The word analogy is used in all sorts of manners and in all sorts of disciplines. It is obviously used in philosophy and theology, but is used also in logic, in biology, in literature and poetry, and in law, as well as other disciplines. The shared meaning among all its uses would appear to be "likeness in difference." Anderson (1967), 2. As we discussed in our last post, analogy stands midway between two opposites: univocity and equivocity. Before venturing off into understanding the various uses of the term analogy so as to distinguish them from the term "analogy" as used in the concept of analogia entis, we therefore have to grasp the concepts of univocity, equivocity, and analogicity. What is it that we mean by the word univocal? What is it that we mean by the word equivocal. How do they differ from the word analogical?
The words univocal, equivocal, and analogical can be used in reference to terms (words), to mental concepts (conceptually),* and to being (ontologically).
The word univocal comes from Latin univocus: a combination of uni (meaning "one" or "singular") + vocare or vox ("to say" or "to call" or "voice"). Terms that are univocal are unambiguous and are always used in the same sense. They may be defined negatively to equivocal words by saying that they are unequivocal. This notion of univocity as to terms can be extended to mental concepts and to being (or other transcendentals such as the good, the one, the true).
The word equivocal likewise comes from the Latin aequivocus: a combination of aequi (meaning "equal") + vocare or vox ("to say" or "to call" or "voice"). Terms that are equivocal are ambiguous and are used in entirely different senses, often referring to concepts with no relationship at all. Like univocity, this notion can be extended to include both mental concepts and being (and other transcendentals).
Terms that are analogical fall between the extremes of univocal terms and equivocal terms. The term "tree" is used univocally of the oak as it is of the elm. The term "ball" may be used in an equivocal manner it can be referred to a spherical toy as well as to a dance. The term "healthy" may be used of an animal, of its food, of its habits, or of its general state or condition. The term "healthy" has neither equivocal or univocal use, but rather is used analogically. There are differences and samenesses in the manner in which it is used depending upon whether it is used with reference to the animal, to its diet, to its habits, or to its condition.
We may depict this relationship by means or a table.
As already mentioned, the concepts of univocity, equivocity, and analogy, however, are not limited to words or terms. These concepts can apply to the mental concepts that man has, concepts that he has formed, for example, by abstraction from the experience of his senses. Even more importantly for our particular exploration of the analogy of being, the notions of univocity, equivocity, and analogy can be used in reference to being and the other transcendentals, good, unity, and so forth. Thus, there may be ontological univocity, ontological equivocity, and ontological analogy.
The combination and relationship of terms, concepts, and ontological realities is what results in different kinds of analogy. For example, if ontological equivocity is coupled with conceptual univocity, one has what is called the "analogy of inequality." If one combines conceptual analogy without ontological analogy, one has an analogy of attribution, the pros hen analogy. If one combines both conceptual analogy with ontological analogy, one has analogy of proportionality, which can be metaphorical or intrinsic in character. The latter kind of analogy of proportionality, intrinsic in character, is called analogy of proper proportionality.
_____________________
Source: Anderson (1967), 1-2.
*Although Anderson states: "There are no purely equivocal concepts; there are only some equivocal names." Anderson (1967), 5. I am supposing, then, that concepts can be univocal, and non-univocal only in an analogical sense, but never non-univocal in an equivocal sense. Id. 4. Even if we have one term used equivocally of two equivocal objects, the one equivocal term will take on two univocal concepts, one for each equivocal object. Thus if we use the word "bat" equivocally to refer to to that with which we hit a baseball and that mammal which flies through the air at night (equivocal objects), the word "bat" (which is a homonym) takes on two separate and distinct univocal concepts.
The words univocal, equivocal, and analogical can be used in reference to terms (words), to mental concepts (conceptually),* and to being (ontologically).
The word univocal comes from Latin univocus: a combination of uni (meaning "one" or "singular") + vocare or vox ("to say" or "to call" or "voice"). Terms that are univocal are unambiguous and are always used in the same sense. They may be defined negatively to equivocal words by saying that they are unequivocal. This notion of univocity as to terms can be extended to mental concepts and to being (or other transcendentals such as the good, the one, the true).
The word equivocal likewise comes from the Latin aequivocus: a combination of aequi (meaning "equal") + vocare or vox ("to say" or "to call" or "voice"). Terms that are equivocal are ambiguous and are used in entirely different senses, often referring to concepts with no relationship at all. Like univocity, this notion can be extended to include both mental concepts and being (and other transcendentals).
Terms that are analogical fall between the extremes of univocal terms and equivocal terms. The term "tree" is used univocally of the oak as it is of the elm. The term "ball" may be used in an equivocal manner it can be referred to a spherical toy as well as to a dance. The term "healthy" may be used of an animal, of its food, of its habits, or of its general state or condition. The term "healthy" has neither equivocal or univocal use, but rather is used analogically. There are differences and samenesses in the manner in which it is used depending upon whether it is used with reference to the animal, to its diet, to its habits, or to its condition.
We may depict this relationship by means or a table.
As already mentioned, the concepts of univocity, equivocity, and analogy, however, are not limited to words or terms. These concepts can apply to the mental concepts that man has, concepts that he has formed, for example, by abstraction from the experience of his senses. Even more importantly for our particular exploration of the analogy of being, the notions of univocity, equivocity, and analogy can be used in reference to being and the other transcendentals, good, unity, and so forth. Thus, there may be ontological univocity, ontological equivocity, and ontological analogy.
The combination and relationship of terms, concepts, and ontological realities is what results in different kinds of analogy. For example, if ontological equivocity is coupled with conceptual univocity, one has what is called the "analogy of inequality." If one combines conceptual analogy without ontological analogy, one has an analogy of attribution, the pros hen analogy. If one combines both conceptual analogy with ontological analogy, one has analogy of proportionality, which can be metaphorical or intrinsic in character. The latter kind of analogy of proportionality, intrinsic in character, is called analogy of proper proportionality.
_____________________
Source: Anderson (1967), 1-2.
*Although Anderson states: "There are no purely equivocal concepts; there are only some equivocal names." Anderson (1967), 5. I am supposing, then, that concepts can be univocal, and non-univocal only in an analogical sense, but never non-univocal in an equivocal sense. Id. 4. Even if we have one term used equivocally of two equivocal objects, the one equivocal term will take on two univocal concepts, one for each equivocal object. Thus if we use the word "bat" equivocally to refer to to that with which we hit a baseball and that mammal which flies through the air at night (equivocal objects), the word "bat" (which is a homonym) takes on two separate and distinct univocal concepts.
No comments:
Post a Comment