Analogy

Only a little effort has been spent on understanding this foundational epistemological resource. Even those who attempt to construct it as a concept from famous philosophers struggle to do so. However, the questions likely remain for you, how is analogy foundational or resourceful? That is the question I hope to answer for you. The issue is there is much of what we claim to know that is "like" something else and that is the best we can come to understand something without dedicating many resources from effort to money and time to studying a subject. We know that I am a human, and you are a human, but if one is telling someone an answer to "What is a monkey?" and one says, "not a human", what is gained in knowing "monkeyness"? All that is gained is the fact that monkeyness and humanity are not the same, but it still has the connotation that there is no commonness, and this is false. One may take the idea to mean, a rock is a monkey, being not human and all. This is how the univocal method falls short. Equivocation is perhaps worse because it makes alphabet soup of our current understandings. Let us say that a monkey is intelligent, and a human is intelligent, but are they in the same sense? No, so then if we expect a monkey to design a computer or to be able to learn how, we would be disappointed because our concept of "monkeyness" is still wrong. Analogy allows us to understand things by connecting similarities between concepts of things, in a way avoiding both univocities (limitation to the immediate and obvious truths with limited range) and equivocates (conflating differences in meanings).

Let us consider the analogy of proportionality. We may say that defecation is healthy but certainly not in the same sense that good food is healthy. The first is a sign/effect of health and the second is a cause of health. If we discuss a person who participates in both the latter and the former, we find the term healthy corresponds not to cause or effect but to state. Although there is not exactly the same definition used, they are not fully equivocal. The relationship remains between the three and in the latter application forms an extrinsic attribution analogy. Next is the analogy of intrinsic gradience. When we say that God exists and I exist, we know that in both quality and quantity God is perfect in this and I am contingent but upon a perfectly existent being. Existence is the same in both, the beings are different, so there is a gradience of possession of the quality/quantity of the attribute. Sometimes this gradience can be seen in a proper proportionality as in the analogy that connect the scales of a fish and the feather of a bird where their function is properly proportional to each since in either case the scales/feathers help the fish/bird navigate its environment efficiently. An improper proportionality would be a metaphor like "God is a lion". This use is a very poor way of communicating what the similarity is, there are a few ways in which a lion may remind us of qualities of God, but it is unclear which ones are meant more than others (context may help). An example would be that a lion can be a sign of leadership and authority but may also is it mean that God is a rage-filled being? If one has a poor understanding of either God or the lion it would not be effective or even a proper feel of the context. Improper proportionality does not concern causality.

In conclusion, we can save ourselves much frustration by using analogy that we are not bound to univocal predication and precise logic. We are not forsaking logic in using analogy either, only being more practical or efficient about it, since we often cannot know what things are like if we first have an expectation formed through analogical hypothesizing. One cannot be proper about using analogy, especially in the field of theology, if it is not clear to the audience what the similarities of the analogies are supposed to be. That analogy is not (however close it may be) univocal. Neither is it perfectly equivocal insofar as the terms used are not mutually exclusive in their meaning. Analogy can be very helpful in learning things quickly and should be used responsibly. If there is a need for an accurate and precise understanding of a thing/idea one should let go of the analogy by developing one's understanding of the nature of the analogate of interest. Just as we have no need to continue calling God good if we know that He is Goodness Itself and "sense" as it were the infinity of His goodness. We can be restrained by poor analogies, thinking they help us more than they do, such as the Old Testament concept of "God's wrath" which is better understood as God being a Father and not a gene concerning our brokenness. If used wisely, analogy can be a great resource and it shows. Analogy is used by the subconscious to process emotion, and abstract thought, by writers to draw connections to real events, and by symbolic mathematics (algebra, calculus, etc.) to describe things in a scientific sense. It is used this way because it is not the reality itself but bears a helpful likeness to it that is computational and communicative. It allows one to see the part of a statement, concept, or belief system that is true and where it comes from while not falling prey to the false parts. This has much significance in the spiritual life.

Written by Carter Carruthers & also available soon at Missio Dei