Various theories concerning how to speak positively about God have been proposed. One such theory, the theory of complete univocity, states that although the mode of existence between God and human beings is different, there are, in principle, ontological commonalities between God and humans in existence and His attributes. These ontological commonalities make it possible to attribute a single meaning to both God and human beings univocally. In this article, it is attempted to both explain and defend the theory of complete univocity, while also critiquing the theory of partial univocity, a theory which believes solely in semantic univocity and ontologically assumes that God is absolutely different and separate from humans. Further, as the commonality of meaning between God and humans requires the existence of an ontological commonality between them, the theory of analogy is also not acceptable. Because, firstly, the denial of shared attributes between God and humans has many unsatisfactory theological implications. Secondly, there is no middle term between univocity and equivocality. Therefore, the only theologically defensible theory is that of complete univocity.
Key words: religious language, univocal language, partial univocity, complete univocity, equivocality, analogy
DOI: 10.22250/20728662_2024_2_132
About the author
 |
Seyyed Jaaber Mousavirad – Assistant Professor at Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. |