I’m finding George Lakoff and cohorts unique (but maybe that’s my lack of looking enough) in that they seem among the first posit a direct, naturalized account of logic and mathematics, as extended metaphors on basic concepts we learn at young ages.

Quine didn’t hold his, while a naturalist he held logic and math don’t directly answer to the world most of the time:

How is Quine to explain the apparent necessity and a priori status of some truths without appeal to the Principle of Tolerance? Quine’s holism is the view that almost none of our knowledge is directly answerable to experience.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quine/#QuinNatuImpl

Logical positivists wouldn’t have either as math and logic are analytic and a priori, not empirical.

Not Kant either.

Seems like these kind of questions were ignored for a while(?), then back to Aristotle and Plato.

The little I know of them are that forms are ultimate causes to Plato, and Aristotle relied on the Socratic method/elenchus to posit the law of noncontradiction in his Metaphysics. These are not direct enough to be in the category of Lakoff I think. Winning a Socratic argument (elenchus) isn’t the same as Lakoff is doing (yet Aristotle is a father of science even…), and Plato’s forms are criticized by Aristotle for being too disconnected from the world I believe.

Yet it doesn’t take modern science to imagine what Lakoff is attempting, so why to late coming?. A completely naturalized conceptual metaphor as and for the law of excluded middle and principle of noncontradiction doesn’t seem outrageous. Think of the reasoning in searching for a missing child as your boat capsizes-you know the child must be on the boat or in the water, if you search the boat it’s time to search the water. I’m not using that scenario Socratically I don’t think, I’m saying it because it may point to a natural reason for us having such capacities of thought and reasoning. My instinct upon hearing it is to disengage the Socratic method and take up a new one for this task. Does that distinction make sense?

I’m finding George Lakoff and cohorts unique (but maybe that’s my lack of looking enough) in that they seem among the first to posit a direct, naturalized account of logic and mathematics, as extended metaphors on basic concepts we learn at young ages.

Quine didn’t hold his, while a naturalist he held logic and math don’t directly answer to the world most of the time:

How is Quine to explain the apparent necessity and a priori status of some truths without appeal to the Principle of Tolerance? Quine’s holism is the view that almost none of our knowledge is directly answerable to experience.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quine/#QuinNatuImpl

Logical positivists wouldn’t have either as math and logic are analytic and a priori, not empirical.

Not Kant either.

Seems like these kind of questions were ignored for a while(?), then back to Aristotle and Plato.

The little I know of them and how they regarded math and logic are that forms are ultimate causes to Plato, and Aristotle relied on the Socratic method/elenchus to posit the law of noncontradiction in his Metaphysics. These are not direct enough to be in the category of Lakoff I think. Winning a Socratic argument (elenchus) isn’t the same as Lakoff is doing (yet Aristotle is a father of science even…), and Plato’s forms are criticized by Aristotle for being too disconnected from the world I believe.

Yet it doesn’t take modern science to imagine what Lakoff is attempting, so why so late coming?. A completely naturalized conceptual metaphor as and for the law of excluded middle and principle of noncontradiction doesn’t seem outrageous. Think of the reasoning in searching for a missing child as your boat capsizes-you know the child must be on the boat or in the water, if you search the boat it’s time to search the water. I’m not using that scenario Socratically I don’t think, I’m saying it because it may point to a natural reason for us having such capacities of thought and reasoning. My instinct upon hearing it is to disengage the Socratic method and take up a new one for this task. Does that distinction make sense?

I’m finding George Lakoff and peers (Ronald Langacker, Eleanor Rosch, etc.) unique in that they seem among the first posit a direct, naturalized account of logic and mathematics, as extended metaphors on basic concepts which are conceptual metaphors we learn at young ages.

Quine didn’t hold these views as a logician (SEP), even though he was responsible for naturalized epistemology; he held logic and math don’t directly answer to the world most of the time:

How is Quine to explain the apparent necessity and a priori status of some truths without appeal to the Principle of Tolerance? Quine’s holism is the view that almost none of our knowledge is directly answerable to experience.

Logical positivists wouldn’t have either as math and logic are analytic and a priori, not empirical. Not Kant either. Seems like these kind of questions were ignored for awhile, then back to Aristotle and Plato. The little I know of them are that forms are ultimate causes to Plato, and Aristotle relied on the Socratic method/elenchus to posit the law of non-contradiction in his Metaphysics. These are not direct enough to be in the category of Lakoff I think. Profiting by Socratic argumentation isn’t the same as what Lakoff advocates yet Aristotle is a father of science even…, and Plato’s forms are criticized by Aristotle for being too disconnected from the world I believe.

Much of the philosophical basis of the position Lakoff is attempting doesn't actually require cognitive science, so what movements were led to the development and why so recent a position? Why is Lakoff's position and embodied cognition (SEP) considered still such a fringe position in philosophy by so many?

Once a fringe movement, embodied cognition now enjoys a fair amount of prominence. Unlike, say, ecological psychology, which has faced an uphill battle for mainstream acceptance, embodied cognition has gained a substantial following. The appointment of researchers who take an embodied perspective to cognition would, today, raise few eyebrows. Embodied cognition has been the subject of numerous articles in popular outlets. Moreover, there is not an area of cognitive science—perception, language, learning, memory, categorization, problem solving, emotion, social cognition—that has not received an embodied “make-over.”

I’m finding George Lakoff and cohorts unique (but maybe that’s my lack of looking enough) in that they seem among the first posit a direct, naturalized account of logic and mathematics, as extended metaphors on basic concepts we learn at young ages.

Quine didn’t hold his, while a naturalist he held logic and math don’t directly answer to the world most of the time:

How is Quine to explain the apparent necessity and a priori status of some truths without appeal to the Principle of Tolerance? Quine’s holism is the view that almost none of our knowledge is directly answerable to experience.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quine/#QuinNatuImpl

Logical positivists wouldn’t have either as math and logic are analytic and a priori, not empirical. 

Not Kant either. 

Seems like these kind of questions were ignored for a while(?), then back to Aristotle and Plato. 

The little I know of them are that forms are ultimate causes to Plato, and Aristotle relied on the Socratic method/elenchus to posit the law of noncontradiction in his Metaphysics. These are not direct enough to be in the category of Lakoff I think. Winning a Socratic argument (elenchus) isn’t the same as Lakoff is doing (yet Aristotle is a father of science even…), and Plato’s forms are criticized by Aristotle for being too disconnected from the world I believe.

Yet it doesn’t take modern science to imagine what Lakoff is attempting, so why to late coming?. A completely naturalized conceptual metaphor as and for the law of excluded middle and principle of noncontradiction doesn’t seem outrageous. Think of the reasoning in searching for a missing child as your boat capsizes-you know the child must be on the boat or in the water, if you search the boat it’s time to search the water. I’m not using that scenario Socratically I don’t think, I’m saying it because it may point to a natural reason for us having such capacities of thought and reasoning. My instinct upon hearing it is to disengage the Socratic method and take up a new one for this task. Does that distinction make sense?