58. Analogical Predication: God Said of Nature, Participation, and Opinion

Summary

This lecture explores Thomas Aquinas’s treatment of how the name ‘God’ is predicated of God by nature, by participation in divine likeness, and by opinion (false gods). Berquist carefully distinguishes univocal, equivocal, and analogical predication, demonstrating that ‘God’ is said analogically rather than univocally or purely equivocally. The lecture emphasizes the critical philosophical distinction between the predication of a name (what it is said of) and the signification of a name (what it means), and applies this to resolve apparent contradictions between Catholic and pagan uses of the term ‘God.’

Listen to Lecture

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

Three Modes of Predication #

Univocal Predication: A name has exactly the same meaning in all cases where it is said

Example: ‘animal’ said of dog and cat means the same thing (living body with sensation)
Students often confuse the fact that subjects differ with the idea that the meaning differs
Important distinction: what a name is said of (the subject) vs. what a name means (its signification) are two different things

Equivocal Predication: A name has entirely different meanings with no necessary connection

Example: ‘bat’ (baseball bat vs. flying creature) - purely equivocal or equivocal by chance
No rational connection among meanings

Analogical Predication: A name has multiple meanings with ordered relationships

One meaning is fundamental/primary, others are secondary and defined by reference to the primary
Example: ‘healthy’ said of animal (primary: the good condition of the body), medicine (produces health), and urine (signs health)
The primary meaning enters into the definitions of secondary meanings
There is real connection and order among the meanings

The Problem of ‘God’ Said of Three Things #

Article 10 asks: Is the name ‘God’ said univocally or equivocally of:

God by nature (the true God)
God by participation (creatures sharing divine likeness)
God by opinion (false gods, idols)

The Univocalist Objection:

The Catholic saying “the idol is not God” contradicts the pagan saying “the idol is God”
For a contradiction to occur, both parties must use the same word in the same sense
Therefore, ‘God’ must be said univocally
Further: both the Catholic and pagan intend by the name ‘God’ something omnipotent and supremely venerable

The Equivocalist Objection:

What is in understanding is the likeness of what is in the thing (Aristotle, Peri Hermeneias)
‘Animal’ said of true animal and painted animal is said equivocally
Therefore ‘God’ said of true God and God by opinion is said equivocally
The Gentile does not know the divine nature, so cannot signify true deity by the name

Thomas’s Resolution: Analogical Predication #

Thomas argues the name ‘God’ is said analogously, not univocally or purely equivocally:

For analogous things, the name taken in one meaning must be placed in the definition of the same name in other meanings
The fundamental meaning: ‘God’ signifies the divine nature essentially
Secondary meanings are defined by reference to this: what has likeness to the divine nature (participation), or what people think is God (opinion)
Example from ethics: prudence/foresight enters into the definition of moral virtue because moral virtue partakes of the good of reason, which prudence essentially possesses
Analogous names have connection and order among meanings (unlike pure equivocation)

Critical Distinction: Predication vs. Signification #

Predication = what the name is said of (the subject) Signification = what the name means (its meaning)

These are not the same thing:

‘Animal’ is said of different things (dog and cat) but has the same meaning
‘Three is odd’ and ‘Four is odd’ — the first is true, the second false, but ‘odd number’ has the same meaning in both cases
Students frequently confuse the diversity of subjects with diversity of meaning

How the Contradiction is Resolved #

Why Catholic and Pagan Truly Contradict Each Other:

Both intend the same primary meaning of ‘God’ (the true divine nature, as something omnipotent and supremely venerable)
The pagan uses ‘God’ incorrectly but with the same intention
The Catholic correctly denies what the pagan falsely affirms
They would not contradict if using ‘God’ in different senses

Application of Scripture: Psalm 95:5 — “All the gods of the Gentiles are demons”

Here ‘gods’ means God by opinion, not the true God
The secondary meaning of ‘God’ (what people think is God) is what is being called a demon
This shows Catholics also use the name ‘God’ analogically, in both primary and secondary senses

Objections Answered #

First Objection (Univocalist):

The multiplicity of meanings is noted according to signification, not predication
Both the Catholic and pagan use the name ‘God’ with the same fundamental meaning
They contradict because both use it for the true God (the primary meaning)
The difference is that the pagan mistakenly applies it to an idol; he does not mean ‘opinion-God’

Fourth/Fifth Objections (Equivocalist):

‘Animal’ said of true animal and pictured animal is not said purely equivocal (not equivocal by chance)
Aristotle uses ’equivocal’ in a large sense (λατὸ μόδῳ / largo modo), including analogous predication
Being is said analogically but sometimes called equivocal when discussing the categories (substance vs. accident, etc.)

