| Welcome to The Sanctified Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and responding to posts. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Analogical vs Univocal?; Epistemology | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Feb 1 2012, 06:16 AM (467 Views) | |
| Damian | Feb 1 2012, 06:16 AM Post #1 |
Wears Skinny Jeans
|
In regards to an analogical relation; does not analogy imply there is a point of equivocation in the relation? |
 |
 
|
| mem | Feb 1 2012, 07:55 AM Post #2 |
Infections: I gots em
|
Can you flesh this out a bit more, Damien? I've made arguments similar to this, e.g., in the way that we look at the raising of Lazarus from the dead. There's a locus in the illustration that serves as a point where the metaphor and reality coincide. I recall some years ago that an RC argued with me that since all things about God are known analogically that my interpretations were off target. Had I been perhaps a bit more swift, I might have asked whether Jesus Christ was an analogy or not. |
|
|
|
| Damian | Feb 1 2012, 08:17 AM Post #3 |
|
Wears Skinny Jeans
|
Mem, Your RC interlocutor is putting his finger on what underlies my question (although I'm surprised to hear of a RC going with that argument!) Van Til's concept of analogy is alluded to throughout his writings. Because God is the Creator, we cannot know univocally, yet neither do we know equivocally. Instead we know analogically, by "thinking God's thoughts after him". To me, this seems quite different from Thomas's use of analogy. If an analogy needs some point of reference (i.e. the equivocal) to be an analogy, and VanTil rejects all equivocation, then VanTil's use of analogy is wrong. Yes? No? |
|
|
|
| Damian | Feb 12 2012, 04:10 PM Post #4 |
|
Wears Skinny Jeans
|
Pardon me... I meant univocal not equivocal. I used the terms incorrectly. Damian |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Feb 12 2012, 04:27 PM Post #5 |
|
Deleted User
|
So, Analogy needs univocation not equivocation and VanTil rejects univocation not equivocation? |
|
|
|
| Ray Nearhood | Feb 12 2012, 05:14 PM Post #6 |
THE Bald Assertion
|
Edited the topic to reflect. |
|
|
|
| Damian | Feb 13 2012, 03:32 AM Post #7 |
|
Wears Skinny Jeans
|
-Xulon, Van Til taught that all human knowledge is analogical to God’s knowledge; there is no univocal point, no point of coincidence, between God’s knowledge and man’s knowledge. Propositions, then, cannot have the same meaning for God that they do for man. Now, I'm not sure if I understand his point or not... I've asked this over at Reformed Forum and I'm told I just don't understand Van Til (well true, but that's not an explanation!) As I see it, the problem here is that if there is no univocal point at which man’s knowledge meets God’s knowledge, then man can never know the truth. God knows all truth. Hence, if man does not know what God knows, his ideas can never be true. Or, to say it another way, if Van Til’s concept of analogical knowledge were true, then it would not be possible for man to do what Van Til calls on him to do, i.e., “to think God’s thoughts after him”. In fact, it would not be possible for his theory of analogy to be true. But I'm not sure, thus I ask for opinions. I know this sounds rather Clarkian of me, and perhaps that's where it's coming from? D -Ray, Thanks! Edited by Damian, Feb 13 2012, 03:52 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Feb 13 2012, 04:00 AM Post #8 |
|
Deleted User
|
I certainly not able to speak at the theological/philosophical level of Van Til (or you for that matter), but I'm not sure that intersecting lines vs parallel lines is a good analogy, much less have it be a make-or-break principle. It seems to me that man cannot know truth about God (also about himself and his rebellion against his creator) unless and until God reveals himself to man, so it appears I am in somewhat agreement with Van Til's starting point. The other point that all truth is unknowable without God, I have issues with (This was on another thread). I agree that observable truth ought to have God as context and interpretive principle. The physical world God created for man is observable to man and speaks to man. It speaks in a Romans 1 sense about God, but it also is a physical world with observable physical realities. |
|
|
|
| Ray Nearhood | Feb 13 2012, 08:00 AM Post #9 |
|
THE Bald Assertion
|
Sorry for the delayed actual reply. I tried to wrap my head around the Clark/Van Til debate a couple years ago. Perhaps I am more equipped to deal with it now (likely less), but, at the time, it sent my head spinning. So, I resigned myself to accept, "at least I can wrap my head around Bahnsen's and Frame's presentations of Van Tillian apologetics," and left Van Til's epistemology in the dust bin of my mind. Then, my pastor made a comment about Van Til which sounded something like this, "I disagree with his epistemology." Then another which went something like this, "Van Til resigned himself never to settle for one word when fifteen words were so readily available." The latter comment I found to be unequivocally (  ) true, while the former I found to be annoying - because I felt the desire to look up the Clark/Van Til debate again. And still, not much helped.But, I did find this: Van Til: His Logic, Epistemology, and Apologetic and this comment and the one that proceeds it. I think Nathan (Pitchford - the author of the article) hit it dead on in the comment - It (Van Til's epistemology) is all very Platonic.... and thinking of it that way helped me understand... (Using terms for explanation sake that I can't recall Van Til ever using - so don't attribute this to me saying he said it) Van Til seems to say that God's knowledge is the perfect knowledge of Forms, but not always in the abstract sense - like Plato would hold - but in a sense of real reality. I thought the apple illustration in the above linked comment was well explained. So, in knowledge of things that are true, God is the knower and arbiter of all that is truly true - and only he can know all that is truly true because Truth (abstract) has an eternal quality that we cannot know in our limited capacity. So, in order that we may know true (or that something is true) that truth is revealed to us in a way that we can understand - that is, by analogy. A "snapshot" of the truth, so to speak, that contains all of the elements of that truth that we need to know and are able to know in order to identify it as truth, without actually knowing all of the truly true Truth. And this, I think, is what he described as "thinking God's thoughts after Him." The emphasis is often on the "thinking God's thoughts" when using that in discussion or apologetic, and I think that I've place the emphasis in a place that better describes Van Til's epistemology. Our knowledge, according to Van Til, is based wholly upon God's knowledge - and yet, we cannot think like God (transcendent, perfect material knowledge, perfect abstract knowledge) so we can only know that which we are able to understand in our limited capacity for knowledge (which is analogous to God's thoughts - as revealed that way by God). But, I am still confused. I have to admit. Anyhow, why not univocal? I'm not sure - but, I would guess that that would mean that where our thoughts intersected with God's, we would know "something" (wherever that intersection occurred) perfectly. Edit: I should add at the end of the part I highlight above, "And, the only way we can know anything is as it is revealed by God, because our whole existence, even our thoughts, is dependant on God and His revealing to us." Edit 2: See here. Edited by Ray Nearhood, Feb 13 2012, 10:43 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Pastoral Musings | Feb 13 2012, 08:39 AM Post #10 |
Fundy
|
Ray, Check out frame-poythress.org for some articles about Van Til. Frame does a good job of addressing Van Tilian thought. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
 Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Branches of Philosophy · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
4:00 AM May 18