Values, Ontological and Transcendental, of Primary Notions and Principles: Doctrine of Analogy
Chapter III.—Values, Ontological and Transcendental, of Primary Notions and Principles: Doctrine of Analogy
It is quite clear that knowledge of supernatural truth is impossible unless a foundation of natural truth exists. Hence the necessity, at the outset of a treatise on supernatural religion, to establish the truth that primary notions and primary principles of human reason have (1) an objective (ontological) value, and (2) a transcendental value.
I.—Defence of the ontological value of primary notions and principles of reason.
A direct proof of an intuitive truth is not possible. When the connection between subject and predicate is immediate there is no place for a middle term. Everyone has an intuitive perception that the principle of non-contradiction is not only a logical law of reason, but an ontological (objective) law of reality. It is immediately evident that an absurdity (e.g., a square circle) not only cannot be thought of, but cannot exist. Equally immediate is the evidence of the truth that a contingent universe postulates a necessary cause.
But if a direct proof of the ontological (objective) value of primary notions and principles of reason is not possible, a direct defence based on the explanation of the terms enables the mind to see the evidential character of the intuition.
(A) Direct defence.
Major: Primary ideas and principles of reason which do not express objects per se sensible, but objects sensible per accidens and intelligible per se and resolvable into intelligible being have a value not only phenomenal but ontological.
Minor: The primary notions of being, essence, existence, unity, truth, goodness, substance, causality, finality and correlative principles do not express objects per se sensible (like colour, sound and other phenomena) but objects sensible per accidens and intelligible per se resolvable into intelligible being.
Conclusion: Therefore primary notions and their correlative principles have a value not only phenomenal but ontological.
Explanation of the Major:
When the eye sees (e.g.) an orange, the colour of the orange is the direct object of the faculty of sight; the eye perceives the sensible quality per se (directly). But the intellect directly perceives under the sensible qualities the essence of the orange and the essence, abstracted from sensible qualities, is the direct object of the intellect. Hence the object of the intellect (i.e., essence) is intelligible per se, and sensible per accidens. If I see a man speaking I apprehend by the intellect his life, and I can say that I see he is alive, although life is not sensible per se like colour and other phenomena. Thus notions which express sensible qualities per accidens and intelligible essence per se have a value which is not merely phenomenal but ontological, because they apprehend the essence, substance or being which underlies the phenomena.
Explanation of the Minor:
The primary notions and their correlative principles intelligible per se and sensible only per accidens are resolvable into being. Unity is individual being, truth is being conformable to the intelligence on which it depends, goodness is desirable being, substance is a form of being, causality is the realisation of being, finality is the raison d’être of means to reach being, etc. The intellect does not apprehend or judge anything unless in relation to being. In every judgment the essential relation is indicated by the word “is” which imports “being.” Hence a judgment is not an association merely of names, but an association of things.
Should someone object that the idea of being is a subjective form of the understanding, the difference may be pointed out between the idea of being and ideas which express purely subjective notions (conceived but not capable of realisation) such as notions of universality, specificity, whiteness, etc. Or the objection may be met by contrasting the ontological form of the principle of non-contradiction: “it is impossible that the same thing should exist and not exist” with the logical form of the same principle: “it is impossible to affirm and deny the same predicate of the same subject in the same relation.” The second form expresses only the inconceivable character of the absurd, the first form expresses its real impossibility. To reduce the notion of being to a subjective form of the mind, and the principle of non-contradiction to a logical law and not to an ontological law is to identify two notions manifestly distinct—the impossible and the inconceivable. If the principle of non-contradiction is only a logical law, then a square circle is inconceivable but may exist in rerum naturâ. To shew the importance of stressing this fundamental truth, the following words of M. Le Roy are relevant: “the principle of non-contradiction is not as universal and as necessary as is supposed … supreme law of speech and not of thought in general, it has hold only upon that which is static… . But there is contradiction in the world as there is identity, as, for example, in fleeing mobilities, becoming, duration, life.” (Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, 1905, pp. 200, 204).
(B) Indirect defence.
If the ontological value of primary notions and principles be denied, knowledge of any kind becomes impossible. The necessity and universality of first principles cannot be explained by empiricist agnostics. Idealistic agnostics (followers of Kant) have recourse to “judgments synthetic à priori,” which since they are neither wholly à priori nor wholly from experience are blind, motiveless, irrational.
