Univocal vs. Analogical

[quaestio45]

I seem to have a difficult time understanding why we should speak of God analogically when Duns Scotus has shown that all analogies must have a univocal element embedded in it. If this is true, why not speak of God univocally?

 

[brown_bear]

It is impossible to speak of God outside of analogy, perhaps not even the saints in Heaven can do it, we certainly cannot.

It is already an immeasurable gift to be able to speak of God through the instrument of analogy!

 

[quaestio45]

It is impossible to speak of God outside of analogy, perhaps not even the saints in Heaven can do it, we certainly cannot.

Well to speak in analogy is to compare one thing to another, but that means there must be simultude between them. And this simultude cannot be equivcol, of course, nor analogical, for thats already the operation we are engaged in. As such it must be univocal, I would think.

 

[brown_bear]

Between two things, the analogy considers an aspect that is partly the same and partly different.

Let us take mercy, it can be preached both of God and of the good man. In God we find something of human mercy, but there is something else mysterious to us that infinitely surpasses it.

So for all the divine attributes.

Thinking of knowing a divine attribute in a univocal way would mean knowing it as it is, in its infinity, and this is crazy.

I don’t know what Duns Scotus meant, and it’s not for me to say, but it certainly didn’t mean that you can know God as He is.

 

[quaestio45]

Between two things, the analogy considers an aspect that is partly the same and partly different.

Let us take mercy, it can be preached both of God and of the good man. In God we find something of human mercy, but there is something else mysterious to us that infinitely surpasses it.

So for all the divine attributes.

Thinking of knowing a divine attribute in a univocal way would mean knowing it as it is, in its infinity, and this is crazy.

I don’t know what Duns Scotus meant, and it’s not for me to say, but it certainly didn’t mean that you can know God as He is.

Well we still reach univocity as there is an admittance that the elements we describe to God are the same as mans but in infinitude. As such, they are the same, just not in proportion. As such, we may apply univocity rather than analogy.

 

[brown_bear]

It is not just a quantitative fact, but a qualitative one.

In any case, you and I cannot reformulate the concepts of classical metaphysics: practically what you call univocity is - roughly - what is commonly understood in philosophy by analogy.

And Duns Scotus himself - whom you summed up in two lines, but he will have written hundreds of pages on the topic - I really think he didn’t want to overturn the terminology.

 

[Wesrock]

brown_bear:

It is impossible to speak of God outside of analogy, perhaps not even the saints in Heaven can do it, we certainly cannot.

Well to speak in analogy is to compare one thing to another, but that means there must be simultude between them. And this simultude cannot be equivcol, of course, nor analogical, for thats already the operation we are engaged in. As such it must be univocal, I would think.

You’ll notice in everything Thomism things have principles of sameness and difference. A substance that undergoes accidental change is different in accident but same in substance. A thing that undergoes substantial change is the same in prime matter and different in substantial form. A thing of a kind is similar to others of its kind in form but different in matter. And so on.

Anyway, analogical terms occupy a similar space, at least in my mind. There is something the same and also something different about the way a term is being applied.

Univocal would be the same across the board. Equivocal different.

 

[Wesrock]

brown_bear:

Between two things, the analogy considers an aspect that is partly the same and partly different.

Let us take mercy, it can be preached both of God and of the good man. In God we find something of human mercy, but there is something else mysterious to us that infinitely surpasses it.

So for all the divine attributes.

Thinking of knowing a divine attribute in a univocal way would mean knowing it as it is, in its infinity, and this is crazy.

I don’t know what Duns Scotus meant, and it’s not for me to say, but it certainly didn’t mean that you can know God as He is.

Well we still reach univocity as there is an admittance that the elements we describe to God are the same as mans but in infinitude. As such, they are the same, just not in proportion. As such, we may apply univocity rather than analogy.

