165. The Logic of Names and Divine Signification

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

• The Three Components of Names: All names involve three essential elements that must be understood simultaneously:
  1. The vocal sound itself (the linguistic expression)
  2. The thing signified (the reality)
  3. The thought through which signification occurs (the conceptual mediation)
• Universal vs. Particular Names: Names like “square” are particular (one thing), while names like “man,” “dog,” “cat” are universal (said of many things of different kinds)
• Eight Logical Combinations: Systematic examination of whether one/many names can signify one/many things through one/many thoughts
• Application to Divine Names: How God (one reality) is signified through multiple divine names and attributes (many names, one thing, many thoughts)
• The Corruption of Modern Logic: The substitution of “class” for “universal” leads to confusion about meaning versus supposition

Key Arguments #

The Three Real Possibilities #

1. One name, one thing, one thought (univocal)

   • Example: “square” in geometry signifies one particular figure through one thought (equilateral and right-angled quadrilateral)
   • Most obvious case; requires no special explanation

2. One name, one thing, many thoughts (analogical)

   • Example: “point” in geometry understood as (1) that which has no parts but position, (2) the beginning of a line, (3) the end of a line
   • Example: “continuous” defined as (1) parts meeting at common boundary (from Categories), (2) divisible forever (from Physics)
   • Example: “God” understood as (1) unmoved mover, (2) first efficient cause, (3) necessary being, (4) most perfect being, (5) pure act
   • Requires recognizing that multiple conceptual approaches point to one unified reality

3. Many names, one thing, many thoughts (divine attributes)

   • Example: “simple,” “unchanging,” “eternal,” “perfect” all signify God but through different thoughts
   • Not synonyms because synonyms require one thought; these have different conceptual content
   • Example: “simple” (not composed) vs. “unchanging” (negation of change) involve different negations and different thoughts

Invalid Possibilities #

1. One name, many things, one thought

   • Impossible because distinct things require distinct thoughts for distinct understanding
   • Only divine and angelic intellects can know many things distinctly through one thought

2. Many names, many things, one thought

   • Same impossibility: one thought cannot grasp many distinct things distinctly

The Logical Structure #

• Crisscrossing variables does not always yield real possibilities
• Example: Before/after combinations yield only three real cases for parts of a plot (beginning, middle, end); the fourth theoretical case (neither before nor after) is not a real part of a plot
• Analogously, the eight combinations of names/things/thoughts yield only three real cases for human understanding

Important Definitions #

Univocal (univoca) #

• Definition: Many names signifying one thing through one thought (perfect synonyms)
• Key characteristic: The same meaning is preserved across different linguistic expressions
• Example: “man” and “homo” in different languages signify the same thing through the same thought
• Distinction from equivocal: Univocal names preserve identical conceptual content; equivocal names involve different meanings

Equivocal (aequivoca) #

• Definition: One name signifying many things through many thoughts
• Two subdivisions:
  • Equivocal by chance (aequivoca a casu): Connection between meanings is accidental (e.g., “sirloin” from Sir James I’s humorous naming)
  • Equivocal by reason (aequivoca a ratione): Meaningful connection between different meanings (e.g., “to see” - act of the eye, imagination, understanding—all involve perception or knowledge)

Supposition (suppositio) vs. Signification #

• Signification: What a word means (its stable, conventional meaning)
• Supposition: What a word stands for in a particular context
• Distinction: Example: In “I am the son of a man,” the word “man” signifies “rational animal” but supposes for (stands for) the speaker’s father
• Error to avoid: Confusing what a name stands for with what it means; this leads to sophistic confusion

Analogical (implicit term in this lecture) #

• Names that signify one thing through genuinely different thoughts
• Distinguished from univocal names (which have one thought) and equivocal names (which have many things)
• Essential category for theological language

Examples & Illustrations #

Geometric Examples #

Point

• Definition: That which has no parts but position only in the continuous
• Alternative thoughts: (1) Beginning of a line, (2) End of a line
• Result: One name, one thing, three distinct thoughts
• Application to metaphysics: Just as a body that doesn’t go on forever must have limits (surface), and a surface that doesn’t go on forever must have limits (line), a line that doesn’t go on forever must have limits (point)

Continuous

• First definition (Categories): That whose parts meet at a common boundary (parts of a line meet at a point; parts of a circle meet at a line; parts of a body meet at circles)
• Second definition (Physics VI): That which is divisible forever
• Result: One name, one thing, two different approaches
• Use: Can reason from either definition to conclude the mind is not continuous

Even and Odd Numbers

• Even: Defined as “number divisible into equal parts” or “number that has a half”
• Odd: Defined as “number without a half” or “number differing from even number by one”
• Result: Same structure of one name, one thing, multiple definitions

Logical Examples (from Porphyry’s Isagoge) #

Difference (differentia)

• Three distinct notions:
  1. “Said of many things other in kind, signifying how they are what they are” (e.g., equilateral and right-angled both said of squares and rhombi)
  2. “What species has in addition to genus” (specific difference)
  3. “What separates species under the same genus” (differentiating function)
• Example: Equilateral and right-angled are differences said of quadrilaterals; equilateral applies to square and rhombus; right-angled applies to square and oblong
• Result: One name (difference), one thing, three distinct thoughts

Theological Examples #

God’s Existence Proofs (Summa Theologiae Question 2)