Moreover, the negation of the ontological value of primary notions and principles makes the essential elements of intellectual knowledge to be absurd. For example:
(1) Object. One cannot distinguish between the object of direct intelligence (e.g., Causality) and the object of reflex intelligence (e.g., Idea of Causality). But the reflex act pre-supposes the direct act, and cannot be identified with it without formal contradiction.
(2) Idea. If the idea is that which is known (medium quod cognoscitur) and not that whereby the object is known (medium quo cognoscitur) then the idea or representation has no relation to the represented object (i.e.) is the idea of nothing.
(3) Principles. The principle of (e.g.) non-contradiction disappears and therewith the value of any statement.
(4) Intellectual faculty. An act of intelligence becomes unintelligible in two ways:
- (a) Kant denied the passivity of the intellect in regard to intelligible being. Hence the motiveless, blind, “judgments synthetic a priori.”
- (b) Fichte denied the passivity of the intellect not only in regard to intelligible being but in regard to phenomena. Hence the human intellect creates its own cognitions and becomes the cause of things.
II.—Defence of the transcendental value of primary notions and principles.
The transcendental value of primary notions and principles enables us to know not only being underlying phenomena, but God Himself, the first transcendent Cause, and such knowledge is not merely metaphorical or symbolic but real. Some agnostics admit that God may be known symbolically and that dogmatic formulas have a metaphorical value so that the statement “God is wise” is only a metaphorical statement like “God is angry.”
The transcendental value may be defended directly and indirectly.
Before formulating the syllogism which proves the transcendental value of primary notions and principles, it is necessary to remember that the moderate realism of Aristotle and St. Thomas is a middle way between the extreme realism of Plato leading to pantheism and the nominalism of Agnostics. Hence the doctrine of St. Thomas on analogy (a consequence of moderate realism) holds a middle path between the univocal sense of being leading to pantheism and the equivocal sense which leads to the agnosticism of Nominalists.
(A) Direct proof.
Major: Notions of perfections which are analogous and imply no imperfection (perfectiones simpliciter simplices) are not unsuitable to express analogically and at the same time really absolutely perfect Being, and de facto do express this Being if the universe postulates an Infinite Cause possessing these perfections.
Minor: Primary notions of being, unity, truth, goodness, efficient cause, final cause, intellect, will, wisdom, justice, mercy, etc., express perfections which involve no imperfection and are analogous.
Conclusion: Therefore these first notions and principles are not unsuitable to express, analogically and really, absolutely perfect Being, and in fact enable us to know Him with truth if the universe postulates an Infinite Cause which possesses these perfections.
The Major is explained and proved.
There are certain perfections (perfectiones simpliciter simplices) which involve no imperfection in their nature although they exist in a finite way in the creature, e.g., being, wisdom, life, etc.
On the other hand there are perfections (perfectiones mixtæ) which involve imperfections in their nature, e.g., animality involves corporeity, and discursive reason implies the passing from power to act.
Analogous perfections are opposed to those that are univocal and to those that are equivocal. Univocal things are those which have a common name and the same nature, e.g., animal is predicated univocally of worm, horse and man, because the nature signified by animal (i.e., a body living a sensitive life) is the same notwithstanding the inequality of specific differences extrinsic to the genus.
Equivocal things are those which have a common name, but whose natures are absolutely different. The name “dog” for instance is the name of the domestic animal, of a fish and of a constellation.
Analogous things have a common name and different natures, but from a certain point of view they are similar. Thus the pulse, atmosphere, medicine, food, animal, may all be described as healthy by analogy. Analogy is twofold—analogy of proportion or attribution and analogy of proportionality. The relation (e.g.) of 2 to 1 is a relation of proportion; the relation of two proportions (e.g.) 4⁄2 = 6⁄3 is a relation of proportionality.
(a) Analogy of proportion or of attribution indicates an extrinsic relation of one or of several things to one principal thing or idea. The relation may be exclusively extrinsic or extrinsic and intrinsic.
Thus (1) Medicine and colour are called healthy because of their relation or proportion to the health of a man. In this case the predicate “healthy” analogically applied to medicine and colour is extrinsic.
