catholic encyclopedia_ analogy.pdf

6/6/2015 CATHOLICENCYCLOPEDIA:Analogy

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01449a.htm 1/5

AnalogyHelpsupportNewAdventandgetthefullcontentsofthiswebsiteasaninstantdownloadorCDROM.IncludestheCatholicEncyclopedia,ChurchFathers,Summa,Bibleandmoreallforonly$19.99...

Aphilosophicaltermusedtodesignate,first,apropertyofthingssecondly,aprocessofreasoning.Wehaveheretoconsideritsmeaninganduse:

I.InphysicalandnaturalsciencesII.InmetaphysicsandscholasticphilosophyIII.IntheodicyIV.Inrelationtothemysteriesoffaith.

Asaproperty,analogymeansacertainsimilaritymixedwithdifference.Thissimilaritymaybefoundedentirelyorchieflyuponaconceptionofthemindinthissensewesaythatthereisanalogybetweenthelightofthesunandthelightofthemind,betweenalionandacourageousman,betweenanorganismandsociety.Thiskindofanalogyisthesourceofmetaphor.Thesimilaritymaybefoundedontherealexistenceofsimilarpropertiesinobjectsofdifferentspecies,genera,orclassesthoseorgans,forinstance,areanalogous,which,belongingtobeingsofdifferentspeciesorgenera,anddifferinginstructure,fulfilthesamephysiologicalfunctionsorhavethesameconnections.Asaprocessofreasoning,analogyconsistsinconcludingfromsomeanalogicalpropertiesorsimilarityundercertainaspectstootheranalogicalpropertiesorsimilarityunderotheraspects.ItwasbysuchaprocessthatFranklinpassedfromtheanalogybetweentheeffectsoflightningandtheeffectsofelectricitytotheidentityoftheircauseCuvier,fromtheanalogybetweencertainorgansoffossilsandtheseorgansinactualspeciestotheanalogyofthewholeorganismthatweinferfromtheanalogybetweentheorgansandexternalactionsofanimalsandourown,theexistenceofconsciousnessinthem.Analogicalreasoningisacombinationofinductiveanddeductivereasoningbasedontheprinciplethat"analogicalpropertiesconsideredassimilarinvolvesimilarconsequences".Itisevidentthatanalogicalreasoning,astoitsvalue,dependsonthevalueoftheanalogicalpropertyonwhichitrests.Basedonamereconceptionofthemind,itmaysuggest,butitdoesnotproveitcannotgiveconclusions,butonlycomparisons.Basedonrealproperties,itismoreorlessconclusiveaccordingtothenumberandsignificanceofthesimilarpropertiesandaccordingtothefewnessandinsignificanceofthedissimilar



properties.Fromastrictlylogicalpointofview,analogicalreasoningcanfurnishonlyprobableconclusionsandhypotheses.Suchisthecaseformostofthetheoriesinphysicalandnaturalsciences,whichremainhypotheticalsolongastheyaremerelytheresultofanalogyandhavenotbeenverifieddirectlyorindirectly.

AnalogyinmetaphysicsandScholasticphilosophy

AnalogyinmetaphysicsandScholasticphilosophywascarefullystudiedbytheSchoolmen,especiallybythePseudoDionysius,AlbertusMagnus,andSt.Thomas.Italsomaybeconsideredeitherasapropertyorasaprocessofreasoning.Asametaphysicalproperty,analogyisnotamerelikenessbetweendiverseobjects,butaproportionorrelationofobjecttoobject.Itis,therefore,neitheramerelyequivocalorverbalcoincidence,norafullyunivocalparticipationinacommonconceptbutitpartakesoftheoneandtheother.(Cf.St.Thomas,SummaTheol.,I,Q.xiii,a.5,10also,Q.vii,Depotenti,a.7.)Wemaydistinguishtwokindsofanalogy:

Twoobjectscanbesaidtobeanalogousonaccountofarelationwhichtheyhavenottoeachother,buttoathirdobject:e.g.,thereisanalogybetweenaremedyandtheappearanceofaperson,invirtueofwhichthesetwoobjectsaresaidtobehealthy.Thisisbasedupontherelationwhicheachofthemhastotheperson'shealth,theformerasacause,thelatterasasign.Thismaybecalledindirectanalogy.Twoobjectsagainareanalogousonaccountofarelationwhichtheyhavenottoathirdobject,buttoeachother.Remedy,nourishment,andexternalappearancearetermedhealthyonaccountofthedirectrelationtheybeartothehealthoftheperson.Herehealthisthebasisoftheanalogy,andisanexampleofwhattheSchoolmencallsummumanalogatum(Cf.St.Thomas,ib.)

