22. Equivocal Names, Figurative Speech, and Their Philosophical Functions

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

Equivocal Names by Reason #

Definition and Distinction

• Equivocal by chance: A name applied to multiple things with no intrinsic connection between meanings (e.g., “bat” as sports equipment vs. flying mammal)
• Equivocal by reason: A name applied to multiple things with an intrinsic connection linking the meanings
• Most important philosophical names—especially those used in axioms and describing universal concepts like “being,” “thing,” “something”—are equivocal by reason

Why This Matters

• The most common and universal names are equivocal by reason because they apply to fundamentally different kinds of things (substance, accident, etc.)
• Understanding equivocation is essential for proper philosophical reasoning and avoiding errors

The Five Figures of Figurative Speech #

Figures of speech are primarily the domain of rhetoric and poetics, but philosophers must understand them to interpret texts correctly. The fundamental principle: “The meaning of the word is not the meaning of the speaker.”

1. Synecdoche (Relation of Part to Whole)

• Involves an integral or composed whole and its parts
• Transfer of name from whole to part, or vice versa
• Common in daily life: “He’s a brain” (intellect for whole person); “muscles” (physical strength for whole person); “the toe” (for a kicker who never misses)
• Scriptural example: “The word was made flesh” means the word was made man; flesh (part) stands for man (whole)
• Heretical misinterpretation: Those denying Christ had a human soul treated this synecdoche as literal rather than figurative

2. Antonomasia (Relation of Particular to Universal)

• Giving the name of the general to the particular, or vice versa
• The particular often “stands out” in some notable way
• Examples:
  • “Christ” (universal meaning: anointed; particular application: one specific anointed one anointed with the Holy Spirit)
  • “Bible” (universal: book; particular: one specific book, the word of God)
  • “Romeo,” “Don Juan,” “Casanova” (particular famous lovers applied to any lover)
  • “Hamlet” (particular fictional character applied to any hesitant person)
  • “Mr. Republican” (particular epithet for Senator Taft; all Republicans are GOP members, but he is the Republican)
  • “The apostles” or “the apostle” (Peter and Paul, or St. Paul specifically)

3. Metonymy (Relation: One Thing is Something of Another)

• Not a part-to-whole relation, but a relation where one thing is something of or related to another
• Thomas identifies at least three or four types:
  • Container to contained: “This is a holy place” (not the place itself, but the people in it are holy)
  • Contained to container: “An unhappy age” (not the time, but the events or people in it)
  • Cause to effect: “Scornful pride” (scorn is the effect of pride, not pride itself)
  • Effect to cause: “The earth praises the Lord” (the earth’s inhabitants praise, not the earth itself)

4. Metaphor (Based on Likeness)

• Speaker’s meaning differs from the literal meaning of words
• Based on some similarity or likeness between things
• Examples: “honey” for beloved; “pig” for glutton; “rat” for traitor; “brain” for intelligent person
• Thomas’s analysis of “sweet”: Three qualities
  • Pleasing (attractive, agreeable)
  • Calming/restful (like candy for a crying child or ice cream for restless children on a journey)
  • Refreshing (like candy bars in factories or candy machines)
• Scripture: “Taste and see how sweet is the Lord” uses these three aspects to convey God’s attractiveness
• Literary use: Shakespeare describes beautiful form as “sweet form”

5. Irony (Based on Opposite)

• Speaker means the opposite of what the words literally express
• Example: “What a fine example of a college student” (said of a drunk person)
• Example: “You’re nice” (said to someone being mean)
• Scriptural example: Socrates in Plato’s Apology proposes a “reward” of being pensioned off (actually a punishment)
• Thomas defends St. Paul and others from charges of falsehood: “To speak ironically is not to speak falsely”

Key Arguments #

On the Function of Equivocal Names by Reason #

• Equivocation by reason is necessary in philosophy because the most universal names must apply to essentially different kinds of things
• This contrasts with univocal names (said of many things with identical meaning) and purely equivocal names (with no connection)