(2) Quantity and quality are called “beings” because of their relation to substance. In this case the predicate “being” analogically applied to accidents is extrinsic, but “being” belongs to them intrinsically at the same time. Similarly “being” belongs to a creature only contingently, to God necessarily. Hence a creature compared to God is only analogically a being, though “being” belongs to the creature intrinsically at the same time. Thus “being” may be attributed analogically to substance and accident, since there is proportion between substance (i.e., being in itself) and accident (i.e., being in another). “Being” can also be attributed analogically to God and the creature, since there can be formed between the nature and attributes of God and the nature and attributes of the creature a similitude of proportion, i.e., proportionality.
Note the following chart of the analogy of proportion or of attribution:
- Analogy of proportion
- Purely extrinsic: “healthy” is analogically and extrinsically applied to colour and to medicine.
- Not purely extrinsic
- relation of many to one: “being” of accidents (e.g., of quantity and quality) is only analogical and extrinsic as compared to the “being” of substance, though “being” belongs to accidents intrinsically.
- relation of one to another: relation of creature to God.
(b) Analogy of proportionality indicates the likeness of proportion which different things manifest amongst themselves. Analogy of proportionality exists between those things which have a common name and whose natures signified by the name, though diverse, are similar proportionately, i.e., according to the likeness of proportions.
The analogy of proportionality is either metaphorical or real: metaphorical if the relationship is intrinsic and real in the one case and only metaphorical in the other. A king is truly called a king of men, but a lion is only metaphorically king of brute beasts. But the analogy of proportionality holds: as a king is to men so is a lion to brute beasts. When the statement is made “God is angry,” anger is attributed only metaphorically to God. Hence the error of Maimonides and of modern Agnostics who say that all attributes are applied to God only metaphorically. They do not distinguish between perfections which imply no imperfection like wisdom, and perfections with a connotation of imperfection like anger. The analogy of proportionality is real when the relationship is intrinsic and real in both cases, though perchance more perfect in the one case. Being is really and intrinsically attributed to substance and accident, hence substance in relation to its being is analogous to accident in relation to its being. If we understand the symbol ”=” to indicate not mathematical equality, but similitude of analogy, then we may say:
| created substance | accident | |
|---|---|---|
| in relation to its being | = | in relation to its being |
The analogy of real proportionality is subdivided into cases where there is and is not a definite distance between the analogous proportions. Thus between a created substance (e.g., orange) and its accident (e.g., colour) there is a corporal proportion implying a definite distance. But between sensation and intelligence there is no determined distance, and yet sensation and intelligence are both with real and intrinsic analogy called cognition. Hence:
| Sensation | Intelligence | |
|---|---|---|
| in relation to its sensible object | = | in relation to its intelligible object. |
Again:
| Sensitive Love | Rational Love | |
|---|---|---|
| in relation to sensible good | = | in relation to rational good. |
Thus, according to the analogy of real proportionality without determined distance, it is not repugnant that some quality should be ascribed to God and a creature intrinsically and really and not merely metaphorically. Hence:
1° Notions of perfections which imply no imperfection may express in some real way infinitely perfect Being, because nothing is repugnant to infinitely perfect Being unless on the ground of imperfection.
2° Notions which express perfections without suggestion of imperfection, and which are analogous in the created order, are not unsuited to express infinitely perfect Being analogically and really, because proportionality does not necessarily postulate a determined distance. The proportionality is metaphysical not mathematical, founded not on quantity but on being.
Note the following chart of analogy of proportionality:
- Analogy of proportionality
- Metaphorical — King in relation to men = Lion in relation to irrational animals.
- Real
- with definite distance — created substance in relation to its being = accident in relation to its being
- without definite distance
- created things — Intelligence in relation to its intelligible object = Sensation in relation to its sensitive object.
- God and creatures — God in relation to His being = a creature in relation to his being
The minor of the syllogism is explained and proved. Primary notions of being, unity, truth, goodness, efficient cause, final cause, intellect, will, wisdom, prudence, justice, mercy etc., express perfections which imply no imperfection and are analogous. The notion of “being,” for example, involves no imperfection, because it does not suggest matter, it does not involve limitation, and it is analogous with implication of subsistent and accidental being. The same applies to unity which is undivided being, to truth which is being conformable to the intellect, to goodness which is perfect and desirable being. The epithet “good” by virtue of analogy of real proportionality is applied to material and spiritual goodness, and because it does not involve imperfection or limitation, it is not repugnant that “good” should express infinitely perfect Being according to analogy of real proportionality without determined distance. Thus we have “good fruit,” “a good horse,” “a good moral act,” “Being infinitely good.”
