4. Equivocation, General/Particular Distinction, and Theological Knowledge

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Problem of Equivocation #

• A single word used with two or more distinct meanings creates the appearance of contradiction
• The sophist exploits equivocation to refute great minds and claim superiority
• Students often fail to distinguish different senses of key terms, leading to confusion about Aristotle’s teaching

The Two Senses of ‘Particular’ and ‘General’ #

Particular has two meanings:

1. Singular or individual - a specific, unique thing (e.g., Socrates, this dog)
2. Less universal - a species within a genus (e.g., dog as a particular kind of animal, still universal)

General has two meanings:

1. Universal - common to many things
2. More universal - a broader, more encompassing category

The Apparent Contradiction in Aristotle #

Objection: Aristotle contradicts himself:

• He says senses precede reason
• Senses know particulars (singular things)
• Therefore particulars precede universals
• Yet he also says the general comes before the particular

Resolution: The word ‘particular’ is equivocal in these two contexts:

• When comparing sense to reason: ‘particular’ means singular/individual things
• When discussing universals: ‘particular’ means less universal things
• Correct formulation: Singulars come before any universals (sense before reason), but among universals, the more universal comes before the less universal

Why More Universal Precedes Less Universal Among Universals #

• We initially know things in a confused way before knowing them distinctly
• Confused knowledge is more general in character
• Perceptual differences between broader categories are greater and more obvious
• Example: Distinguishing tree from grass is easier than distinguishing two types of grass
• The greater the difference, the sooner we perceive it

Application to Theology: The Via Negativa (Way of Negation) #

Basic principle: In theology, we know God primarily through negation—stating what God is not.

Two types of negation with different usefulness:

1. Negating the particular: “God does not have two atoms of hydrogen, one of oxygen” or “God does not have six atoms of carbon, twelve of hydrogen, six of oxygen (C₆H₁₂O₆)”
2. Negating the general: “God has no parts” or “God is unchanging”

Key insight: Negating the general is much more useful and closer to God than negating the particular.

Why?

• To negate something, we must first understand what we are negating
• Knowledge of general concepts (whole, parts, change, being) is necessary for theological negations
• Knowledge of particular scientific facts (H₂O, molecular structure) is not necessary or useful for theology
• Particular scientific knowledge is contingent and changes with scientific progress; general concepts are stable

Consequence for Theology #

General knowledge is more theologically useful than particular knowledge because:

• Theology proceeds through negation of the general, not the particular
• We say “God is unchanging” (negating change in general), not listing all specific changes God doesn’t undergo
• We say “God is simple, not composed” (general negation of composition), not denying specific atomic structures
• The articles of faith must be expressed in universal and necessary concepts, not in private or particular scientific knowledge

Sacred Scripture and Experience #

• Scripture uses common experience (things all people know) in its metaphors
• Examples: “The Lord is my rock,” “The Lord is my shepherd” - these use common human experiences
• Scripture does use some private experience, but primarily grounds itself in universal human experience
• This is providential: using common experience means theological truths don’t change as particular scientific knowledge changes

Divine Providence in Language and Philosophy #

• The New Testament written in Greek (rather than Hebrew) was providential for theology
• Greek philosophical concepts and language facilitate bringing Greek philosophy together with revelation
• The Greek language is better suited for theology than Hebrew
• God’s providence extends even to such seemingly historical details

Key Arguments #

The Sophistic Refutation and Its Refutation #

1. The sophist appears to refute Aristotle by exploiting equivocation in the word ‘particular’
2. The sophist seems to demonstrate Aristotle contradicts himself
3. But recognizing the two senses of ‘particular’ resolves the apparent contradiction
4. Therefore, the sophist’s refutation fails
5. Lesson: One must be careful not to be deceived by equivocation; precision about word meanings is essential

Why General Knowledge Precedes Particular in Theological Understanding #

1. Theology knows God primarily through the via negativa (negation)
2. Negation requires understanding what is being negated
3. Negating the general is more useful than negating the particular
4. Therefore, general knowledge of concepts (being, change, composition, etc.) is more useful than particular scientific knowledge
5. Conclusion: Theology prioritizes general knowledge over particular knowledge

Important Definitions #

Equivocation (Ἀμφιβολία / ambiguitas) #

• The use of a single word with multiple distinct meanings
• Can lead to apparent contradictions when the different senses are confused
• The sophist exploits equivocation to appear to refute superior minds

