Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Religion

Voltaire2

(15,377 posts)

14. You mashed that metaphor.

Reply to guillaumeb (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 6, 2019, 06:30 AM

Feb 2019

the correct phrase is “cannot see the forest for the trees”.

The point is you have to step back from the tree to see that it is part of a larger entity, a forest.

You literally cannot be so close to the forest that you cannot see the tree. The closer you get to the forest the more individual trees you see. Eventually you are so close all you can see is one tree. Which was the point of the metaphor.

Please try again. You need more practice with this metaphor thing.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

33 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Secular saints, folk saints and plain old celebrities [View all] guillaumeb Feb 2019 OP

I guess by the time you're writing articles for ReligionNews, everything is religious to you. Act_of_Reparation Feb 2019 #1

And to paraphrase the villain from The Incredibles... trotsky Feb 2019 #2

To a man with (only) a hammer ... Bretton Garcia Feb 2019 #3

Tsk, tsk. trotsky Feb 2019 #4

If only we knew what such bridging would look like. Act_of_Reparation Feb 2019 #5

Good thing there was no train on that trestle. MineralMan Feb 2019 #6

Interesting that the 2 of you have the same approach to dialogue. guillaumeb Feb 2019 #9

Is it? MineralMan Feb 2019 #10

Perhaps you are too close to the forest to see the trees. eom guillaumeb Feb 2019 #11

Or, perhaps, cliches are not useful. MineralMan Feb 2019 #12

And you might want to step farther back and look again. eom guillaumeb Feb 2019 #13

Do you see yourself as performing well in this particular exchange? Act_of_Reparation Feb 2019 #18

I see 2 frequent posters engaging in the same behavior, guillaumeb Feb 2019 #20

I think you might consider looking up the definition of the word "parody" Act_of_Reparation Feb 2019 #22

I disagree. guillaumeb Feb 2019 #23

Of course you do. Act_of_Reparation Feb 2019 #29

You mashed that metaphor. Voltaire2 Feb 2019 #14

Understanding the concept of metaphor isn't all that easy, really. MineralMan Feb 2019 #16

I assumed that you would understand my point. guillaumeb Feb 2019 #21

You assume many things that are incorrect. MineralMan Feb 2019 #24

Do you ever make that mistake? eom guillaumeb Feb 2019 #25

Probably. MineralMan Feb 2019 #26

There is hope. guillaumeb Feb 2019 #27

For some, there is hope, at least. MineralMan Feb 2019 #28

Here's "can't see the forest for the trees" in many languages: MineralMan Feb 2019 #17

No matter the language, n'importe quelle langue, guillaumeb Feb 2019 #19

If you step back from the forest it continues to look like a forest until you are so far back Voltaire2 Feb 2019 #30

Your explanation was missent. guillaumeb Feb 2019 #32

Would it really kill you to just give an "Oops, my bad" and move on? trotsky Feb 2019 #33

We all know the bridge isn't important. trotsky Feb 2019 #7

I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do Major Nikon Feb 2019 #15

At most, secular "saints" are probably deliberate religious parody. Bretton Garcia Feb 2019 #8

Jesus is toast? Voltaire2 Feb 2019 #31