55. Analogy: The Middle Way Between Univocity and Equivocation

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Problem of Theological Predication #

• We name God only through creatures, yet God is infinitely superior to creatures
• Challenge: How can a name have meaning when applied to both God and creatures if their natures are so fundamentally different?
• Three possible solutions: (1) univocal predication (same meaning), (2) purely equivocal predication (completely different meanings), (3) analogy (related but distinct meanings)

Univocal Predication: Why It Fails #

• Univocal means a name signifies one thing by one meaning in all instances (e.g., “dog” said of all canines)
• Objection from univocal causation: Since univocal agents (man generates man) must precede equivocal agents, and God is the first cause, might not God be univocal?
• Thomistic response: Every effect not equaling the power of its cause receives likeness of the cause “not according to the same definition, but in a deficient way”
• The sun, by one power, produces many various forms—what is divided and multiplied in effects exists simply and united in the cause
• When “wise” is said of man, it signifies a perfection really distinct from his nature; when said of God, it does not signify something distinct from His being
• The name “wise” said of man “draws a line around” and comprehends the thing signified; said of God, it “leaves the thing signified as not comprehended”

Purely Equivocal Predication: Why It Also Fails #

• Purely equivocal (or equivocal by chance) means a name has completely unrelated meanings with no connection or order
• If predication were purely equivocal, nothing could be known about God from creatures
• All demonstrations about God would commit the fallacy of equivocation
• This contradicts Scripture (Romans 1:20: “the invisible things of God are understood from the things that are made”)
• This contradicts the philosophical tradition, which proves many truths about God
• Therefore, purely equivocal predication must be rejected

Analogy: The Solution #

• Analogy (Greek: analogia, meaning proportion) is the proper way theological language functions
• It is a middle way between pure univocation and pure equivocation
• In analogy, a name is said of multiple things with related but distinct meanings
• The meanings are ordered and connected, not random

Two Types of Analogical Predication #

Type 1: Many Things to One Thing (Analogy of Attribution)

• Multiple things have ratios (orderings) to a single thing
• Example: “healthy” said of medicine, urine, and animal
  • Medicine: signifies a cause of health (in the animal)
  • Urine: signifies a sign of health (in the animal)
  • Animal: signifies having body in good condition (the primary meaning)
• All meanings are ordered to the primary meaning (health in the animal)
• Other examples: medicine and exercise are both “healthy” but by different ratios to animal health
• Color can be said “healthy” (of complexion) as a sign, but exercise is “healthy” as productive of health

Type 2: One Thing to Another (Analogy of Proportion)

• One thing is said of another according to how the first is related to the second
• Example: medicine causes health in the animal; the animal possesses health
• Application to God and creatures: creatures have a ratio (ordering) to God as their cause and beginning

Application to God and Creatures #

• Whatever is said of God and creatures is said analogously, according to the order of creature to God
• This order is: creature to God as effect to first cause, as what is made to what makes it
• In this order, all perfections of creatures pre-exist in God in a united, simple way
• Creatures possess these perfections in a divided, multiplied, deficient way
• Example from the Eucharist: bread may be ordered to strengthen faith, wine to charity—showing how the same substance can have ordered meanings

The Carrying Over of Names (Translatio Nominis) #

• Latin: translatio nominis (trans = across/over, latio = carried)
• We place names first on creatures, then carry them over to God
• Each time a name is carried over, its meaning shifts slightly
• Example: “to be in” is carried over successively from being in place, to being in a whole, to being in matter, to being in power, to treasure of the heart
• Each carries a different ratio, but the mind is led along by the transferred word
• The mind must understand the difference in meaning each time the name is transferred

Key Arguments #

Against Univocal Predication #

1. The Deficiency Argument: Effects not equaling their cause’s power receive likeness “not according to the same definition, but in a deficient way”
2. The Simplicity Argument: What is divided and multiplied in creatures exists simply and unitedly in God
3. The Comprehension Argument: A univocal name said of man “comprehends” what it signifies; said of God, it leaves the thing signified “not comprehended” and “exceeding the signification of the name”

Against Pure Equivocation #

1. The Epistemological Argument: If names were purely equivocal, we could know nothing about God from creatures
2. The Scriptural Argument: Romans 1:20 teaches that invisible things of God are understood from things made
3. The Philosophical Argument: Philosophers prove many things about God; this would be impossible if predication were purely equivocal
4. The Fourth Lateran Council Principle: “You can never note a likeness of the creature in God without at the same time a greater unlikeness” — this affirms real likeness despite infinite difference

The Objection from Measure #

• Objection: “The measure is homogenous to what is measured” (Metaphysics X)
• In mathematics, a line is measured by inches (both lengths); a surface by square inches (both surfaces); a volume by cubic inches (both bodies)
• Therefore, God as measure of all things must be homogenous with things measured, suggesting univocal predication
• Thomistic response: God is not a measure proportioned to creatures in the mathematical sense; it is not necessary that God and creatures be in one genus
• God measures creatures as their first cause and exemplar, not as a proportioned standard

The Reduction of Equivocals to Univocals #

• In predication, equivocals reduce to univocals: “bat” is said equivocally of baseball bats and flying mammals, but univocally among baseball bats and univocally among flying mammals
• For equivocation to exist, there must be underlying univocity; otherwise equivocation could not be recognized
• But in causation, the reverse principle holds: univocal agents reduce to an equivocal agent (all univocal causes reduce to God as first equivocal cause)

