Explanation
A “line of reasoning” makes abstract transitions followable. One can start, proceed, diverge and return. These possibilities matter to the Atlas, but their image is not neutral. A “right track” presupposes a criterion; a “dead end” implies a failure to continue. Discovery need not begin with a known destination, and deviation is not necessarily error. Westerkamp's article explicitly examines transfers from spatial paths to thinking and method. The profile turns that analysis back on the Atlas itself. A proposed route is an editorial invitation, not the objectively necessary order of concepts. Readers may find another connection or redefine the starting question, provided the transitions and differences remain accountable.
Movement of thought
1. State the starting point and guiding question. 2. Explain the contribution of each transition. 3. Expose the assumed direction and possible destination. 4. Examine alternatives, detours and a justified exit. 5. Return to the starting concept and specify the change in understanding.
Scientific use case
A philosophical analysis can examine images of steps and methods within an argument. A separate Atlas usability study would ask whether readers can explain transitions or construct alternatives. Clicking through a sequence is not sufficient evidence of comprehension.
Example
“Metaphor → machine metaphors → organism metaphors → metaphor.” The question is what each model discloses or suppresses, not which image is always true. The return changes the reader's account of metaphor without making the four stops a universal law of discovery. Original Atlas route.
Counterexample
A numbered sequence is not automatically an intelligible pathway. A shared register result does not establish a necessary conceptual transition. An open inquiry can also be productive before its destination is known.
Distinction
Coordinates describe features; scholarly relations state grounded connections; proposed pathways order an exploration. Path imagery makes the third intelligible but cannot replace the first two or prove their claims.
Effect on thought and perception
Transitions become navigable. Countertesting resists the assumption that thinking must be linear progress towards the same destination for every reader.
Resonance
Return does not mean recovering an unchanged starting position. Encounters alter what can be heard in the initial concept, while the route remains an invitation that can be revised.
Etymology
The heading groups spatial-movement expressions. Their semantic connections do not establish a single historical origin for all methods of reasoning.
Provenance
DE/EN editorially accepted on 15 October 2026. Historical context, language comparison and source status are shown separately in the full entry.
Cite this entry
Reich, Michael (Hrsg./ed.): „Path metaphors of thought“. Atlas der Sprache, AT-ADD-20261015-0016. ATLAS 259, data model 1.6.0. https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-ADD-20261015-0016The address remains stable; editorial content may evolve. Editorial reading state: 2026-10-15. Include your access date for precise references.
Guiding question
What orientation does a thought pathway provide, and what order does its image already assume?
Five coordinate questions
These descriptions explain the entry. They are not yet controlled register values and generate no shared register results.
- Where can the process be observed?
- Path expressions and explicitly designed inquiry sequences.
- What happens to the material?
- Organise transitions as directed movement.
- At what level does a change occur?
- Orientation and an account of epistemic progress.
- What temporal structure is involved?
- Sequential with possible branching and return.
- How can the description be tested?
- Justify transitions and explain what the return changes.
Historical context
Dirk Westerkamp's “Weg” relates historical and cognitive semantics and differentiates transfers to thought and method. It is the consulted source. The Atlas navigation proposal is editorial design, not a website function already established by that article.
Cross-language distinction and terminology
English offers “train of thought,” “line of reasoning” and “path,” which do not distribute imagery exactly like German Gedankengang. The independent treatment keeps these alternatives visible instead of assuming identical word-by-word routes.
Scholarly relations: explained reading links
Each relation is named and explained. These reading links are neither shared register results nor newly canonised relation edges.
- Metaphor · Selected case
A metaphor field through which the Atlas examines its own guiding image.
Proposed thought pathway
Which inferences arise along a route, and what does the return change?
Path metaphors of thought → Machine metaphors → Organism and body metaphors → Path metaphors of thought
Countertest and return
A numbered sequence is not automatically an intelligible pathway. A shared register result does not establish a necessary conceptual transition. An open inquiry can also be productive before its destination is known.
This route is an editorial exploration, not a necessary ordering of concepts. Return: Path metaphors of thought
Source scope and provenance
The texts are editorially accepted. Acceptance does not turn a reference article, abstract or register record into a full primary-source verification. Examples and the proposed thought sequence are independent Atlas applications.
- Dirk Westerkamp: Weg. In: Ralf Konersmann (Hg.), Wörterbuch der philosophischen Metaphern. Studienausgabe 2014, unveränderter Nachdruck der erweiterten 3. Auflage 2011. · Abschnitt 1: Übertragung auf Denken und Methode
The philosophical image-field and the selected historical context discussed in the entry.
Atlas headings and contemporary examples are editorial constructions. Not every historical original has been rechecked; no cross-cultural universality is asserted.