Thissecondsortofanalogyistwofold.Twothingsarerelatedbyadirectproportionofdegree,distance,ormeasure:e.g.,6isindirectproportionto3,ofwhichitisthedoubleorthehealthinessofaremedyisdirectlyrelatedto,anddirectlymeasuredby,thehealthwhichitproduces.Thisanalogyiscalledanalogyofproportion.Or,thetwoobjectsarerelatedonetotheothernotbyadirectproportion,butbymeansofanotherandintermediaryrelation:forinstance,6and4areanalogousinthissensethat6isthedoubleof3as4isof2,or6:4::3:2.Theanalogybetweencorporalandintellectualvisionisofthissort,becauseintelligenceistothemindwhattheeyeistothebody.Thiskindofanalogyisbasedontheproportionofproportionitiscalledanalogyofproportionality.(Cf.St.Thomas,Q.ii,Deverit.,a.11Q.xxiii,Deverit.,a.7,ad9am).

Analogyasamethodintheodicy

Ashumanknowledgeproceedsfromthedataofthesensesdirectedandinterpretedbyreason,itisevidentthatmancannotarriveataperfectknowledgeofthenatureofGodwhichisessentiallyspiritualandinfinite.Yetthevariouselementsofperfection,



dependence,limitation,etc.,whichexistinallfinitebeings,whiletheyenableustoprovetheexistenceofGod,furnishusalsowithacertainknowledgeofHisnature.Fordependentbeingsmustultimatelyrestonsomethingnondependent,relativebeingsonthatwhichisnonrelative,and,evenifthisnondependentandnonrelativeBeingcannotbeconceiveddirectlyinitself,itisnecessarilyconceivedtosomeextentthroughthebeingswhichdependonitandarerelatedtoit.ItisnotanUnknownorUnknowable.Itcanbeknownindifferentways.Weremarkinfinitethingsamanifolddependence.Thesethingsareproducedtheyareproducedaccordingtoacertainplanandinviewofacertainend.Wemustconcludethattheyhaveacausewhichpossessesinitselfapowerofefficiency,exemplarity,andfinality,withalltheelementswhichsuchapowerrequires:intelligence,will,personality,etc.ThiswayofreasoningiscalledbytheSchoolmen"thewayofcausality"(viacausalitatis).(Cf.PseudoDionysius,DeDiv.Nom.,c.i,sect.6,inP.G.,III,595also,St.Thomas,SummaTheol.,I,Q.iii,a.3Q.xiii,a.12.)WhenwereasonfromtheeffectstotheFirst,orUltimate,Cause,weeliminatefromitallthedefects,imperfections,andlimitationswhichareinitseffectsjustbecausetheyareeffects,aschange,limitation,time,andspace.Thiswayofreasoningis"thewayofnegationorremotion"(vianegationis,remotionis).(Cf.PseudoDionysius,ibid.also,St.Thomas,SummaTheol.,I,QQ.iiixiii,a.1C.Gent.,lib.I,c.xiv.)Finally,itiseasilyunderstoodthattheperfectionsaffirmed,inthesetwoways,ofGod,asFirstandPerfectCause,cannotbeattributedtoHiminthesamesensethattheyhaveinfinitebeings,butonlyinanabsolutelyexcellentorsupereminentway(viaeminentiae,excellentiae).(Cf.PseudoDionysius,Div.Nom.,c.i,sect.41,inP.G.,III,516,590c.ii,sect.3,8,inP.G.,III,646,689St.Thomas,ibid.)

WhatisthevalueofourknowledgeofGodacquiredbysuchreasoning?AccordingtoAgnosticismthisattributionofperfectionstoGodissimplyimpossible,sinceweknowthemonlyasessentiallylimitedandimperfect,necessarilyrelativetoacertainspeciesorgenus,whileGodistheessentiallyPerfect,theinfinitelyAbsolute.ThereforeallthatwesayofGodisfalseoratleastmeaningless.HeistheUnknowableHeisinfinitelyaboveallourconceptionsandterms.AgnosticismadmitsthattheseconceptionsandnamesareasatisfactionandhelptotheimaginationinthinkingoftheUnthinkablebutonconditionthatwerememberthattheyarepurelyarbitrarythattheyarepracticalsymbolswithnoobjectivevalue.AccordingtoAgnosticism,tothinkorsayanythingofGodisnecessarilytofallintoAnthropomorphism.St.ThomasandtheSchoolmenignoreneitherAgnosticismnorAnthropomorphism,butdeclarebothofthemfalse.Godisnotabsolutelyunknowable,andyetitistruethatwecannotdefineHimadequately.ButwecanconceiveandnameHiminan"analogicalway".TheperfectionsmanifestedbycreaturesareinGod,notmerelynominally(equivoce)butreallyandpositively,sinceHeistheirsource.Yet,theyarenotinHimastheyareinthecreature,withameredifferenceofdegree,norevenwithamerespecificorgenericdifference(univoce),forthereisnocommonconceptincludingthefiniteandtheInfinite.TheyarereallyinHiminasupereminentmanner(eminenter)whichiswhollyincommensurablewiththeirmodeofbeingincreatures.(Cf.



