33. Equivocation by Reason and the Unity of Being

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

Equivocation: By Chance vs. By Reason #

Equivocation by chance (purely equivocal)

• A word has multiple unrelated meanings with no connection between them
• Example: “bat” (baseball bat vs. flying mammal)
• If being were equivocal by chance, there could be no unified science of being

Equivocation by reason (analogous)

• A word has multiple meanings that are ordered and connected
• There is a fundamental meaning to which other meanings refer back
• Allows for one unified science despite multiple meanings
• Example: healthy applied to body (possesses health), complexion (sign of health), diet (produces health)—all refer to the health of the body

Being as Equivocal by Reason #

Being is said of:

1. Substance (primary meaning)
2. Accident (exists in substance)
3. Coming-to-be (process toward substance or accident)
4. Privation/lack (absence of substance or accident)

All four meanings refer back to substance as their fundamental meaning, making being equivocal by reason rather than by chance.

Theological Application of Equivocation by Reason #

Berquist demonstrates how divine is equivocal by reason:

• God is divine (primary meaning)
• Grace is divine (partakes of divine nature)
• Faith, hope, charity are divine (their object is God)
• The soul is divine (made in image and likeness of God)

Key distinction: My soul is not itself divine, but made to the image and likeness of God. Grace is not God, but participation in divine nature. Faith, hope, and charity are not God, but have God as their object. All refer back to God.

The Method of Division in Equivocation by Reason #

When dividing equivocal terms, one member keeps the common name while another receives a new name. There are two reasons this occurs:

First way: One member adds something noteworthy

• Example: Five fingers → “four fingers and a thumb” (thumb gets new name because it adds opposability)
• Example: Man and beast → man gets new name because he adds reason to what it means to be an animal
• The ones that add nothing beyond the common meaning keep the common name

Second way: One member has something imperfectly while another has it perfectly

• Example: Understanding (intellect) and reason → reason gets new name because man’s intellect is imperfect, requiring discursive reasoning
• Example: Knowing vs. thinking → knowing adds certitude; thinking is imperfect knowing
• The one with the imperfect possession gets the new name because it lacks full possession

Why Equivocation by Reason Permits Unified Science #

Aristotle’s principle: Just as there is one reasoned-out knowledge of all healthy things (because the word is not equivocal by chance but refers to health), so likewise for other things. If the word is said equivocally by reason toward one nature with a first meaning, then one reasoned-out knowledge can embrace all meanings.

Key Arguments #

The Argument for Being as Equivocal by Reason #

1. Being is said of substance, accident, coming-to-be, and privation
2. These meanings are not unrelated (which would be equivocation by chance)
3. Rather:
   • Accidents exist in substance
   • Coming-to-be is of substance or accident
   • Privation is lack of substance or accident
4. All meanings refer back to substance
5. Therefore, being is equivocal by reason, not by chance
6. Therefore, a unified science of being is possible

The Argument Against Pure Equivocation #

If being were equivocal by chance:

• There could be no unified science of being
• Being as being would be like “bat” (baseball bat and flying mammal share no connection)

But there is a unified science of being (wisdom), therefore being must be equivocal by reason.

The Argument for Why Words in Axioms Are Equivocal by Reason #

Berquist uses the sophistical argument against the axiom that “a whole is greater than its part”:

1. Man is an animal but also has reason
2. So animal is only a part of the definition of man
3. But animal as a universal whole includes dog, cat, horse (more than man)
4. Therefore, the part (animal) includes more than the whole (man)
5. Conclusion: The axiom is refuted

Solution: The words whole and part are equivocal by reason:

• Composed whole: The definition (animal + reason) has animal as a part; the whole includes both parts
• Universal whole: Animal is said of multiple species; it is the universal, not composed from its species

The argument confuses these two meanings of whole and part.