Similarly efficient and final causes involve no imperfection and are analogous terms. They are extrinsic reasons of being. To create “being” involves no imperfection whereas to produce heat, which is a modality of being involves limitation. As an efficient cause has a relation to its effect and is called “cause of that effect” it is not repugnant that infinitely perfect Being should have a relation to the most universal effect—being of things—and should be called analogically and really the cause of such being, i.e., First Transcendent Cause.
Similarly knowledge, love, intellect, will involve no imperfection and are analogical. Hence the following proportionalities:
| Sense | Created Intellect | Uncreated Intellect | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| in relation to sensible object | = | in relation to created intelligible object | = | in relation to uncreated intelligible object |
| Sensitive Love | Rational Love | Uncreated Love | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| in relation to sensible good | = | in relation to rational good | = | in relation to uncreated good. |
We speak accordingly of Divine and human knowledge. In man the created form of knowledge is generically a quality, specifically a habit and is measured by things. In God wisdom is not an acquired habit, but is identical with the Divine essence, and is not measured by things but is the cause of things. Human love is aroused by the perfection of outward objects, Divine love creates and infuses perfection in created things.
(B) Indirect demonstration of the transcendent value of primary notions and principles.
If the transcendent value of primary notions and principles be denied, doubt of God’s existence ensues, doubt also of the principle of causality. If the principle of causality is doubtful, something may come into being without a cause, existing neither of itself nor through another, it is something and nothing at the same time. In this way the principle of non-contradiction disappears, and knowledge of any kind becomes impossible.
The transcendent value of primary notions and principles has been demonstrated. It will be of advantage to consider briefly one objection. In the equations given above, between the terms of which an analogical similitude (represented by the symbol ”=”) is claimed, are there not in each equation which introduces Divine attributes two unknowns, and are not the equations consequently of no value? Does not the following expression symbolically represent their value:
? a = ? b
Answer: In the equations given above the Divine attributes are known positively from the fact that there is a real proportionality with corresponding created perfections, and their divine mode is known negatively and relatively. Hence there are not two unknowns in the equations.
As a resumé of the reasoning given in this chapter, it is interesting to follow the results of applying equivocal, univocal and analogical attributes to the Deity.
(1) Maimonides and Modern Nominalist Agnostics claim that God’s nature and attributes are entirely different from created perfections. Goodness and wisdom are only virtually (causaliter) in God. As the being of God is absolutely different from created being, God becomes unknowable.
(2) Duns Scotus, an extreme realist, claimed that created perfections should be predicated univocally of God. In this hypothesis God is knowable, but there must be in Him an actual-formal multiplicity of perfections (which is contrary to Divine simplicity). It is interesting to note that Duns Scotus defended the univocal application of perfections by asserting that no syllogism is valid unless the middle term be used univocally. He was wrong. Unity of proportionality is sufficient for the valid use of middle term.
(3) The moderate realism of St. Thomas and his doctrine of analogy result in the ascription to God of perfections between which and corresponding created perfections there is a real proportionality. Divine perfections are identical with the Divine essence since there is only a virtual distinction between them, and thus God is shown to be absolutely simple, and analogically knowable.
The following illustrations shew how in each case the creature using his conception of being attempts to gain some knowledge of the Deity. Concept of being which has absolute unity, i.e., taken univocally is represented by the symbol O, taken equivocally by symbol Θ. Concept of being which has unity of proportionality, i.e., taken analogically, is represented by the symbol ∞.
Figure 3 — image to be inserted. Three schematic diagrams, each a vertical column linking God at the top through the concept of being to the Creature at the foot. Nominalist Agnosticism of Maimonides — God (absolutely simple but unknowable, i.e., equivocity); Concept of being Θ equivocal; Creature. Exaggerated Realism of Duns Scotus — God (knowable but in Him an actual-formal multiplicity, i.e., univocity); Concept of being O univocal; Creature. Moderate Realism of S. Thomas — God (absolutely simple and analogically knowable); Concept of being ∞ analogical; Creature.
Clearly the controversy which raged amongst Paris students—Nominalists, Realists and Conceptualists—during the twelfth century has not been without fruit for the validity of knowledge.
