As we have seen in our prior posting, the analogy of inequality--while it plays an important role in science and logic--is a poor carrier of metaphysics. It is a porter that can carry essences and natures, but it cannot carry the heavy weight of being. It is a carrier of universals, but not a carrier of transcendentals. Using the analogy of inequality in metaphysics leads one to the shipwreck of Spinozism, of monism, of confusing a univocal concept (essence/nature), and a mental and abstractive one at that, with what should be an analogical concept (being). Being ought not to be so tamed. It leaves one's metaphysics like it leaves the wild animal in a cage, listless, unhappy, pining for the boundless freedom of the African Savannah.
The analogy of inequality also presents problems in theology if misapplied. If certain terms are understood univocally, it can lead to anthropomorphisms. It is a mistake to extend out, protract, expand univocal concepts in this manner. The "way of increase" or via augmenti wherein univocal concepts are indefinitely expanded does not change the fact that they are nothing but extensions "in the same line, of created or creaturely values thought of homogeneously or univocally." Ultimately, it is to make God into an idol, even if it is an idol of the mind. But to fashion God into a clay or wooden idol is only slightly less a violation of the First Commandment than fashioning God into a mental or conceptual idol. Si comprehendis non est Deus, whether God is comprehended in wood or stone, or comprehended by human mental concept. Even if the most precious metal is used to carve an idol, an idol is an idol is an idol. Likewise, even if the most precious of mental concepts is used to describe God (being understood univocally, say by being crammed into the box of essence through an analogy of inequality) it is an idol. To make God nothing other than an augmented man is folly.
No, God is not an "infinite" man. God is not "infinite" Reason (if by Reason we mean our univocal "concept" of Reason). God is not "infinite" Truth (if by Truth we mean our univocal "concept" of Truth). God is not "infinite" Being (if by Being we mean a univocal "concept" of Being). No, no, no, no. God and man do not differ only in degree, God and man differ in kind. God's being and man's being--and indeed the being of the cosmos--differ not in degree, but in kind. There is a chasm between the Being of God--Esse Ipsum Subsistens--and the being of man, between something in pure Act, and something in Potentiality. The chasm is not an entirely unsurpassable chasm, even by human reason, but certainly one unsurpassable by an analogy of inequality. (It certainly can be surpassed by God--אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה--in revelation,* especially in the revelation of God in Man in the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ (ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν) and by man in a responsive obedience of faith to the grace thus freely offered by the God with a most generous Love. But we are talking here of man's natural capacities to surpass this chasm, not of man's supernatural obediential potency.)
No. To have any hope at bridging the chasm between the Being of God and being as we know it, we have to access another analogy. We have to leave the way of analogy of inequality into the way of analogy of being. We have to leave the way of univocal ideas into the way of the analogical. The univocal "'way' must give place to the 'way of being,' which alone leads out of the realm of the univocal into that of the analogical." Anderson (1967), 13.
___________________________
*Exodus 3:14 (Ehyeh asher ehyeh), I am who am.
The analogy of inequality also presents problems in theology if misapplied. If certain terms are understood univocally, it can lead to anthropomorphisms. It is a mistake to extend out, protract, expand univocal concepts in this manner. The "way of increase" or via augmenti wherein univocal concepts are indefinitely expanded does not change the fact that they are nothing but extensions "in the same line, of created or creaturely values thought of homogeneously or univocally." Ultimately, it is to make God into an idol, even if it is an idol of the mind. But to fashion God into a clay or wooden idol is only slightly less a violation of the First Commandment than fashioning God into a mental or conceptual idol. Si comprehendis non est Deus, whether God is comprehended in wood or stone, or comprehended by human mental concept. Even if the most precious metal is used to carve an idol, an idol is an idol is an idol. Likewise, even if the most precious of mental concepts is used to describe God (being understood univocally, say by being crammed into the box of essence through an analogy of inequality) it is an idol. To make God nothing other than an augmented man is folly.
It is senseless to suppose that by expanding indefinitely our initial, univocal concepts we shall in the end arrive at a knowledge of God in the sense of a self-subsistent Being. Such a pseudo-physical kind of thinking would make of metaphysics and theology a quantitative science. . . . This presents us with the structure of Analogy of Inequality--a kind of thinking that inevitably results in anthropomorphism," which consists essentially in the attempt to conceive of the uncreated as homogeneous with the created, recognizing between these two orders only a distinction of degree.Anderson (1967), 13.
No, God is not an "infinite" man. God is not "infinite" Reason (if by Reason we mean our univocal "concept" of Reason). God is not "infinite" Truth (if by Truth we mean our univocal "concept" of Truth). God is not "infinite" Being (if by Being we mean a univocal "concept" of Being). No, no, no, no. God and man do not differ only in degree, God and man differ in kind. God's being and man's being--and indeed the being of the cosmos--differ not in degree, but in kind. There is a chasm between the Being of God--Esse Ipsum Subsistens--and the being of man, between something in pure Act, and something in Potentiality. The chasm is not an entirely unsurpassable chasm, even by human reason, but certainly one unsurpassable by an analogy of inequality. (It certainly can be surpassed by God--אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה--in revelation,* especially in the revelation of God in Man in the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ (ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν) and by man in a responsive obedience of faith to the grace thus freely offered by the God with a most generous Love. But we are talking here of man's natural capacities to surpass this chasm, not of man's supernatural obediential potency.)
No. To have any hope at bridging the chasm between the Being of God and being as we know it, we have to access another analogy. We have to leave the way of analogy of inequality into the way of analogy of being. We have to leave the way of univocal ideas into the way of the analogical. The univocal "'way' must give place to the 'way of being,' which alone leads out of the realm of the univocal into that of the analogical." Anderson (1967), 13.
___________________________
*Exodus 3:14 (Ehyeh asher ehyeh), I am who am.
No comments:
Post a Comment