based on that understanding is stable and secure.

Is such knowledge "real knowledge”? Well, it’s as real as our knowledge ever gets—real enough for all but the most seasoned skeptics.—George Lakoff, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things, 300

It's the way we look at things...

It is our objectivist legacy that we view rationality as being purely mental, unemotional, detached—independent of imagination, of social functioning, and of the limitations of our bodies and our memories. It is our objectivist legacy that leads us to view reasoning as mechanical and to glorify those kinds of reasoning that in fact are mechanical. It is our objectivist legacy that leads us to view machines that are capable of algorithmic computation as being capable of human reason. And it is our objectivist legacy that we view it as progress when we are able to structure aspects of our physical and social environment to make it more like an objectivist universe.—George Lakoff, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things, 183 (emphasis original)

Philosophy matters…

Philosophy matters. It matters more than most people realize, because philosophical ideas that have developed over the centuries enter our culture in the form of a world view and affect us in thousands of ways. Philosophy matters in the academic world because the conceptual frameworks upon which entire academic disciplines rest usually have roots in philosophy—roots so deep and invisible that they are usually not even noticed. This is certainly true in my own field, linguistics, where the classical theory of categories and certain attendant philosophical assumptions have been taken so much for granted that alternative assumptions seem unthinkable. One of my purposes is to show that the classical theory of categories is inadequate for the study of natural language as well as other aspects of the mind and that new philosophical assumptions are required in order to make sense of linguistic phenomena and other aspects of cognition.—George Lakoff, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things, 157

Mind as computer?

Since the digital computer works by symbol manipulation and since its symbols can be interpreted in terms of a data base, which is often viewed as a partial model of reality, the computer has been taken by many as essentially possessing the capacity to reason. This is the basis of the contemporary mind-as-computer metaphor, which has spread from computer science and cognitive psychology to the culture at large.—George Lakoff, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things, 7–8

Capacity to reason

The capacity to reason is usually taken as defining what human beings are and as distinguishing us from other things that are alive. If we understand reason as being disembodied, then our bodies are only incidental to what we are. If we understand reason as mechanical—the sort of thing a computer can do—then we will devalue human intelligence as computers get more efficient. If we understand rationality as the capacity to mirror the world external to human beings then we will devalue those aspects of the mind that can do infinitely more than that. If we understand reason as merely literal, we will devalue art.—George Lakoff, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things, xvi