• One name: “God”
• One thing: God
• Five distinct thoughts: (1) Unmoved mover, (2) First efficient cause/maker, (3) Necessary being (necessary to itself), (4) Most perfect/complete being, (5) Pure act
• In the Summa Contra Gentiles: Additional thought of God as pure act
• Application: Each way approaches the same reality through different conceptual routes

Divine Attributes

• Names: Simple, unchanging, eternal, perfect
• Thing signified: God (one reality)
• Thoughts involved:
  • “Simple” means not composed, not put together
  • “Unchanging” negates change specifically
  • “Eternal” negates temporal succession
  • “Perfect” indicates complete actuality
• Not synonyms: To be synonyms, they would need to signify the same thing through the same thought
• Different negations involved: Different aspects of negation mean different thoughts
• Example: “Perfect eternity of God” and “eternal perfection of God” show how different attributes can be predicated of the same divine reality

Acting and Undergoing (Physics)

• Example: If I kick you, are my kicking and your being kicked the same thing or different?
• Aristotle’s conclusion: Acting and undergoing are the same motion considered from different perspectives
• Two names: “Kicking” (from the agent’s perspective) and “being kicked” (from the patient’s perspective)
• One thing: The motion itself
• Two thoughts: Different because kicking is from me to you; being kicked is in you from me
• Similar example: Road from Athens to Thebes vs. road from Thebes to Athens—same thing, different perspectives

Linguistic Examples #

“To see” (equivocal by reason)

• Act of the eye: “I see the page”
• Imagination: “In my mind’s eye” (Hamlet)
• Understanding: “I see what you mean”; “I see, said the blind man” (unable to see physically, but understanding)
• Result: One name, many things, many thoughts, with meaningful connection between meanings

Notable Quotes #

“The names are vocal sounds, which relate to something sensible. And the first things we name are sensible things. But these thoughts are kind of hidden, right?”

“One name can signify one thing through one thought. No big deal, right? So when I study geometry, I have a name like square, right? It signifies one thing, one particular figure, right? And through one thought, which is an equilateral and right-angled quadrilateral, right?”

“When many names signify one thing, through one thought, then you have synonyms, right? But in these names, you have, what, many thoughts, right? So simple means what? The thought is not composed, not put together, right? Okay? Unchanging is a negation, not a composition, but a change, right? Okay? So the thought is not the same.”

“Unless I’ve got to order these from the one which is kind of the most obvious case, right? It doesn’t need too much. You kind of expect one name to signify one thing through one thought, right?”

“So this is a universal importance for philosophy and for theology.”

Questions Addressed #

Can one name signify many things through many thoughts? #

Answer: Yes. This is equivocation. Example: “to see” signifies the act of the eye, imagination, and understanding—three different things through three different thoughts. Can be equivocation by chance or by reason (meaningful connection).

Can one name signify one thing through many thoughts? #

Answer: Yes, and this is crucial for theology. Example: “God” signifies one reality through five distinct thoughts in the five ways. This is not equivocation but rather analogical/multiple conceptual approaches to one unified reality. Divine attributes are similar: many names (simple, unchanging, eternal, perfect) signify one thing (God) through different thoughts.

Can one name signify many things through one thought? #

Answer: No, this is impossible for human understanding. One thought cannot grasp many distinct things distinctly. Only divine and angelic intellects can do this (e.g., God knows everything distinctly through one eternal thought). The human mind must have separate thoughts for distinct things, which is why we need specialization and study. The mind strives toward angelic knowledge by trying to hold many things together in one conceptual grasp (e.g., the circle as a limit of polygons), but we never fully achieve it.

What is the difference between what a name signifies and what it stands for? #

Answer: Signification is the meaning of a word; supposition is what the word stands for in context. Example: In “I am the son of a man,” the word “man” always means “rational animal” (signification), but in this context it stands for (supposes for) the speaker’s father. Confusing these causes sophistic errors.

Why aren’t divine attributes (simple, unchanging, eternal, perfect) synonyms? #

Answer: Synonyms require one name to signify one thing through one thought. Divine attributes are many names signifying one thing (God) through many thoughts. Each attribute involves a different negation or conceptual approach: simple (not composed), unchanging (not subject to change), eternal (not temporal), perfect (complete actuality). The thoughts are genuinely different even though they all refer to God.

How do the five ways of proving God’s existence relate to the logic of names? #

Answer: In Question 2 of the Summa, Thomas uses one name (“God”) to signify one reality through five different thoughts: unmoved mover, first efficient cause, necessary being, most perfect being, and pure act. Each way demonstrates that this particular thought (e.g., unmoved mover) exists. All five thoughts converge on one reality: God. This exemplifies the principle that one name can signify one thing through multiple thoughts.

What is the problem with modern logic’s substitution of “class” for “universal”? #

Answer: A class is a multitude of individual things; a universal is said of each member individually. Example: You cannot say “you are the class of students.” But you can say “you are a student.” Each student is a student; the word “student” is not said of the class but of each member. This confusion leads people to think that because “animal” is said of dog, cat, and horse, “animal” therefore has three meanings (dog, cat, horse). But “animal” has one meaning: “living body with sensation.” Dog, cat, and horse are different kinds of animals, not different meanings of the word animal. This is univocation, not equivocation.