Having grasped the value, ontological and transcendental, of primary notions and principles, the student may profitably study the relation of first principles one to another.
(A) The fundamental principle of reason is the principle of Contradiction (sometimes called “principle of Non-contradiction.”)
This principle is immediately founded on the idea of being with its implication of non-being. The logical form may be thus stated: “It is impossible to affirm and to deny the same attribute in regard to the same thing in the same relation.” The ontological form is as follows: “It is impossible that the same thing should be and not be at the same time.” The logical form asserts that an absurdity (e.g., a square circle) cannot be conceived, the ontological form claims that the absurdity cannot exist. A is not not-A. Descartes wrote unwisely in his Discours sur la Méthode that a square circle though inconceivable by us might be conceived as really existing by an omnipotent Being. If that is so, Descartes’ principle “cogito, ergo sum” has no value, inasmuch as thought and non-thought, life and non-life would be compatible.
(B) The principle of Identity.
The fundamental supreme principle of Contradiction can be expressed in positive form: A is A, and in this form is called the principle of Identity. It is not tautologous. It is a positive affirmation of the identity of being, and of its opposition to non-being—the affirmation of the absolute and immutable value of truth. “Let your speech be yea, yea: no, no.” In more explicit form the principle may be thus expressed: “every being has a definite essence,” “every being is a thing.” This latter form is not tautologous, for whilst “being” connotes existence, “thing” connotes essence.
(C) The principle of Substance.
If the unity and identity of a thing be regarded from the standpoint of its variable phenomena, the principle of Identity takes on a new meaning. The essence of the thing in question is now regarded as a substance, and the new principle may be formulated: “every being is a substance,” i.e., every being is one and the same under its variable phenomena if it has phenomena. A phenomenon is only the accident by which a being appears. These three principles of Contradiction, Identity and Substance come from the intrinsic, constitutive, specific cause, i.e., the formal cause of the being. Other principles come from extrinsic causes, viz., efficient and final, and from the intrinsic material cause.
(D) Principle of Reason of Being (Raison d’être).
Every being must have a reason why it should exist rather than why it should not exist. This principle, like the foregoing three, is immediately evident and therefore cannot be directly proved. It can be proved indirectly (extrinsically) by reductio ad absurdum, for if a thing has no reason of being it becomes nothing. Subjectivists like Kant derive this principle from a reflex act of reason upon itself, but the principle is intuitive.
Another form of the principle is: every being has the reason of its being either in itself or in another. If it has the reason of its being in itself (if essence necessitates existence) the being is necessary. But if the reason of its being is in another, such reason is its extrinsic cause. There are two extrinsic causes—efficient and final. Hence the principle of Reason of Being leads to the principles of Causality and of Final Cause.
(E) Principle of Efficient Cause.
A contingent being is one which may or may not exist. Hence follows the principle of Efficient Cause. Every contingent being is caused by another being. This immediately evident principle may be proved indirectly, for if a contingent being is not caused by another, its being must be from itself, i.e., it is not contingent but necessary.
(F) Principle of Final Cause.
“Every agent acts for an end.” The end is not merely the result of the action, but the reason on account of which the agent acts. The eye sees; sight is its end. The ear hears; hearing is its end. The acorn would not produce an oak tree rather than a pear tree, if it were not directed to produce that effect. Passive tendency of an irrational agent presupposes direction of a rational agent. An arrow tends to the mark because directed by the archer.
This principle—immediately evident—can be proved indirectly. When an agent produces an effect—an effect suitable to its activity, if the agent did not tend to produce that effect the suitableness of the effect would be without a reason of being (raison d’être). The effect, determined and suitable, produced by an agent is intentional. Chance is an accidental cause. A gravedigger in digging a grave finds a treasure. The digging of the grave is intentional; the burying of the treasure was intentional. Chance is the accidental conjunction of two intentional causes.
(G) The principle of Change.
This principle comes from the material cause—the matter, and may be thus formulated: “All change presupposes a subject capable of change.” The idea of change suggests the important philosophic conception of the passage from power to act, from potentiality to achievement.
The principle may be proved indirectly: change without a subject changed would be a change of nothing, i.e., a change and not a change at the same time. Creation is not a change as it is the production of the totality of being from no pre-existing material.
All these principles fall under four causes, formal, efficient, final and material. All are fundamentally dependent upon the principle of Contradiction.