Important Definitions #

Univocal (Greek: ὁμώνυμος) #

• A name signifying one thing by one thought or definition in all instances
• Same meaning preserved across all applications
• Example: “dog” said of all canines
• In causation: when a cause produces an effect of the same kind (man generates man, dog generates dog)

Equivocal (Greek: ἕτερος ὄνομα) #

• A name with multiple meanings
• Equivocal by chance (purely equivocal): no connection or order among meanings (e.g., “bank” as financial institution vs. riverbank)
• Equivocal by reason: meanings are ordered and connected, with a reason for the transfer (e.g., “healthy” said of medicine, urine, animal)
• In causation: when a cause produces an effect of a different kind (sun produces heat, though only equivocally hot)

Analogy (Greek: ἀναλογία, Latin: analogia) #

• From Greek meaning “proportion” or “ratio”
• A way of speaking where a term applies to multiple things with related but distinct meanings
• Preserves both similarity and difference between what is named
• A middle way between pure univocation and pure equivocation

Proportion (Greek: ἀναλογία, Latin: proportio) #

• In Thomas, sometimes means a ratio itself (how one thing is ordered to another)
• Sometimes means a likeness of ratios (as in Euclid’s mathematics)
• Both uses are found in Thomas’s teaching on analogy

Translatio Nominis #

• Latin: “carrying over of a name”
• The transfer of a name from one thing to another with a change in meaning
• The name retains its verbal form but acquires a new sense when transferred

Impositio Nominis #

• Latin: “placing of a name”
• The original imposition of a name on something
• Refers to how we place names first on creatures, then carry them over to God

Examples & Illustrations #

The Example of “Healthy” #

• Applied to animal: healthy means the body is in good condition (primary meaning)
• Applied to medicine: healthy means it produces or causes health in the animal (secondary meaning)
• Applied to urine: healthy means it is a sign of health in the animal (tertiary meaning)
• Applied to complexion: healthy means it is a sign of good health (appearance)
• Applied to exercise: healthy means it produces or conserves health
• All three applications have ratios to the primary meaning (health in the animal), but by different relationships (cause, sign, or state)

The Word “To Be In” #

• “To be in” is first placed on being in a place
• It is then carried over to: being in a whole, being in a genus, being in a species, being in form, being in matter, being in power, and finally to “where your treasure is, there your heart is”
• Each time the word is carried over, its meaning shifts slightly, but the mind is guided by the transferred word itself
• The mind must understand the difference in meaning at each step

The Example of “Dog” #

• “Dog” is said equivocally of the sea lion and the animal that barks
• But it is said univocally among all sea lions and univocally among all barking dogs
• For the equivocation to exist, there must be underlying univocal meanings in each class
• If “dog” meant something completely different in each case with no connection, equivocation could not be recognized

The Eucharist and Ordered Perfections #

• Bread may be understood as ordered to faith (as the body receives the body)
• Wine may be understood as ordered to charity (as intoxication refers to the intoxication of love)
• Thomas’s prayer after communion: “Sit mihi armatura fide et scutum bonae voluntatis” (May it be to me armor of faith and shield of good will)
• Notice the order: faith first, then charity—the same order as bread before wine in liturgy
• Vatican II compares the bread of the word (faith) and bread of the Eucharist (charity), suggesting an ordered analogy

The Incest Example #

• Fornication is the common name
• Incest receives a new name because it adds something significant (violation of family relations)
• Yet incest is a type of fornication ordered to the common definition
• The fornicator is unchaste; the man of incest is very much so (terribly so)—showing the ordered relationship

Notable Quotes #

“Whatever knowledge or understanding I have of God and whatever love I have of God are not the same thing.” — Thomas Aquinas (illustrating that divine attributes are not univocal)

“You can never note a likeness of the creature in God without at the same time a greater unlikeness.” — Fourth Lateran Council (cited as the guiding principle for theological predication)

“The invisible things of God are understood from the things that are made.” — Romans 1:20 (foundational scriptural support for knowing God through creatures)

“When this name wise is said of man, it signifies some perfection that is really distinct from the nature of man… But when this name we say of God, we do not intend to signify something distinct from his being.” — Thomas Aquinas (explaining the deficiency of univocal predication)

“The name is thus said many ways, it signifies diverse ratios to something one.” — Thomas Aquinas (the definition of analogy)

Questions Addressed #

How can we speak meaningfully of God if He is infinite and we are finite? #

• Through analogy: we carry over names from creatures to God, but with adjusted meanings
• The meanings are ordered to God as their ultimate source and cause
• While the meanings differ between creature and God, they both correspond to the one simple divine reality

Why is univocal predication insufficient? #

• Because creatures receive perfections in a divided and multiplied way, while God possesses them unitedly and simply
• A univocal name would suggest the perfection is understood identically in both, which would be false
• It would wrongly comprehend the divine reality as if it were containable within our concepts

Why is pure equivocation insufficient? #

• Because if names were purely equivocal, we could derive no knowledge of God from creatures
• Scripture and philosophy both affirm that we can know God through His effects
• Pure equivocation would make all theological demonstration impossible (committing the fallacy of equivocation)

How can God be the measure of all things if measure must be homogenous with what is measured? #

• God measures not as a mathematical standard but as the first cause and exemplar
• God and creatures need not be in the same genus for God to be their measure
• God’s measuring is an analogy: creatures are ordered to God as effects to their cause

How do we know which meaning is primary when a name is carried over? #

• We know by understanding the nature of the things and their relationship
• “Healthy” is primarily said of the animal having its body in good condition
• When carried over to medicine and urine, these secondary meanings are ordered back to the primary meaning
• Similarly, perfections in creatures are ordered to God as their source