{"id":6162,"date":"2016-10-06T12:36:32","date_gmt":"2016-10-06T12:36:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2016\/10\/06\/thinking-and-speaking-about-the-absolute-three-views\/"},"modified":"2016-10-06T12:36:32","modified_gmt":"2016-10-06T12:36:32","slug":"thinking-and-speaking-about-the-absolute-three-views","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2016\/10\/06\/thinking-and-speaking-about-the-absolute-three-views\/","title":{"rendered":"Thinking and Speaking about the Absolute: Three Views"},"content":{"rendered":"

Univocity.<\/em>  There is an absolute reality.  We can speak of it literally and sometimes truly using predicates of ordinary language that retain in their metaphysical use the very same sense they have in their mundane use.  For example, we can say of Socrates that he exists, and using 'exists' in the very same sense we can say of God that he exists.  Accordingly, 'exists' is univocal in application to creature and creator.  Corresponding to this sameness of sense there is a sameness in mode of Being: God and Socrates exist in the very same way.  No doubt God exists necessarily whereas Socrates exist contingently; but this is a mere different in modal status, not a difference in mode of Being.  It is the difference between existing in all possible worlds and existing in some, but not all, possible worlds.<\/span><\/p>\n

And the same holds for non-existential predicates such as 'wise.' We can say of Socrates that he is wise, and using 'wise' in the very same sense we can say of God that he is wise.  Accordingly, 'wise' is univocal in application to creature and creator.  Corresponding to this sameness of sense there is sameness in mode of property-possession: God and Socrates both have wisdom by instantiating it.<\/span><\/p>\n

Analogicity.<\/em>  Theological language is literal, but analogical.  I won't discuss this view now.<\/span><\/p>\n

Negative Theology<\/em>.  The absolute reality is beyond all our concepts. God is utterly transcendent, radically other. Nothing can be truly predicated of God as he is in himself, not even that he exists, or does not.  The problem with this approach is that it threatens to render theological language unintelligible.<\/span><\/p>\n

So why not adopt the Univocity View?  Is there any good reason not to adopt it?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

I think there is a good reason, namely, that the UV implies that God is a being among beings; that God as absolute reality cannot be a being among beings;  ergo, etc.  <\/span><\/p>\n

But what does it mean to say that God is a being among beings?  As I see it, to say that God is a being among beings is to say that God is no exception to the logical and ontological principles (pertaining to properties, property-possession, existence, modality, etc.) that govern anything that can be said to exist.  It is to say that God fits the ontological or general-metaphysical schema that everything else fits. It is to say that God is ontologically on a par with other beings despite the attributes (omniscience, etc.) that set him apart from other beings and indeed render him unique among beings. To spell it out.  If God is a being among beings, then:<\/span><\/p>\n

a.  Properties.<\/em> Some properties are such that God and creatures share them.  Consider the property of being a self.  For present purposes we may accept Dale's definition<\/a>: "a being capable of consciousness, with intelligence, will, and the ability to intentionally act."  God is a self, but so is Socrates.  Both are selves in the very same sense of 'self.'  'Self' is being used univocally (not equivocally and not analogically) in 'God is a self' and 'Socrates is a self' just as 'wise' is being used univocally in 'God is wise' and 'Socrates is wise,' and so on.<\/span><\/p>\n

Some are  uncomfortable with talk of properties and seem to prefer talk of concepts.  Well then, I can put my present point by saying that some concepts are such as to be common to both God and creatures, the concept self<\/em> being one example.<\/span><\/p>\n

b. Property-possession.<\/em> God has properties in the same way that creatures do.  My first point was that there are some properties that both God and creatures share; my present point is a different one about property-possession: the having<\/em> of these shared properties is the same in the divine and creaturely cases.  Both God and Socrates instantiate<\/em> the property of being a self, where first-level instantiation is an asymmetrical relation or non-relational tie that connects individuals and properties construed as mind-independent universals.<\/span><\/p>\n

The point could be put conceptualistically as follows.  Both God and Socrates fall under the concept self<\/em>, where falling under is an asymmetrical relation that connects individuals and concepts construed as mind-dependent<\/em> universals. <\/span><\/p>\n

c. Existence.<\/em> God is<\/em> in the same way that creatures are.  Given that God exists and that Socrates exists, it does not follow that they exist in the same way.  Or so I maintain.  But part of what it means to say that God is a being among beings is to say that God and Socrates do<\/em> exist in the very same way.  Whatever it is for an item to exist, there is only one way for an item to exist, and God and Socrates exist in that very same way. For example, if what it is for x to exist is for x to be identical to some y, then this holds both for God and Socrates.<\/span><\/p>\n

d. It follows from (a) and (b) taken together that God is really distinct from his properties, and that his properties are really distinct from one another.  God is in this respect no different from Socrates. Really distinct: distinct in reality, apart from our mental operations.  (What is really distinct need not be capable of separate existence.)  And both items have their properties by instantiating them.<\/span><\/p>\n

e. It follows from (c) that God is really distinct from his<\/em> existence (just as Socrates is really distinct from his<\/em> existence) and that God is really distinct from existence (just as Socrates is distinct from existence). <\/span><\/p>\n

f. It follows from (d) and (e) taken together that God is not ontologically simple.  Contrapositively, if God is ontologically simple, then God is not a being among beings as I am using this phrase.  It is therefore no surprise that Dale Tuggy ansd other evangelical Christians reject divine simplicity whereas I am inclined to accept it.  See my SEP entry<\/a> for more on this.<\/span><\/p>\n

To conclude, my argument against the Univocity View is as follows: <\/span><\/p>\n

A. If the UV is true, then God is a being among beings in the sense explained.<\/span>
B. If God is a being among beings, then God is not ontologically simple.<\/span>
C. An absolute being must be ontologically simple.<\/span>
D. God is the absolute being.<\/span>
Ergo<\/span>
E. God is ontologically simple.<\/span>
Ergo<\/span>
F. God is not a being among beings.<\/span>
Ergo<\/span>
G. The Univocity View is not true.<\/span><\/p>\n

So I reject the UV.  If the other two views are also rationally rejectable, then we have an aporia, which, I suggest, is what we have. We are at an impasse, as usual in philosophy.  <\/span><\/p>\n

\nRelated articles<\/span><\/legend>\n
\n
\"\"<\/a>Is God Beyond All Being?<\/a><\/span><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>God and Socrates: Two Different Ways of Existing?<\/a><\/span><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>Review of Barry Miller, A Most Unlikely God<\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/fieldset>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Univocity.  There is an absolute reality.  We can speak of it literally and sometimes truly using predicates of ordinary language that retain in their metaphysical use the very same sense they have in their mundane use.  For example, we can say of Socrates that he exists, and using 'exists' in the very same sense we … Continue reading “Thinking and Speaking about the Absolute: Three Views”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[273,141,143,139],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6162","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-absolute","category-divine-simplicity","category-god","category-religion"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6162","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6162"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6162\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6162"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6162"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6162"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}