St.Thomas,SummaTheologiI.13.56C.Gent.,lib.I,c.xxiixxxvinISent.Dist.,xiii,Q.i,a.1,ad4am.)Wecanconceiveandexpresstheseperfectionsonlybyananalogynotbyananalogyofproportion,forthisanalogyrestsonaparticipationinacommonconcept,and,asalreadysaid,thereisnoelementcommontothefiniteandtheInfinitebutbyananalogyofproportionality.TheseperfectionsarereallyinGod,andtheyareinHiminthesamerelationtoHisinfiniteessencethattheyareincreaturesinrelationtotheirfinitenature.(Cf.St.Thomas,SummaTheolI.4.3I.13.5Q.ii,Deverit.,a.11,incorp.ad2amibid.,xxiii,a.7,ad9supam.)Wemustaffirm,therefore,thatallperfectionsarereallyinGod,infinitely.Thisinfinitelywecannotdefineorexpresswecansayonlythatitistheabsolutelyperfectway,whichdoesnotadmitanyofthelimitationswhicharefoundincreatures.HenceourconceptionofGod,thoughverypositiveinitsobjectivecontent,is,asrepresentedinourmindandexpressedinourwords,morenegativethanpositive.WeknowwhatGodisnot,ratherthanwhatHeis.(Cf.St.Thomas,SummaTheologicI.3,thewholequestionI.13.2,3,5,12Q.ii,Deveritate,a.1,ad9am,ad10am.)Suchaconceptionisevidentlyneitherfalsenormeaninglessitisclearlyinadequate.Inaword,ourconceptionofGodisahumanconceptionanditcannotbeother.ButifwenecessarilyrepresentGodinahumanway,ifevenifitisfromourhumannaturethatwetakemostofthepropertiesandperfectionswhichwepredicateofHim,wedonotconceiveHimasaman,notevenasaperfectedman,sinceweeliminatefromthoseproperties,asattributesofGod,alllimitsandimperfectionswhichinmanandothercreaturesareaverypartoftheiressence.

Analogyintheknowledgeofthemysteriesoffaith

TheFathersoftheChurchalwaysemphasizedtheinabilityofthehumanreasontodiscoveroreventorepresentadequatelythemysteriesoffaith,andinsistedonthenecessityofanalogicalconceptionsintheirrepresentationsandexpressions.St.Thomas,afterthePseudoDionysiusandAlbertusMagnus,hasgiventhetheoryofanalogysoappliedtothemysteriesoffaith.(Cf.St.Thomas,Summa,Theol.,I,Q.i,a.9Q.xxii,a.1InLibrumBothiiDeTrinitateExpositio.)TheVaticanCouncilsetforththeCatholicdoctrineonthepoint.(Cf.Const.,DeiFilius,cap.ivcf.alsoConc.Coloniense,1860.)(1)BeforeRevelation,analogyisunabletodiscoverthemysteries,sincereasoncanknowofGodonlywhatismanifestedofHimandisinnecessarycausalrelationwithHimincreatedthings.(2)InRevelation,analogyisnecessary,sinceGodcannotrevealthemysteriestomenexceptthroughconceptionsintelligibletothehumanmind,andthereforeanalogical.(3)AfterRevelation,analogyisusefultogiveuscertainknowledgeofthemysteries,eitherbycomparisonwithnaturalthingsandtruths,orbyconsiderationofthemysteriesinrelationwithoneanotherandwiththedestinyofman.



GetPaidWegivebestpriceforyourneworusediPhoneWanttosellyouriPhone?

Sources

PSEUDODIONYSIUS,OperaOmniaSt.Thomas,SummaTheol.,I,QQ.iii,iv,xiiiContraGent.,lib.I,xxixII,iiQuaest.disp.,Deverit.,QQ.ii,xxiiiDepotenti,Q.viiInBoet.DeTrinitate,expositioDEREGNON,EtudesdethologiepositivesurlaS.Trinit(Paris,1898)GRANDERATH,ConstitutionesdogmaticaeS.OecumeniciConciliiVaticani(FreiburgimBr.,1892)HONTHEIM,InstitutionesTheodicae(ibid.,1893)DELABARRE,Laviedudogmecatholique(Paris,1898)CHOLLETinDict.dethol.cath.s.v.SERTILLANGES,AgnosticismeouanthropomorphismeinRev.dephilosophie,1Feb.,and1Aug.,1906GARDAIR,L'EtreDivininRev.dephil.,July,1906.

Aboutthispage

APAcitation.Sauvage,G.(1907).Analogy.InTheCatholicEncyclopedia.NewYork:RobertAppletonCompany.RetrievedJune6,2015fromNewAdvent:http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01449a.htm

MLAcitation.Sauvage,George."Analogy."TheCatholicEncyclopedia.Vol.1.NewYork:RobertAppletonCompany,1907.6Jun.2015.

Transcription.ThisarticlewastranscribedforNewAdventbyBobElder.

Ecclesiasticalapprobation.NihilObstat.March1,1907.RemyLafort,S.T.D.,Censor.Imprimatur.+JohnCardinalFarley,ArchbishopofNewYork.

Contactinformation.TheeditorofNewAdventisKevinKnight.Myemailaddressiswebmasteratnewadvent.org.Regrettably,Ican'treplytoeveryletter,butIgreatlyappreciateyourfeedbackespeciallynotificationsabouttypographicalerrorsandinappropriateads.

catholic encyclopedia_ analogy.pdf

Documents