Interesting, Christopher - I didn't know Dom & Chris were evangelising
for the Lord...It still all sounds like a con to me.
emjay
Christopher Walker wrote:
><snip>
>What is "univocity of being"? This term
>strikes me as weirdly categorical - I don't understand what "univocity"
>can mean (one voice? seriously?) & "being" is a term that makes me reach
>for my Browning (not the poet), since it is a metaphorical (ab)use of a
>copulative, a great rhetorical con that has been befuddling thinkers for
>millennia. [MJW]
>
>To say that Being is univocal is to say that Being *speaks*: that it
>is a single "clamour", and that it "is said in the same way of
>everything" - every being - "of which it is said". [DF]
><snip>
>
>Just to take the concept back a few centuries and make it a little less
>continental, the term goes back at least to Scotus drawing on Avicenna:
>beingness (as distinct from, say, haecceity or thingness and as opposed,
>along with haecceity, to nothingness), be-ing as the scientific object of
>metaphysics. So for the God-interested Scotus, the point of metaphysics is
>to demonstrate that God is the absolute being, who fashions creatures in
>their haecceity but also in their be-ing. And that be-ing is a conceptual
>primitive which allows one to link ourselves to God, to talk about God and
>humanity in the same breath: God's be-ing is infinite, mine isn't; but
>be-ing is univocal, common to both of us, nonetheless.
>
>CW
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>'Listen people, I don't know how you expect to ever stop the
>war if you can't sing any better than that'
>- Country Joe McDonald, Woodstock 1969
>
>
>
--
Got to look at it at sunset when it's PINK
My guidebook said. Good advice about anything I suppose.
Kenneth Koch
|