For more resources for studying Aquinas and medieval philosophy, go to: www.thomisticmetaphysics.com For my (Prof. Elliot Polsky) about page with student resources, go to: www.elliotpolsky.com
I’m studying the works of Aristotle collectively referred to as the ‘Organon’. (This is a term applied later to a selection of Aristotle’s works and not a term used in any way by Aristotle, I believe). In the Categories, in the Apostle translation, name has three senses, namely, univocal, equivocal and derived (eg, grammarian from grammar). Is this third category what you are calling here by analogy? In other words the ab nnn are themselves derived from the third category of name. Is this correct or is analogy from some other source (and meaning)? Thanks for these videos. Very informative along with the commentaries of St Thomas Aquinas and of course the Greek texts themselves. Btw, St Thomas Aquinas is the Aristotle of scholastic thought. (Metaphor ;-) )
analogy (as Aquinas uses the word) isn't discussed in the Categories, but comes mainly from Aristotle's Metaphysics IV.1-2 (where the subject of metaphysics is discussed) and Nicomachean ethics (where the equivocal character of "good" is discussed). My own view, not shared by all, is that analogy is a form of equivocation.
@@ElliotPolskyPhilosophy I have the same idea that it is a type of equivocation. This channel does not address Plato (at least not that I’ve seen so far) but it seems to me that Plato’s understanding (or perhaps more properly Socrates’) is insightful on the topic of αναλογια. But of course very different from Aristotle’s and St Thomas Aquinas’ interpretation of Aristotle’s. I’ve been reflecting recently on the topic of analogy. I wonder if we can ever really know anything except by analogy.
There was this chap making all kinds of allegations against thomasits. He said Thomasits sometimes misinterpret St. Thomas' doctrine on analogy of being (analogia entis?)
The analogy of being is the perhaps the most disputed topic among Thomists. For a long time the Dominican, Thomas de Via Cajetan, who had written a treatise on analogy was taken as authoritative, but in the 20th century, it is something of a Thomistic pastime to go after Cajetan for getting everything all wrong. If you'd like to read more about this, there is a good book by Joshua Hochschild defending Cajetan and a classic study, The Logic of Analogy, by Ralph McInerny, attacking him.
@@jeffsmith1798 Yes, this is addressed at the start of Cajetan's treatise on analogy. Basically, analogy originally in Aristotle's Greek usage meant 4-term proportion, but by Aquinas's time the Latin word had been extended to cover what Aristotle call's pros hen equivocation
I didn`t quite grasp how is ad unum different from ab uno. It seems like in the examples ad unum exploited both types of causality and ab uno exploited the final one, contrary to the description.
I’m studying the works of Aristotle collectively referred to as the ‘Organon’. (This is a term applied later to a selection of Aristotle’s works and not a term used in any way by Aristotle, I believe). In the Categories, in the Apostle translation, name has three senses, namely, univocal, equivocal and derived (eg, grammarian from grammar). Is this third category what you are calling here by analogy? In other words the ab nnn are themselves derived from the third category of name. Is this correct or is analogy from some other source (and meaning)?
Thanks for these videos. Very informative along with the commentaries of St Thomas Aquinas and of course the Greek texts themselves.
Btw, St Thomas Aquinas is the Aristotle of scholastic thought. (Metaphor ;-) )
analogy (as Aquinas uses the word) isn't discussed in the Categories, but comes mainly from Aristotle's Metaphysics IV.1-2 (where the subject of metaphysics is discussed) and Nicomachean ethics (where the equivocal character of "good" is discussed). My own view, not shared by all, is that analogy is a form of equivocation.
@@ElliotPolskyPhilosophy I have the same idea that it is a type of equivocation.
This channel does not address Plato (at least not that I’ve seen so far) but it seems to me that Plato’s understanding (or perhaps more properly Socrates’) is insightful on the topic of αναλογια. But of course very different from Aristotle’s and St Thomas Aquinas’ interpretation of Aristotle’s.
I’ve been reflecting recently on the topic of analogy. I wonder if we can ever really know anything except by analogy.
There was this chap making all kinds of allegations against thomasits. He said Thomasits sometimes misinterpret St. Thomas' doctrine on analogy of being (analogia entis?)
ua-cam.com/video/gQCpPZ2LrRg/v-deo.html
The analogy of being is the perhaps the most disputed topic among Thomists. For a long time the Dominican, Thomas de Via Cajetan, who had written a treatise on analogy was taken as authoritative, but in the 20th century, it is something of a Thomistic pastime to go after Cajetan for getting everything all wrong. If you'd like to read more about this, there is a good book by Joshua Hochschild defending Cajetan and a classic study, The Logic of Analogy, by Ralph McInerny, attacking him.
do any of the writings cited here attempt to take up the meaning of Aristotle’s use of αναλογια?@@ElliotPolskyPhilosophy
@@jeffsmith1798 Yes, this is addressed at the start of Cajetan's treatise on analogy. Basically, analogy originally in Aristotle's Greek usage meant 4-term proportion, but by Aquinas's time the Latin word had been extended to cover what Aristotle call's pros hen equivocation
I didn`t quite grasp how is ad unum different from ab uno. It seems like in the examples ad unum exploited both types of causality and ab uno exploited the final one, contrary to the description.