Cognitive scientists studying human reasoning processes have discovered that people think in metaphors and schemas, and construct and evaluate facts, rules and logics based on those metaphors and schemas. This is exactly the opposite from the ways in which lawyers and courts present legal reasoning: a judicial opinion starts with the facts, then “applies” rules and principles to the facts. Arguments over which rules and principles ought to “apply” are conducted as hyper-rational discussions of precedent and policy conducted in accordance with a rigorous logic of classifications and doctrines; meanwhile the salient metaphorical content of legal doctrine is high (think, for example, of “balancing” interests, of “streams of” and “burdens on” on commerce, of “long-arm” statutes, of rape “shield” laws, of “meeting of the minds”, of “chilling” speech). The influence of conceptual metaphor on legal thought is the subject of this seminar. The seminar readings include some of the classic literature of cognitive science and a selection of judicial opinions.