On the Gentile Not Knowing God’s Nature:

Neither Catholic nor pagan knows the divine nature as it is in itself
Both know it according to some meaning of causality: as unmoved mover, first maker, first cause, highest good, or by negation (incorporeal, uncomposed, etc.)
According to these causal meanings, the Gentile takes the name ‘God’ in the same meaning as the Catholic
A person who knew God by no meaning at all could not name God at all, except by name whose meaning is entirely unknown

Important Definitions #

Univocal (ὁμώνυμος / univocum): Said of multiple things with exactly the same meaning

Equivocal (ἀμφίβολος / aequivocum): Said with entirely different meanings

Equivocal by chance (aequivocum a casu): No rational connection among meanings
Equivocal by reason (aequivocum a ratione) / Analogous (ἀναλόγως / analogum): Multiple meanings with ordered relationship; one meaning primary, others defined by reference to it

Analogical Predication: Predication where meanings are ordered such that one is fundamental and others are defined by reference to it

Ratio (λόγος): Meaning, definition, or intelligible structure

Examples & Illustrations #

The Word ‘Man’: When said of each student, the speaker has exactly the same meaning in mind, though it is said of different things

Healthy:

Of animal (primary): the good condition of the body
Of medicine: that which produces/maintains that good condition
Of urine: that which signs/indicates that good condition
All defined by reference to the health of the animal

Animal:

Univocally said of dog and cat (same meaning: living body with sensation)
Though man adds something significant (reason), the word ‘animal’ still has the same meaning
When we divide man against animals, we implicitly give ‘man’ its own name and keep ‘animal’ for the rest
Just as ‘person’ adds something noteworthy to ’thing’ (reason and will), so ‘man’ adds something to ‘animal’ (reason)

The Idol and God:

Pagan: “The idol is God” (meaning what he thinks is/should be God, but mistakenly applied)
Catholic: “The idol is not God” (meaning the true God)
Both use the name for the true divine nature, both intend the same primary meaning
They genuinely contradict because of this shared fundamental meaning
The pagan’s error is in application, not in the meaning of the name itself

Sense Pleasures and Beatitude:

One person says sense pleasures are true beatitude (falsely)
Another says they are not true beatitude (truly)
If they both mean true beatitude, they contradict each other
If one means apparent/opined beatitude and the other means true beatitude, they use the name analogically but do not truly contradict

The Coke-aholic Story: Illustrates how a word can be applied to a subject in different senses (diet is ‘sick’ in a transferred sense, unlike a person who is sick in the proper sense)

Notable Quotes #

“For this name, man, of whomever it is said, right, whether truly or falsely, right, is said in the same way.” — Thomas Aquinas

“Animals said of the true animal and of the pictured animal is not said pure equivoce.” — Thomas Aquinas (on why ‘animal’ has connection between its uses)

“The philosopher, when he says it’s said equivocally, he’s taking equivoco, largo modo, in a large way.” — Berquist (on Aristotle’s broad use of ’equivocal’ to include analogous predication)

“The very nature of God, as it is in itself, neither the Catholic nor the pagan knows.” — Thomas Aquinas

Questions Addressed #

Is ‘God’ said univocally of God by nature and creatures?

Resolution: No. While both Catholic and pagan intend the true God when they use the name (making them genuinely contradictory), the meanings are not univocal because one is primary (God’s own divine nature) and others are secondary (participation or opinion), defined by reference to the primary.

Does the Gentile’s ignorance of God’s nature make the predication purely equivocal?

Resolution: No. The Gentile knows God according to causal meanings (as first cause, highest good, etc.) just as the Catholic does. The Gentile’s error is in mistaking what participates in or seems to have these qualities (the idol) for that which truly has them (God).

Why doesn’t the difference between Catholic and Pagan views show equivocation rather than analogy?

Resolution: Because the meanings are ordered: the primary meaning (true God) is placed in the definition of the secondary meanings (God by participation, God by opinion). Analogy is distinguished from pure equivocation precisely by this ordered connection among meanings.

How can both parties contradict each other if ‘God’ is not univocal?

Resolution: They contradict because both intend the same fundamental meaning of ‘God’ (the true divine nature as omnipotent and supremely venerable). The pagan uses the name with this meaning but applies it wrongly to an idol. If the pagan meant only ‘what I think is God’ (never intending the true God), there would be no real contradiction.