On Recognizing Figurative Speech #

• An intelligent listener gathers the speaker’s meaning through the words, even when they are figurative
• The meaning of the speaker can differ radically from the meaning of the words
• When figurative meanings become common enough, they may become literal meanings (example: “pig” as glutton)
• Dictionaries can be misleading by listing figurative meanings as if they were literal

On Avoiding Heretical Misinterpretation #

• Failure to recognize a figure of speech leads to false doctrine
• Example: Heretics who denied Christ had a human soul misread “the word was made flesh” as literal rather than as synecdoche
• Thomas shows how such apparent contradictions are resolved by recognizing the figure

Important Definitions #

Figurative Speech (Λόγος εἰκών)

• General principle: The meaning of the word is not the meaning of the speaker
• When such non-literal usage becomes settled in language, it ceases to be figurative

Equivocal by Reason (Latin: praedicatum secundum proportionalitatem)

• A name applied to multiple things with an intrinsic connection between the meanings
• Distinguished from univocal (one meaning) and equivocal by chance (no connection)

Integral or Composed Whole (Latin: totum integrale)

• A whole composed of its parts (e.g., a body composed of organs and limbs)
• Contrasts with universal whole (genus containing species)

Examples & Illustrations #

Daily Language Examples #

• “He’s a brain” = intelligent person (synecdoche: brain for whole person)
• “He’s all muscles” = physically strong person (synecdoche: muscles for strength/whole person)
• “The toe” = a kicker who never misses field goals (synecdoche: one outstanding part for the person)
• “That guy is a Romeo” = a known lover or promiscuous person (antonomasia: particular famous person for general category)
• “Hamlet” = any hesitant, slow-to-act person (antonomasia: fictional character for general type)
• “I told you a million times” = told you many times (hyperbole, related to metaphor)

Religious and Literary Examples #

• “The word was made flesh” (synecdoche)
• “All flesh must come to thee” (synecdoche)
• “Christ” as name (antonomasia)
• “Bible” as particular book (antonomasia)
• “The earth praises the Lord” (metonymy: earth for its inhabitants)
• “Taste and see how sweet is the Lord” (metaphor)
• Socrates in the Apology proposing a pension as “reward” (irony)
• St. Paul’s use of irony in his epistles (defended by Thomas)

Notable Quotes #

“The meaning of the word is not the meaning of the speaker. That’s the best way to look at it.”

“When a man speaks figuratively, right, the meaning of his words is not the meaning of the speaker, right? But an intelligent listener will gather the meaning of the speaker through the words.”

“To speak ironically is not to speak falsely.”

“These are all examples of Synecdoche, you’ll find them very often in daily life.”

Questions Addressed #

How do we distinguish equivocal by reason from equivocal by chance? #

Equivocal by chance occurs when a name is applied to different things with no intrinsic connection (e.g., “bat”). Equivocal by reason occurs when there is an intrinsic reason or connection linking the multiple meanings. The most important philosophical terms are equivocal by reason.

Why must the most universal philosophical names be equivocal by reason? #

Because being, thing, and similar universal terms must apply to fundamentally different kinds of things (substance, accident, quantity, quality) that are not univocally the same. Yet they cannot be purely equivocal (by chance) because there must be some intrinsic connection.

Why is understanding figurative speech essential for interpreting Scripture? #

Many biblical passages use figures of speech. Failure to recognize the figure leads to false interpretations and even heresy (e.g., those who denied Christ’s human soul). An intelligent reader must recognize when a speaker means something other than the literal words convey.

How does Thomas defend biblical authors from charges of falsehood? #

Thomas explains that speaking figuratively (especially ironically) is not the same as speaking falsely. The speaker’s meaning, grasped by an intelligent listener, is true even though the literal words may express the opposite or something other than what is literally meant.