It’s not merely a matter of proportion. There is a qualitative difference. I am short for time but the first thing that comes to mind is in regarding causation, in which there is a qualitative difference in creating ex nihilo (not acting upon any prior thing) and our manner of causality in which we can only act on something already actual. There are theologians who balk at using the same word “cause” for what God does and what we do for that reason, but Thomists do think there is a sameness even as there is a difference, hence the use of analogy. God isn’t just different in scale or proportion, there are ways he qualitatively transcends our manner of doing things.

It really has to do with our manner of proceeding from effect to cause, too. There is a way our intellect is similar to the Divine Essence. There is a way our will is similar to the divine essence. There is a way our goodness is similar to the divine essence. Yet they are different from each other and so similar in different ways. It’s not just a matter of scale. The essence transcends all of those qualities and is something we don’t fully understand beyond having some sameness even as it is different.

 

[Vico]

…The essence transcends all of those qualities and is something we don’t fully understand beyond having some sameness even as it is different.

1 Corinthians 13

12 At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known.

 

[quaestio45]

You’ll notice in everything Thomism things have principles of sameness and difference. A substance that undergoes accidental change is different in accident but same in substance. A thing that undergoes substantial change is the same in prime matter and different in substantial form. A thing of a kind is similar to others of its kind in form but different in matter. And so on.

Very true…

Anyway, analogical terms occupy a similar space, at least in my mind. There is something the same and also something different about the way a term is being applied.

Okay, that would make sense. My question might be why not just focus in on what is similar and ditch the difference? That way we may not need to use analogy but instead my refer to things univocally?

It’s not merely a matter of proportion. There is a qualitative difference.

Is it? But don’t we thus fall into equivocation if it is different in both quality and proportion?

There are theologians who balk at using the same word “cause” for what God does and what we do for that reason, but Thomists do think there is a sameness even as there is a difference, hence the use of analogy.

Yes, that makes sense. These creations are metaphysically different, yet they are similar. But as such we have come up with terms more specific to deal with both (creation ex nihilo and creation ex materia), thus we need not always stand on the border of vagary.

There is a way our intellect is similar to the Divine Essence. There is a way our will is similar to the divine essence. There is a way our goodness is similar to the divine essence. Yet they are different from each other and so similar in different ways. It’s not just a matter of scale. The essence transcends all of those qualities and is something we don’t fully understand beyond having some sameness even as it is different.

Yes, I understand to some degree…

 

[Gorgias]

My question might be why not just focus in on what is similar and ditch the difference? That way we may not need to use analogy but instead my refer to things univocally?

Because the difference actually exists.

I mean, I could say “quaestio45 is a person; I’m a person. quaestio45 is a member of CAF; I’m a member of CAF. And, although quaestio45 might be of a different race, or gender, or background, I can throw those differences away: clearly, quaestio45 and I are univocally the same! We’re the same person!!!”

Umm… no.

 

[Wesrock]

Okay, that would make sense. My question might be why not just focus in on what is similar and ditch the difference? That way we may not need to use analogy but instead my refer to things univocally?

Why should we ditch the difference if it’s real? Wouldn’t what you’re suggesting ultimately result in losing the difference between God and creature? It suggests a completeness to our knowledge of God that we don’t have. Plus, contemporary Thomists today still take issue with the Scotist explanation of Divine Simplicity. If the language is univocal, then goodness is not intellect is not will is not power. We’d be referring to distinct and multiple attributes of the essence rather than the essence itself.

Yes, that makes sense. These creations are metaphysically different, yet they are similar. But as such we have come up with terms more specific to deal with both (creation ex nihilo and creation ex materia), thus we need not always stand on the border of vagary.

I prefer to call it nuance, not vaguery.

 

[quaestio45]

contemporary Thomists today still take issue with the Scotist explanation of Divine Simplicity. If the language is univocal, then goodness is not intellect is not will is not power. We’d be referring to distinct and multiple attributes of the essence rather than the essence itself.

Ohhh, I see. So I understood now that because God is divinely simple he must have all his attributes simply be him in his existence (that much I knew), but when we remove a word or term of that which anchors it to our understanding we are simply left with the word God in the end as the term. As such, there must be analogy in language of God, otherwise we are left not knowing anything of God at all. Am I somewhere in the ball park?