Sentences with phrase «analogical rather»

Clearly, it is one question whether certain psychical terms can be coherently established as theological analogies rather than frankly accepted as only symbols, while it is another and far more serious question whether any such terms at all can be coherently classified as truly analogical rather than merely symbolic.

Not exact matches

Rather, actual entities should be regarded as just one instance of the verification of this analogical structure; other instances would be societies of varying degrees of complexity, up to and including the divine community.

Elements that appear problematic in light of the metaphysical reference will not of course be excised from the text but rather interpreted — i.e., recognized as highly analogical or symbolic elements.

And the term «Lord» has been interpreted like the word «king» as an analogical description of God's rule over creation, rather than a stand - in for the unpronounceable name.

I submit that arguments of this kind can have the force that Hartshorne takes them to have only if the whole of our knowledge of God, beyond our unavoidable experience of «the inclusive something,» can be derived from such knowledge as we have of ourselves, and hence is merely symbolic rather than truly analogical.

Consequently, if metaphysics can be established at all, it is only as a transcendental metaphysics, whose concepts and assertions are all purely formal and literal, rather than analogical, in the sense that they apply to all the different things within any single logical type whose meaning they explicate, not in different senses, but rather in the same sense.

For in the sense in which he uses the term «literal» in the other passages in which he affirms the same categorial terms to have a literal rather than either a symbolic or an analogical meaning, it means nothing other than «univocal» (although, as we shall see presently, this is not the only sense in which he uses the term «literal»).

What makes this and parallel statements in other writings problematic is that some of the very concepts that Hartshorne classifies as «literal» are elsewhere implied to be matters of degree rather than of all or none and are even said to be «analogical» when applied to God.

The fact seems to be, then, that Hartshorne means as well as says that the same categorial terms both are and are not literal rather than analogical when applied to God.

It is true that the contrast he makes in the passage in which he affirms that these terms are «analogical» in application to deity is not with «literal,» but, rather, with «univocal.»

This is nontechnical rather than analogical language.