Listen I appreciate you taking the time. And Ok, if we must treat "analogy" as a kind of formal linguistic unit like this, then sure, I guess I was dumb about this.
I will say, it does seem to lose all meaning in this definition. Or just, your argument makes it seem redundant as a concept to simply a "comparison". Maybe it's the brain damage, but I come from a world of shared, natural language where an analogy is somewhat defined by the actual bearing on the two terms, or how as you say, how "good" it is. Also lost in your concept here to me is that analogies are also definitionally asymmetrical: you're using one concept to explain another. It is why we are called to make analogies at all. It's a synthetic intellectual act bringing disparate things together. That's why we say that we "make" analogies. It's also why none of your "analogies" to me are really that good or obvious, save maybe the wagon one.
But hey, you do sound like you know what you're talking about, so maybe I should just learn from this!
I will say, it does seem to lose all meaning in this definition. Or just, your argument makes it seem redundant as a concept to simply a "comparison". Maybe it's the brain damage, but I come from a world of shared, natural language where an analogy is somewhat defined by the actual bearing on the two terms, or how as you say, how "good" it is. Also lost in your concept here to me is that analogies are also definitionally asymmetrical: you're using one concept to explain another. It is why we are called to make analogies at all. It's a synthetic intellectual act bringing disparate things together. That's why we say that we "make" analogies. It's also why none of your "analogies" to me are really that good or obvious, save maybe the wagon one.
But hey, you do sound like you know what you're talking about, so maybe I should just learn from this!