Via Negativa (Way of Negation) #

• The theological method of knowing God by denying of Him what belongs to creatures
• Example: God is unchanging (not subject to change), God is simple (not composed of parts)
• More fundamental than affirmative knowledge of God in this life

Common vs. Private Experience (as applied here) #

• Common experience: Universal human experience (e.g., change, composition, motion, rest)
• Private experience: Particular or specialized knowledge (e.g., specific scientific facts, molecular structures)
• In theology, common experience provides the general concepts needed for negations

Examples & Illustrations #

The Problem of Equivocation #

• The “knowledge of reason” example: “The knowledge of reason is a knowledge of reason” - this statement can mean either “knowledge about reason” or “knowledge belonging to reason,” creating apparent nonsense through equivocation

Why General Precedes Particular in Classification #

Example 1 - Vegetation Classification:

• First perceptual distinction: grass vs. tree (more universal)
• Later distinction: different types of grass (less universal)
• Reason: The difference between grass and tree is greater and more obvious

Example 2 - Alcoholic Beverages:

• First perceptual distinction: beer vs. wine vs. whiskey (more universal)
• Later distinction: Budweiser vs. Miller beer (less universal)
• First distinction: scotch vs. rye whiskey (less universal)
• Reason: Larger differences are more easily perceived

Example 3 - Tree Classification:

• First distinction: broadleaf trees vs. needle trees (immediately obvious, never confused)
• Later distinction: Norway pine vs. other pines (very difficult to distinguish)

Theological Application #

Useful negation: “God has no parts” (negating composition in general)

• This is meaningful and important for theology
• It relies on common human understanding of what whole and parts are

Useless negation: “God doesn’t have two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen”

• This is trivial and adds nothing to theological understanding
• It requires specialized scientific knowledge (H₂O)
• It would need constant updating as chemistry advances

Scripture’s Use of Common Experience #

• “The Lord is my rock” - everyone has common experience of rocks’ stability
• “The Lord is my shepherd” - everyone has some common experience (direct or indirect) of shepherding
• “Running water,” “parched earth” (from the Psalms) - universal human experiences
• These metaphors remain meaningful across time and cultures because they use common experience

Notable Quotes #

“See? So I’ve now overthrown Aristotle, right? You see how great I am? See? That’s what the sophist does, right?” - Berquist, illustrating the sophistic method of exploiting equivocation

“Notice, we call this particular, right? And we call this particular, right? Okay? And we call this general, and we call all this general, right? Okay?” - Berquist, demonstrating how equivocation in terminology creates confusion

“So we’re closer to God, for example, when we say that God does not walk. God does not grow. When we say God is unchanging, which is closer to God.” - Berquist, on why negating the general is more theologically useful

“It’s more important [to know what a whole and parts are]. Because you’re not going to bother to say that God doesn’t have two atoms of hydrogen and oxygen, right? … No, we’re going to say he has no parts.” - Berquist, on the practical theological value of general vs. particular knowledge

Questions Addressed #

How can Aristotle say both that senses precede reason AND that the general precedes the particular? #

Resolution: These statements use different senses of ‘particular’:

• Sense 1: Senses know singular/individual particulars, which precede all universals (sense before reason)
• Sense 2: Among universals, the more universal (general) precedes the less universal (particular)
• There is no contradiction when the equivocation is resolved

Why is negating the general more useful in theology than negating the particular? #

Answer:

• Theology proceeds through negation (via negativa)
• To negate something meaningfully, we must understand what we’re negating
• General concepts (composition, change, being) are necessary for all meaningful theological negations
• Particular scientific facts are contingent, changing, and not required for theological understanding
• Therefore, knowledge of general concepts provides the foundation for theological negations

How should one respond to the sophistic objection that Aristotle contradicts himself? #

Answer:

• Recognize the equivocation in ‘particular’ and ‘general’
• Clarify the two senses of each term
• Show that under proper differentiation of meaning, no contradiction exists
• This teaches a fundamental lesson: precision about word meanings is essential to philosophy

Why does scripture use common experience rather than private scientific experience? #

Answer:

• Common experience is universal and unchanging across time and cultures
• Scripture’s metaphors remain meaningful across all peoples and generations
• Private/particular scientific knowledge is contingent and constantly changing
• Theology must use concepts that remain stable; therefore it grounds itself in common, universal experience
• This reflects divine providence: God ensured the truths of revelation would be expressed in stable, universal terms