Theologians in Conversation; The Analogy of Being
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 มิ.ย. 2015
- In their latest conversation, Dr Simon Oliver and Professor John Milbank discuss the Analogy of Being. Starting with the works of Thomas Aquinas, the 13th Century theologian and the use of language when talking about God and religion.This concept is discussed along three levels; as a grammatical issue, a logical issue and finally an ontological issue.
Other videos you may wish to look at;
Why Study Thomas Aquinas • Why study Thomas Aquin...
The 'Five Ways' of Thomas Aquinas • Theologians in Convers...
Causality:
1. Univocal
2. Equivocal
3. Analogical
How is there no comments? excellent video
Agreed....but is rationality beyond physical metric becoming a rare art??
@@tomgreene6579 Rationality is conceptually out of physical metrics by logical necessity.
Epic.
Good video. It seems to me that to say X can *only* be understood by analogy is just to say that X cannot be understood. Use of analogy and metaphor just seems like a way to stay slippery so no inconsistency is possible.
I think this implies a reduction of all analogy into pure equivocation and also that metaphor is the only form of analogy we can speak about. In proper proportionality we affirm a common concept or perfection that's really true in the nature of both subjects of the analogy (As the captain is to the ship, so the ruler is to the city). A metaphor is technically an analogy of *improper proportionality*, i.e. "that man is a pig", you're not evoking anything literal but trying to describe a quality in one thing from something comparable in another thing. When we say, for instance, that 'as a man's existence is proportionate to his nature, God's existence is proportionate to His nature', this isn't just a metaphor but an affirmation of a common concept which really exists in both things, one of which we understand more clearly in itself, and another thing which is more clearly intelligible through the concept evoked in the analogy.
Missed something important here: Attribution is not the only way that being is predicated both of God and creatures; though this is true, there are two other forms of analogy which Thomas outlines. One is the analogy of inequality (i.e. 'animal' as predicated both of man, and say, a dog; it is univocal in a sense but due to the different kind of way in which this predication exists in both beings, it is effectively analogous), and the other being the analogy of proper proportionality, (as seeing is to the eye, so understanding is to the mind). We predicate 'being' to both creatures and God according to both proper proportionality and attribution, but it is according to the predication from proper proportionality which allows us to intelligibly speak of 'being' according to attribution in the first place. It may be the case that it is more metaphysically proper to speak causally of the predications in both as being according to attribution, but how we reach this epistemologically in the first place is through proper proportionality, because being *really exists* in creatures, not only in God and in creatures according to a free-floating relation alone, as health exists in the medicine only in relation to the healthy person.
@ 3:52 “What’s the register you’ve obviously ________? The register is causality.”
It isn’t so obvious to me. Could someone please fill in the blank and perhaps explain this passage? Gratias!
"Invoked"; basically, when we speak of 'health' in medicine as referring to 'health' in the person, we do so on the basis of causality; the reason we talk about the medicine being healthy is because it first *really* causes health in the person, otherwise our logical and linguistic concerns would be unintelligible.
These two assume the existence of a god as though it's a proven fact; it's merey hypothetical.
Is that supposed to be an original, ground-breaking thought? Read modern quantum physics - nothing can be proved but that does not mean it doesn't exist!
So is the assumption that there is no god.
The systems of knowledge they are speaking about have proven the logical necessity of God. To be sure, God is a metaphysical necessity (ontologically). If you want to reject the evidences, you need to expose the logical fallacies in a peer-reviewed philosophy of religion journal.
God is alive and real
They seem to mostly just be explaining Aquinas. Yes, Thomas Aquinas was a theist. Take up your argument with Aquinas perhaps.
A Theologian is someone with the power to take others into Heaven: these aren't Theologians.
Only God can do that