The corrective I would like to urge upon Schubert Ogden, then, is not that he abandon his method of process theology based
upon analogical thinking, but that he consider some means by which he might avoid the inevitable drift of such thinking toward a closed rationalism, in which only man and his formulations speak forth.
Not exact matches
This is contrary to our vision, in which anything's (
analogical) existence is directly dependent
upon a creative mind; this dependence is thus intrinsic to its essence, that is to its definitive intelligibility.
If Aquinas at least tacitly acknowledges this by making all
analogical predications depend
upon the clearly literal distinction between Creator and Creature, he can also seem not to acknowledge it by flatly declaring that we can not know of God quid sit, but only an sit or quod sit.
It would appear that Hartshorne is here depending, in effect, if not in so many words,
upon something like the distinction made in the Thomistic theory of analogy between what is meant by an
analogical term (the res significata) and how the term means (its modus significandi)(Thomas Aquinas 1964, 56 - 59, 66 - 71).