All accept the Qur» an and the sunnah (Muhammad's example) as foundational but differ on the importance of consensus in collective scholarly reasoning (ijma) and
individual analogical reasoning (qiyas).
Not exact matches
And just as significant, I think, he nowhere seems to explain, as he clearly has to explain if «conscious» and «knowing» are
analogical, how not only the greatest but even the least possible
individual must in some sense be said to be conscious and to know, as well as to be aware and to feel.
Thus Hartshorne holds that the term «feeling,» for instance, can be said to be
analogical in this sense because, or insofar as, it applies to all entities of the logical type of
individuals, including the unique
individual God, but does so in suitably different senses to all the different kinds or levels of
individuals, with its sense being infinitely different in its application to God (1962, 140).
But this implies that any psychical concept that is truly
analogical must be just as universal in its scope of application as a purely formal term like «relativity,» provided only that this term is taken, as it should be, in the sense in which it alone explicates the meaning of «concrete singular,» whether event or
individual.
Only by directly intuiting that psychical concepts apply primarily to the extraordinary
individual God can one possibly know them to be variables with a strictly infinite range of values and, therefore, truly
analogical.