Important Definitions #

Equivocal (ἰσόσημος)

• A word with multiple meanings

Equivocal by chance (purely equivocal)

• Multiple unrelated meanings with no order or connection

Equivocal by reason (analogous; proportional)

• Multiple meanings ordered toward one fundamental meaning
• Other meanings refer back to the primary meaning
• Permits unified science despite multiplicity of meanings

Substance (οὐσία)

• What exists in itself, not in another
• The primary meaning of being
• All other meanings of being refer back to substance

Accident (συμβεβηκός)

• What exists in another as in a subject
• Cannot exist apart from substance
• Examples: health, shape, color

Privation (στέρησις)

• Lack or absence of a quality or form
• Example: blindness (lack of sight)
• Though it seems like non-being, we speak of it as something (“he has blindness”)

Composed whole (totum ex partibus)

• A whole composed or put together from its parts
• The definition is an example: man = animal + reason

Universal whole (totum universale)

• A universal term that is said of multiple particulars
• Not composed from them but predicated of them
• Example: animal is said of man, dog, cat, horse

Examples & Illustrations #

The Finger Example #

• “How many fingers do I have?” → “Five”
• “How many fingers do I have?” → “Four fingers and a thumb”
• The thumb gets a new name because it adds something noteworthy (opposability)
• The other four keep the common name because they add nothing beyond being a finger
• This illustrates why division works: something noteworthy causes one member to stand out

Medical and Healthy #

Healthy:

• Body is healthy (possesses health)
• Complexion is healthy (sign of health)
• Diet is healthy (produces health)

Medical:

• Medical man (one who possesses the medical art)
• Medical instrument (product of the medical art)
• Naturally medical (suited by nature to medicine)

All refer back to health or the medical art respectively.

Understanding vs. Reason #

• Angel’s understanding = intellect (perfect possession of understanding)
• Man’s understanding = reason (imperfect, discursive)
• Man gets the new name “reason” because he lacks the perfect possession of intellect
• Both understanding and reason share the common name with understanding kept by the angel because it has what is meant fully, while man has it imperfectly

Knowing vs. Thinking #

• “Do you know that two is half of four?” → Yes, I know it
• “Do you think you’ll live to 80?” → I think so, but I don’t know it
• Thinking is imperfect knowing (lacks certitude)
• Knowing adds the certitude that thinking lacks

The Whole and Part Sophism #

• “Man is an animal, but he’s not just an animal; he’s an animal with reason”
• “So animal is only a part of what man is”
• “But animal includes dog, cat, horse—more than just man”
• “So the part (animal) includes more than the whole (man)!”
• Solution: Confuses composed whole (the definition) with universal whole (the set of species)

Plant and Tree #

• “I want to buy a plant” ≠ “I want to buy a tree”
• Though a tree is a plant, when we say “plant,” we exclude notable trees
• The little plants keep the name plant; tree gets its own name

Notable Quotes #

“So, the word divine here is equivocal by reason, not by chance, huh? You see that?” — Berquist, clarifying the theological application of equivocation by reason

“Divine said of God in grace, or divine said of God in faith, hope, and charity, or divine said of God in our soul, right? That’s critical. We’re not divine. My soul is not divine.” — Berquist, emphasizing the distinction in meanings while all refer back to God

“When I grab my water glass, or my beer can, or something, right? You know, the opposable thumb, a biologist calls it, huh? So, one way this takes place, is when one of them adds something noteworthy, right?” — Berquist, explaining why the thumb gets a new name

“The sooner you get that into your head, that way of speaking… the better off you’ll be, right? Because it comes up again, and again, and again, as you go through philosophy, and you find it in daily speech, too.” — Berquist, on the importance of mastering equivocation by reason

Questions Addressed #

Is being equivocal? #

Yes, but equivocal by reason, not by chance. Being has multiple meanings (substance, accident, coming-to-be, privation), but all refer back to substance as their primary meaning.

Can there be a unified science of equivocal terms? #

Yes, if the terms are equivocal by reason (with an order and connection among meanings). Just as there is one science of healthy things, political things, and medical things, so there can be one science of being as being.

How can the sophistical argument against the axiom (that a whole is greater than its part) be answered? #

By distinguishing two senses of whole: the composed whole (where the definition has animal as a part alongside reason) and the universal whole (where animal is predicated of multiple species). The argument confuses these meanings.

Why do some words require new names when divided? #

Because something noteworthy is added in some cases (the thumb has opposability), or because something is possessed imperfectly in one case (man has reason imperfectly compared to the angel’s intellect). Without something noteworthy added or imperfect possession, the member keeps the common name.

How does understanding equivocation by reason prevent sophistical deception? #

By recognizing that different meanings of a word all refer to one primary meaning, we can defend ourselves against sophistical arguments that exploit equivocation. The sophist’s argument against the axiom appears to refute it only because we confuse two meanings of whole and part.